The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)

[shanek]

So, yet again, in more than one thread, we have people going on and on about how the President has no power to "decide what is constitutional or not," that he "clearly oversteps his authority" by doing so, that it amounts to "dictatorial power," and, therefore, that Badnarik is a loonie.

I'm making this a new thread because a) these points have been brought up several times before in different threads, and b) the thread I pulled the quotes from is a clear flame-thread and I refuse to participate.

What I do want to do is examine the role of the President in executing (or, more specifically, refusing to execute) laws that are in violation of the Constitution. THAT is the topic of this thread. I reserve the right to ignore anything outside of this topic. You have been warned.

First of all, a quick debunking that such an ability of the President would amount to "dictatorial power." This is clearly ridiculous for two reasons: 1) a dictator wouldn't be restricted by a Constitution to begin with, and 2) a dictator would also wield legislative and judicial power, neither of which is obtained by the President merely deciding how to execute the law, which is his job under the Constitution.

I also reject the notion that the President must bow to Supreme Court rulings. The Supreme Court rules on a judicial basis, and only delivers an opinion about a particular situation. The President must execute the whole of the law, regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court has ruled on it or not. This would also be very iffy on the grounds of separation of powers. Therefore, this contention is equally ridiculous.

That leaves the big question: the basic power of the President to refuse to execute any law he finds is a violation of the Constitution. This can be answered in a scenario-based question which has been put to Claus and the others before, and which they have REFUSED to answer (but, if they have even a modicum of honor remaining, they will do so here):

You're President. You are charged by the Constitution in Article II Section 3 with "tak[ing] Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." You have two laws before you. They are mutually exclusive, so contradictory that there's no way you can execute them both. It's one or the other. One of these is an act passed by Congress, and the other is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Which one are you going to execute?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


You're President. You are charged by the Constitution in Article II Section 3 with "tak[ing] Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." You have two laws before you. They are mutually exclusive, so contradictory that there's no way you can execute them both. It's one or the other. One of these is an act passed by Congress, and the other is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Which one are you going to execute?

If the Supreme Court has issued a ruling, I would act consistent with such a ruling unless it was utterly unreasonable to the point of total absurdity.

If the Supreme Court had not acted, I would apply the assumption that Congress, in passing the law, implied a finding that the act was within the constitution. I would enforce it unless, again, I found such a finding utterly unreasonable to the point of total absurdity.

In either case I would give the benefit of the doubt to the other branches to all possible degree and act on what I thought only, again, if I found the findings to be totally absurd and beyond reason.

This is because my powers to enforce law do not imply in that power the discretion to determine the law to the same extent as do the grants to interpret and create the law given to the legislature and the courts, respectively. I should properly defer to those branches whenever remotely reasonable.

(This does not apply, as president, to an exercise of the veto power. When exercising that power I am acting in a legislative capacity so I will vote strictly based on my opinion.)

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by shanek
You're President. You are charged by the Constitution in Article II Section 3 with "tak[ing] Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." You have two laws before you. They are mutually exclusive, so contradictory that there's no way you can execute them both. It's one or the other. One of these is an act passed by Congress, and the other is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Which one are you going to execute?

Why, whichever one will make me most popular. To hell with the Constitution. It's the polls that matter. Do let's replace these activist judges so that we can do important things like protect the "under God" in the Pledge from being taken out. That's far, far more important than some moldly parchment from two centuries ago.


Ouch. My own cynicism is beginning to poison my bloodstream!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
If the Supreme Court has issued a ruling, I would act consistent with such a ruling unless it was utterly unreasonable to the point of total absurdity.

If the Supreme Court had not acted, I would apply the assumption that Congress, in passing the law, implied a finding that the act was within the constitution. I would enforce it unless, again, I found such a finding utterly unreasonable to the point of total absurdity.

In either case I would give the benefit of the doubt to the other branches to all possible degree and act on what I thought only, again, if I found the findings to be totally absurd and beyond reason.

