Question for our Lawyers

[RetiredGySgt]

So our lawyers agree that Obama should be arrested for breaking the law ( the War Powers act) and that if found guilty ( which he is) should appeal that the law is Unconstitutional.

Why then when asked directly about said law and Obama none of you say that?

I'm not a lawyer, but I agree he should be arrested. After he is indicted, and a warrant for his arrest is issued.

Good luck with that.

Sounds like a great platform for Republicans to run on.

Is he free, according to you, to violate any law he chooses? You seem to think so.

 

[jillian]

So our lawyers agree that Obama should be arrested for breaking the law ( the War Powers act) and that if found guilty ( which he is) should appeal that the law is Unconstitutional.

Why then when asked directly about said law and Obama none of you say that?

no, wacko. the president did not violate the war powers act. he applied it in the way it's always been applied.

nice set up. piss off, idiot.

 

[WillowTree]

He does violate immigration law though..

 

[thereisnospoon]

If Congress passes a law and it becomes the Law of the land but some people claim it is unconstitutional, if those people break that law, what should happen?

Two options...well three. One. the petitioners may address the courts for redress. Two, the people can call on their legislators to change the law. Three, civil disobedience.
Your question implies the only recourse is civil disobedience.
I agree that an unjust law should not be obeyed.
Just because something is legal or illegal does not make the legality right.
After all, it is not about being right. It is about doing right.

 

[whitehall]

It doesn't take a litigator to figure out that it remains the law of the land even though "some people" think it's unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrator of the Constitutionality of laws but appeals courts can also make a determination. Of course the administration can ignore decisions they don't like as long as they have the mainstream liberal media on their side.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I'm not a lawyer, but I agree he should be arrested. After he is indicted, and a warrant for his arrest is issued.

Good luck with that.

Sounds like a great platform for Republicans to run on.

Is he free, according to you, to violate any law he chooses? You seem to think so.

If you didn't say the same thing about W. Bush, or the other presidents who've broken the War Powers Act-you're a hypocrite.

edit: and obviously something isn't unconstitutional, until the courts (ultimately the Supreme Court) decide it is. That's in the actual constitution itself. So technically Obama isn't doing anything unconstitutional until there's a ruling on it (right or wrong).

 

[Ernie S.]

If Congress passes a law and it becomes the Law of the land but some people claim it is unconstitutional, if those people break that law, what should happen?

a law is constitutional until the high court says it isn't (assuming it gets there).

beyond that, once enacted, even a bad law is supposed to (theoretically) be enforced. but that's a broad response and subject to sublteties, particularly when there are competing decisions on a subject.

What should happen to those that break said law because they disagree with it? A law that has been in force for 40 years with no challenge before the courts?

People that violate a law regardless of their opinion of it's constitutionality are guilty and should be arrested. They are free to appeal on constitutional grounds.

 

[TheBrain]

What a dumb thread. Like the POTUS doesn't have a whole fucking team of lawyers advising him on this issue to assure that he is within legal bounds.

 

[Vanquish]

You should go listen to your boy Cheney who said whatever the Prez does is per se legal and Constitutional. Don't believe me? Go watch the ABC Frontline documentary Cheney's Law.

Cheney's Law | FRONTLINE | PBS

As for the War Powers Act, do I hear you saying that we should go back and arrest Bush I, Bush II, and condemn Reagan posthumously?

 

[Wry Catcher]

What a dumb thread. Like the POTUS doesn't have a whole fucking team of lawyers advising him on this issue to assure that he is within legal bounds.

LOL, and if they don't advise the POTUS that the law provides him the authority to do what he wants, he can always ask another lawyer. Eventually he will find one willing to please. See Bork and the Saturday Night Massacre.

 

[Vanquish]

That was the whole point of the video that I linked. Bush asked his lawyers and got answer that Cheney didn't like...so they kept going anyway.

 

[LAfrique]

A law is only unconstitutional if it is challenged in court and proven so. Thus, my advice to those claiming unconstitutionality of a law:

First take it to court and make your point! Until a law is challenged in appropriate court of law, it will continue to be law. Meaning even you have okayed said unconstitutional law by your passiveness.

 

[Vanquish]

Hmmm. Well I agree and disagree with that statement.

An unconstitutional law can be on the books for years...until it's later declared so. The fact that it hasnt been declared so yet only means that it's functionally still in effect.