dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
15
share rss forum feed


Bill Neilson
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA
reply to JPL

Re: Missing the point

said by JPL:

You have an administration that was just reelected that has shown an utter disregard for the constitution when it comes to legislation

This coming from someone who probably can't even tell us what the Constitution says.

How many times will we hear people incorrectly crying about the Constitution and the meaning behind the words?

Republicans want the country to believe they love the Constitution yet we have their former President introducing multiple levels of questionable privacy laws, a VP who believed their was a 4th Level of Government, and a group of sheep that follow Republicans around the Constitution claiming it says a slew of things that are nowhere to be found in the ACTUAL Constitution.

I am just surprised you didn't throw in a few Founding Father references about a topic that didn't exist until the 20th Century.

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
You mean the patriot act? The bill that, you know, Congress actually authorized? Is that the privacy bill you're talking about? Let me give you a hint about this - when Congress passes a law, and the president signs it, it's following a constitutional process. The supreme court can decide if the law oversteps the bounds of the constitution. That's the normal constitutional order - that's called checks and balances.

But what this administration has done is to utterly ignore the constitution. Remember when Bush had his signing statements? The media had a cow over those. Yeah, too bad Obama doesn't do those, right? Um, yeah, he does. You know what else he does? He takes a law, like DOMA, and decides he doesn't want to defend it. He issues recess appointments when Congress isn't in recess (that is in direct violation of the constitution, btw). He goes for 3 years without a budget. Again... a violation of the constitution. He then automatically assumes the DREAM act is law, even though it's never been put forward as a bill in Congress. Those are flagrant violations of the constitution.

You may not have liked the patriot act, but it was a constitutionally passed piece of legislation. The fact that the courts later struck parts of it down, don't take away from that (which puts it in line, in that respect, with McCain Feingold and Obamacare - both of which were partially struck down by the courts). This president has no respect for the constitution, and the processes that have been put in place for it. As such, he ignores it when he feels like it.

The point of my post, though, was to illustrate a simple point. Obama has declared that he will use these federal agencies to promote regulations without bothering to go through congress. Can't get cap and trade passed? No problem! We'll just have the EPA pretend that it's been passed! Obamacare is about to unleash a slew of new regulations. My point remains the same - Issa is (I believe) trying to stop the executive branch from this overreach. The article made it sound like Issa had no clue of the effects of his bill. I think that's crap. I think he knows full well what the effects of the bill are, and I would argue that they are his intent - to stop the march of regulations from the executive branch.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Congress passes Obamacare, I don't know how you can pin that completely on Obama.

and the executive branch can try to overstep their authority, but, if it isn't legal to do so, you can challenge it.

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
said by ArrayList:

Congress passes Obamacare, I don't know how you can pin that completely on Obama.

and the executive branch can try to overstep their authority, but, if it isn't legal to do so, you can challenge it.

Wow, did you miss the point of my posting! Where did I say that Obama is all to blame for Obamacare? I said that it's ok if Congress passes a bill, and the president signs it, and it's struck down by the Supreme Court. I pointed out that the Patiot Act (what the poster was railing about) was partially overturned by the court... but that's still not constitutional overreach. In fact it puts it in the same league as Obamacare and McCain/Feingold. I never said that Obamacare was invalidly created. It was created per the constitutionally allowed legislative process.

However, much of what this president has done isn't. Like what? I mentioned a few items - the recess appointments that he made while Congress was in session... imposition of the DREAM Act without an act of congress... failure to enforce DOMA - a duly passed law (which he has the mandated duty to enforce).

As for challenging an overstep...um, how, exactly would that happen? Congress is going to take the president to court? Hell, you can't even sue the federal government unless the government says it's ok to do so. About the only process that Congress has - they have two courses of action:

1) Impeachment - if Congress believes that the president is in violation of the constitution, they have an ability to impeach. But with democrats controlling the Senate... that won't happen.

2) Withholding funding. Congress has the purse strings, which the founders saw as the ultimte power. The problem is that the president decided that he really doesn't need a budget to do what he's doing. Which means that the only real recourse they have is #1.

Liberals can scream all the live long day about how Bush stepped on the constitution. I'd like to see concrete examples of that. Which would be a trick since there aren't cases of that happening. Instead they take disagreements about policy and call that 'unconstitutional' (the patriot act... the war in Iraq... you name it - all of which was done with Congressional approval - which means that none of it was unconstitutional).


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast
to challenge a law, you break it. then you have a means of challenging the constitutionality of it in court. it's called civil disobedience. do they not teach this in school anymore?

keep using words like liberals/conservatives and see what kinds of responses you get.

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
No... you don't automatically get to challenge the constitutionality in court. Don't they teach THAT in school anymore? For starters - I'm not some kid. I'm 44 years old... I understand how the law works. For you to challenge it in court, you have to have standing. If you don't have standing, then the courts won't hear it. And even if you do have standing, there's still no guarantee that they'll hear it. Look up: writ of certiorari. If every miscreant who broke the law was allowed to go after the constitutionality of that law, the courts would be so overstuffed that they would have time for nothing else.

As for the labels - are they not accurate? Why shouldn't I use labels that are short hand references to ideological world-views?