Don't you think that would be tantamount to a violation of the separation of powers? You would be letting the judicial and the legislative make the determination as to how the executive should operate.

This is because my powers to enforce law do not imply in that power the discretion to determine the law to the same extent as do the grants to interpret and create the law given to the legislature and the courts, respectively.

The legislature is given the power to create the law, but the judicial is given the power to rule on the law in cases brought before it. If they get to "interpret" the Constitution at all, then they get to "interpret" it as it applies only to those cases, and, by the same token, the Congress gets to "interpret" it the same way when passing or repealing the law, and the President when executing it.

I would be interested in seeing where in the Constitution such a distinction is made. If not, then this is only your personal perogative as President, and does not invalidate the main point. In fact, you yourself gave an exception, in cases where it is "totally absurd and beyond reason." Where did that exception come from, if not from your own initiative?

[varwoche]

Small favor to ask: When you put my screen name in a thread title, please don't include unattributed quotes. Those quotes don't come from me (to my recollection).

[shanek]

Originally posted by varwoche
Small favor to ask: When you put my screen name in a thread title, please don't include unattributed quotes. Those quotes don't come from me (to my recollection).

I never stated or implied that they did. However, you have openly agreed with them. Do you have an answer for the question?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by shanek
I never stated or implied that they did. However, you have openly agreed with them. Do you have an answer for the question? Not quite, your post mischaracterizes my stance (somewhat).

This post of mine from a different thread, posed as a question, summarizes my lay understanding:
A criminal act is not a criminal act until a judicial process occurs. And the same is true if the president wrongly violates the law/constitution -- it's not wrong/criminal until a judicial process occurs. Hence, saying that the president is "allowed" to ignore the supreme court has a semantical element to it. Since I am not an expert on the constitution, this is much as I'm prepared to say on this particular sub-topic, and even this was posed as a question.

And guess what shanek, in these threads, on the occasions when the signal to noise ratio is within my personal tolerance threshhold, I am a willing student. So carry on please.

(For the record, my assesment of Badnarik as a nutcase is based on a numerous statements he has made covering a variety of topics.)

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by varwoche
Not quite, your post mischaracterizes my stance (somewhat).

This post of mine from a different thread, posed as a question, summarizes my lay understanding:
Since I am not an expert on the constitution, this is much as I'm prepared to say on this particular sub-topic, and even this was posed as a question.

And guess what shanek, in these threads, on the occasions when the signal to noise ratio is within my personal tolerance threshhold, I am a willing student. So carry on please.

(For the record, my assesment of Badnarik as a nutcase is based on a numerous statements he has made covering a variety of topics.)

Well said.

[shanek]

Originally posted by varwoche
Not quite, your post mischaracterizes my stance (somewhat).

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
So, yet again, in more than one thread, we have people going on and on about how the President has no power to "decide what is constitutional or not," that he "clearly oversteps his authority" by doing so, that it amounts to "dictatorial power," and, therefore, that Badnarik is a loonie.

All those quotes are mine, and nobody elses. Please stop attributing other people what they have not said.

Originally posted by shanek
I'm making this a new thread because a) these points have been brought up several times before in different threads, and b) the thread I pulled the quotes from is a clear flame-thread and I refuse to participate.

I opened the thread because I wanted to investigate some of Badnarik's intentions, should he be (haha) elected President.

Just as you would examine Bush and Kerry. Yet, you don't seem all that keen on looking at just how dangerous your own candidate will behave.

That speaks volumes.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Don't you think that would be tantamount to a violation of the separation of powers? You would be letting the judicial and the legislative make the determination as to how the executive should operate.
Not really. I would say this is the only way to not violate seperation of powers as the enforcement power should be seperate from the legislative and judical powers. This is of utmost importance given that enforcement is the last practical step.


