Opinion piece: why, if under our Constitution, should a President be required to spend money authorized by Congress?

[BackAgain]

President vetos a law and is overridden by Congress
It becomes a law whether you like it or not.

Although written by a dipshit ^ unfamiliar with how those word things get put together, you at least seem to have once again added nothing not already known to all.

If it is unconstitutional, then it is up to the court to decide

Wrong. They may get a say in it. But that doesn’t mean that The President is powerless to deny an unconstitutional law any legal effect. Minimally, he is under oath to preserve protect and defend the Constitution.

Your typically unenlightened POV says that a law which the President finds unconstitutional has to be implemented anyway, until SCOTUS reviews it.

You have no notion of how ignorant and foolish that is.

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong. They may get a say in it. But that doesn’t mean that The President is powerless to deny an unconstitutional law any legal effect. Minimally, he is under oath to preserve protect and defend the Constitution.

So you double down on dumb

No, the President does not get to decide what is Constitutional

 

[BackAgain]

To be Constitutional it must violate the Constitution.

I could just leave your words there.

But no resume you intended to write:

“To be unconstitutional ….”

As to that, I reply: no kidding. In fact, that’s the point.

If Congress passes (over a veto) a law requiring all American Indians and illegal aliens on U.S. soil must be incarcerated at GITMO, which is facially unconstitutional, why on Earth would a President have to await a SCOTUS opinion? He could quite simply state that he is not allowed to enforce an unconstitutional law. Not for one person. Not for one day.

 

[BackAgain]

So you double down on dumb

No, the President does not get to decide what is Constitutional

So, you quadruple down on just mindlessly spewing your ignorance.

Yes, of course, any president has and must have the legal ability to decide what may or may not be constitutional.

 

[BULLDOG]

It would be difficult for you to be more obtuse or shallow.

We know the President is the executive branch. So, thanks for sharing nothing new.

The question, however, is what is the President supposed to do when his job is to execute a law but that law transgresses the Constitution.

That would be the SCs decision to make. They interpret the laws.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I could just leave your words there.

But no resume you intended to write:

“To be unconstitutional ….”

As to that, I reply: no kidding. In fact, that’s the point.

If Congress passes (over a veto) a law requiring all American Indians and illegal aliens on U.S. soil must be incarcerated at GITMO, which is facially unconstitutional, why on Earth would a President have to await a SCOTUS opinion? He could quite simply state that he is not allowed to enforce an unconstitutional law. Not for one person. Not for one day.

So you have no case law in support, we have a law empowered via the Constitution that has not been overturned in 40 years...you could be right, but don't hold your breath.

 

[rightwinger]

So, you quadruple down on just mindlessly spewing your ignorance.

Yes, of course, any president has and must have the legal ability to decide what may or may not be constitutional.

Read your Constitution

 

[BackAgain]

That would be the SCs decision to make. They interpret the laws.

So THEY have claimed.

But this isn’t the time or place to assess Marbury v. Madison.

Instead, a question is now raised, whether the SCOTUS is the only branch permitted to make such an assessment?

Is it your position that — before a case makes it to SCOTUS — the President has some interim obligation to enforce a patently unconstitutional law?

 

[BULLDOG]

So THEY have claimed.

But this isn’t the time or place to assess Marbury v. Madison.

Instead, a question is now raised, whether the SCOTUS is the only branch permitted to make such an assessment?

Is it your position that — before a case makes it to SCOTUS — the President has some interim obligation to enforce a patently unconstitutional law?

A law that was that illegal probably wouldn't have to wait long to go before the supreme court.

 

[BackAgain]

So you have no case law in support, we have a law empowered via the Constitution that has not been overturned in 40 years...you could be right, but don't hold your breath.

“So….” You write that as though that’s any answer to anything under discussion.

Try to keep up.

The “law” you speak of comes with various restrictions and provisions. Without addressing those “conditions,” the mere citation to a law which broadly forbids impoundment isn’t informative. In the 50 years it’s been around, it hasn’t been itself ruled as being “unconstitutional.” Of course, I never said it was.

It comes down to a simpler question. Before SCOTUS even takes a case, is a President required to enforce any law which he believes the Constitution. (In enforcing such a law, a President would be violating his oath of office.)

 

[BackAgain]

Read your Constitution

Learn to comprehend what you read, if you ever have occasion to speak intelligently on the matter.

 

[BackAgain]

That would be the SCs decision to make. They interpret the laws.

Nope.

They took it upon themselves that they have such authority. And even if we agree that they do, who said it was they alone who held it?

 

[Zincwarrior]

“So….” You write that as though that’s any answer to anything under discussion.

Try to keep up.

The “law” you speak of comes with various restrictions and provisions. Without addressing those “conditions,” the mere citation to a law which broadly forbids impoundment isn’t informative. In the 50 years it’s been around, it hasn’t been itself ruled as being “unconstitutional.” Of course, I never said it was.

It comes down to a simpler question. Before SCOTUS even takes a case, is a President required to enforce any law which he believes the Constitution. (In enforcing such a law, a President would be violating his oath of office.)

The essential flaw of your argument is that the programs COngress has allocated funds for, are Constitutional. Trump has made no such claim.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nope.

They took it upon themselves that they have such authority. And even if we agree that they do, who said it was they alone who held it?

So now all you have to do is overturn a couple hundred years of precedent.

 

[BackAgain]

The essential flaw of your argument is that the programs COngress has allocated funds for, are Constitutional. Trump has made no such claim.

To comment on a flaw, one should point TO a flaw. You didn’t.

My “argument” didn’t address any laws that were or are Constitutional. I am asking a hypothetical question.

If Congress overrides a presidential veto on a facially UNCONSTITUTIONAL law, is a President required to enforce it? ​

 

[BackAgain]

So now all you have to do is overturn a couple hundred years of precedent.

No. And, also, your comment is completely beside the point.

 

[rightwinger]

Learn to comprehend what you read, if you ever have occasion to speak intelligently on the matter.

You keep demonstrating how clueless you are

Your examples are just dumb

 

[BackAgain]

You keep demonstrating how clueless you are

Your examples are just dumb

Your opinion is of no significance.

You’re too stupid to even address the point raised.

 

[rightwinger]

Your opinion is of no significance.

You’re too stupid to even address the point raised.

Looks like I am pushing the right buttons again Skippy

Humiliating you on your own thread

 

[BackAgain]

Looks like I am pushing the right buttons again Skippy

Humiliating you on your own thread

It looks so to you.

I have always owned you, Leftwhiner.

You’re not even a challenge.