|reply to ArrayList |
Re: Missing the point
said by ArrayList: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.
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.
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).
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.
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?