The legislature is given the power to create the law, but the judicial is given the power to rule on the law in cases brought before it. If they get to "interpret" the Constitution at all, then they get to "interpret" it as it applies only to those cases, and, by the same token, the Congress gets to "interpret" it the same way when passing or repealing the law, and the President when executing it.

The power to rule on cases is nothing more than the power to translate the general law to the specific case. The legislature makes the general law, the judical branch determines how it applies and the executive enforces this law.

To allow the executive to simply disregard the decision of the court as to how the law applies based on nothing more than his bare opinion is equal to nullifying the existence of the court.



In fact, you yourself gave an exception, in cases where it is "totally absurd and beyond reason." Where did that exception come from, if not from your own initiative?

The concept of seperation of powers. That is where it came from. Then there is the idea of a standard of review. There is also the writings of John Locke on the subject of legislative vs. executive power.

To give a President a free hand to ignore the courts and legislature's opinion based on nothing more than his opinion makes a mockery of the seperation of powers. In the real world, reasonable people will disagree. It is important to recognize the difference between when people have a reasonable disagreement versus someone who is spouting absurdity.

The President (except in the exercise of the veto) is bound to follow the reasonable decisions of the other branches in this regard, given that the grant of power to the other branches implies that they have more of a say in this matter. The courts simply have the power to speak to the law. The legislature has an implied authority given their general grant of discretion to make the law, and also in a practical sense given that they are the superior branch in that Congress can remove the executive or a judge. The President should thus properly defer when reasonable.

However, the President is not bound to respect clearly illegal decisions, and neither is any other person. Therein lies the larger problem. If we settle on the bare opinion of the President as to what is the law w/r/t this decision, that same analysis bounds us to also allow any person to refuse to observe law based on their opinion. This is basically total anarchy.

[DanishDynamite]

Fascinating stuff. Has any President in the history of the US ever used this power? I.e. has any President ever decreed an enacted law unconstitutional and thus decreeed that it must not be enforced?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
All those quotes are mine, and nobody elses.

Incorrect. The "dictatorial power" quote was from hgc. I didn't attribute them directly because I didn't want to get into this p!ss-fight. And yet, you've done so.

[blah blah blah blah]

Answer the question, Claus.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Incorrect. The "dictatorial power" quote was from hgc. I didn't attribute them directly because I didn't want to get into this p!ss-fight. And yet, you've done so.

It is not a piss-fight to correctly attribute direct quotes to those who have said them.

Originally posted by shanek
Answer the question, Claus.

What question? Why should I participate in your thread, when you refuse to participate in mine? Why should I answer your questions, when you refuse to answer mine?

Why do I always get the feeling that you consider yourself superior to everybody else?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
Incorrect. The "dictatorial power" quote was from hgc. I didn't attribute them directly because I didn't want to get into this p!ss-fight. And yet, you've done so.



Answer the question, Claus.

The question has been answered quite reasonably by Suddenly. Why don't you ask another that speaks more to issues.

[HarryKeogh]

Shanek, just so I understand this...

for example, say a President is voted in and he feels the death penalty in federal crimes is unconstitutional (on the basis of cruel and unusual punishment). The Pres. has the authority to ban the use of the death penalty in the federal judicial system without having to get any sort of approval or ruling from another body?

thnx.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Not really. I would say this is the only way to not violate seperation of powers as the enforcement power should be seperate from the legislative and judical powers.

How is deferring to the opinion of the legislators and the judges keeping the enforcement power separate from the legislative and the judicial?

The power to rule on cases is nothing more than the power to translate the general law to the specific case. The legislature makes the general law, the judical branch determines how it applies and the executive enforces this law.

This seems backwards to me. This would mean that the President would have to wait for the courts to rule to enforce a law. But, of course, the courts cannot rule until a case is brought before them. Catch-22.

To allow the executive to simply disregard the decision of the court

Nothing is being "disregarded."

The concept of seperation of powers.

Which is not explicitly defined in the Constitution. It is only implcit in that it specifies that the Congress shall have legislative power, the President executive, and the Supreme Court and inferior courts the judicial. It says nothing about the standards for which one must defer to the opinion of another.

To give a President a free hand to ignore the courts

Again, I'm not doing that.

The President (except in the exercise of the veto) is bound to follow the reasonable decisions of the other branches in this regard, given that the grant of power to the other branches implies that they have more of a say in this matter.

Neither contention is stated or implied in the Constitution.

The legislature has an implied authority given their general grant of discretion to make the law, and also in a practical sense given that they are the superior branch in that Congress can remove the executive or a judge. The President should thus properly defer when reasonable.

Your conclusion in no way follows from your premises.

However, the President is not bound to respect clearly illegal decisions,

Ah, but here we come to the crux of the matter—the President must, in his own mind, decide which ones are "clearly illegal." Which, given the mutually exclusive nature of the law and the Constitution presented in the hypothetical, is presented as a given in the scenario.

If we settle on the bare opinion of the President as to what is the law w/r/t this decision, that same analysis bounds us to also allow any person to refuse to observe law based on their opinion. This is basically total anarchy.

You're really talking around the subject. There is a difference between refusing to observe law and refusing to enforce an unconstitutional law. Do I have to point out, YET AGAIN, that the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and therefore, falls into the category of what must be observed—in fact, it stands at the very top of it?

You imply that one must ignore the LAW of the Constitution in order to observe inferior laws. This does not follow. Why should one not also observe the LAW of the Constitution?

[Otther]

Doesn't the viewpoint that everyone must interpret the constition a balancing of powers more than a seperation of one? A mutually assuredly ********** situation if someone steps too far out of their lines? On what basis then do we object to the president using his utter control of several hundred-thousand newly brainwashed troops to back up his interpretation of the constitution allowing his legislative abilities?

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Fascinating stuff. Has any President in the history of the US ever used this power? I.e. has any President ever decreed an enacted law unconstitutional and thus decreeed that it must not be enforced?

Thomas Jefferson refused to enforce the alien and sedition act and got rid of the whiskey tax, declaring them to be unconstitutional. Andrew Jackson dissolved the central bank, declaring it to be unconstitutional. No one at the time, not Congress, not the courts, not anyone, stood up and said, "Hey, you can't do that!"

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What question?

The question in the very first post. The one you have avoided in other threads.

Why should I participate in your thread, when you refuse to participate in mine? Why should I answer your questions, when you refuse to answer mine?

You lying weasel...EVERY TIME I answer your questions, you ignore the answers and pretend I haven't. Whereas question after question after question of mine goes unanswered by you. And you call ME a hypocrite?

[shanek]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
Shanek, just so I understand this...

for example, say a President is voted in and he feels the death penalty in federal crimes is unconstitutional (on the basis of cruel and unusual punishment). The Pres. has the authority to ban the use of the death penalty in the federal judicial system without having to get any sort of approval or ruling from another body?

My understanding is that the death penalty is a function of the executive, not the judicial. As such, the President would have the power to ban it. If, however, you are correct and it's a function of the judicial system, he wouldn't have the power to ban it; he wouldn't have any control over it in the first place.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Otther
Doesn't the viewpoint that everyone must interpret the constition a balancing of powers more than a seperation of one?

Actually, I'd consider it both.

It's like when I secure a network. I'm NOT going to put in just one system to protect everything. I'm going to put in multiple layers of security, and if even ONE of them determines there's a security problem, then the traffic doesn't come in.

Same kind of thing here. Congress, the President, police, prosecutors, jurors, judges...there are many people along the way who can determine that the law violates the Constitution and refuse to apply or enforce it. And if even one of them says, that, it doesn't get applied.

[Otther]

And if even one of them says, that, it doesn't get applied. Is this ability explicitly enumerated in the constituion, or can infer other things like that one branch could do something within it's sphere despite pertinent objections from the other branchs?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
Thomas Jefferson refused to enforce the alien and sedition act and got rid of the whiskey tax, declaring them to be unconstitutional.

Let's examine just that single president and those two acts. I think these are fair examples that directly regard your original post.

My understanding is that he allowed the alien and sedition act to lapse (as it had a Cinderella clause) and that he convinced congress to repeal the whiskey tax.

Is my understanding correct? I hope not because otherwise these are not actually fair examples of your position but more revisionism.

I too am a willing student, albeit a skeptical one.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
The question in the very first post. The one you have avoided in other threads.

This one?

Originally posted by shanek
That leaves the big question: the basic power of the President to refuse to execute any law he finds is a violation of the Constitution. This can be answered in a scenario-based question which has been put to Claus and the others before, and which they have REFUSED to answer (but, if they have even a modicum of honor remaining, they will do so here):

You're President. You are charged by the Constitution in Article II Section 3 with "tak[ing] Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." You have two laws before you. They are mutually exclusive, so contradictory that there's no way you can execute them both. It's one or the other. One of these is an act passed by Congress, and the other is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Which one are you going to execute?

I am terribly sorry, but where, exactly, has this question been put to me? Where have I refused to answer it?

Originally posted by shanek
You lying weasel...EVERY TIME I answer your questions, you ignore the answers and pretend I haven't. Whereas question after question after question of mine goes unanswered by you. And you call ME a hypocrite?

Yes, I do. You don't answer questions, yet you throw a hissyfit if I don't jump when you say so.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Otther
Is this ability explicitly enumerated in the constituion,

Implicitly, by vesting in them the legislative, executive, and judicial powers. In each of those is the power to stop the enforcement of a law. The legislative can repeal it, the executive can simply not enforce it, and the judicial can rule against it. To be able to force the President to execute a law would be to give whatever entity is applying the force some executive power, which is most certainly unconstitutional.

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Article II, Section 1, Clause 1. Right off the bat. The executive power is vested in the President AND NO ONE ELSE. Not Congress, not the Supreme Court, NO ONE. The PRESIDENT. PERIOD.

[CBL4]

I think Suddenly did an excellent description of what the president should do when it comes to enforcing laws. However, there is a total different set of rules when it comes to creating new policies and laws.

The most notorious current example of this is that Bush decided that he could hold [b]anyone[b] in indefinite solitary confinement without any intervention from the judiciary simply by calling someone an "enemy combatant." To give him a tiny bit of credit, he did allow the supreme court to overrule him.

However, I find this case (Hamdi) particularly disturbing because it appears that the president is immune from prosecution concerning abuse of power (e.g. about false imprisonment) as long as he can make a spurious constitutional case and abides by the Supreme Court ruling. It appears that the president has temporary, dictactorial carte blanche. Once the Supreme Court overrules him, all he needs to do is to follow its ruling more or less.

It seems to me that Bush has clearly violated the civil rights of an American citizen and should be held accountable. The "enemy combatant" precedence was for foreign saboteurs on US soil not for US citizens on foreign soil.

CBL

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I am terribly sorry, but where, exactly, has this question been put to me? Where have I refused to answer it?

One was the thread on Libertarian candidates. Kerberos tried to talk his way around it, saying that if he refused to execute the law he wouldn't be executing the laws "faithfully" (while ignoring the fact that he'd be executing the laws even less faithfully by ignoring the supreme law). You participated in that thread; you replied after I posited the question. You did not answer it.

Answer it now, please.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
...In each of those is the power to stop the enforcement of a law. ...[B]the executive can simply not enforce it,...

This seems to directly contradict:

...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,...

the Supreme Law of the land.

Unless you think not enforcing is equal to executing.

Do you?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CBL4
I think Suddenly did an excellent description of what the president should do when it comes to enforcing laws. However, there is a total different set of rules when it comes to creating new policies and laws.

The most notorious current example of this is that Bush decided that he could hold [b]anyone[b] in indefinite solitary confinement without any intervention from the judiciary simply by calling someone an "enemy combatant." To give him a tiny bit of credit, he did allow the supreme court to overrule him.

However, I find this case (Hamdi) particularly disturbing because it appears that the president is immune from prosecution concerning abuse of power (e.g. about false imprisonment) as long as he can make a spurious constitutional case and abides by the Supreme Court ruling. It appears that the president has temporary, dictactorial carte blanche. Once the Supreme Court overrules him, all he needs to do is to follow its ruling more or less.

It seems to me that Bush has clearly violated the civil rights of an American citizen and should be held accountable. The "enemy combatant" precedence was for foreign saboteurs on US soil not for US citizens on foreign soil.

Well, this is nothing that practically every President since FDR hasn't done. We're in a state of emergency, don't you know? And it's Suddenly's reasoning that allows this system to perpetuate.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
This seems to directly contradict:

the Supreme Law of the land.

Unless you think not enforcing is equal to executing.

Do you?

If the only way the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND can be executed is for the inferior law to not be enforced, then that is the ONLY way to faithfully execute the laws of the land, of which the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW.

Again, these two laws are contradictary; they are mutually exclusive. To enforce one is to ignore the other. Which one are you going to execute?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CBL4
...it appears that the president is immune from prosecution concerning abuse of power...

No. The constitution addresses this issue. He can be impeached.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
One was the thread on Libertarian candidates. Kerberos tried to talk his way around it, saying that if he refused to execute the law he wouldn't be executing the laws "faithfully" (while ignoring the fact that he'd be executing the laws even less faithfully by ignoring the supreme law). You participated in that thread; you replied after I posited the question. You did not answer it.

Answer it now, please.

Specific thread, please?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Specific thread, please?

Here's one:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870589246

You only kept going on about:

shanek,

Is it OK for a President to break the law?

And even after I said:

No. And since the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, he doesn't get to break that supreme law by executing an inferior law that contradicts it.

You came RIGHT BACK with:

Can the President overrule the Constitution?

Even though I had ALREADY ANSWERED "NO" TO THAT IN THE VERY PARAGRAPH YOU WERE REPLYING TO!!!

And then you had the AUDACITY to call ME rude and imply that I shouldn't be allowed to attend TAM3!

You are EVASIVE, you are DISHONEST, and you REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. You are NO SKEPTIC.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
If the only way the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND can be executed is for the inferior law to not be enforced, then that is the ONLY way to faithfully execute the laws of the land, of which the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW.

Again, these two laws are contradictary; they are mutually exclusive. To enforce one is to ignore the other. Which one are you going to execute?

If the laws are directly contradictary, then he's NOT failing to execute the law by following one and not the other. He is, almost by definition, faithfully executing the law...doing the best he can under the given circumstances. Suddenly's explaination of this was, well, almost perfect, or as close as any Left-Virginian can be.

But that's not what you said. You said he had the power to 'simply not enforce it'. And I suppose he could do that, but I see nothing constitutional about it. Can you quote me the article wherein the constitution states that he has the power to do that?

Also, could you address the questions I had regarding Jefferson? I think they were pretty important points and your answers are necessary to my continued education.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Here's one:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870589246

I am terribly sorry, but where, exactly, did I refuse to answer the question?

Originally posted by shanek
You only kept going on about:
...
And even after I said:

Yes, yes, but where did I refuse to answer the question?

Originally posted by shanek
You came RIGHT BACK with:
...
Even though I had ALREADY ANSWERED "NO" TO THAT IN THE VERY PARAGRAPH YOU WERE REPLYING TO!!!

And then you had the AUDACITY to call ME rude and imply that I shouldn't be allowed to attend TAM3!

No, I asked if you were able to contain your anger. It does not seem as if you can.

Originally posted by shanek
You are EVASIVE, you are DISHONEST, and you REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. You are NO SKEPTIC.

I have noticed that you have begun to SPEAK IN CAPS. That constitutes SHOUTING, which is a sign of NOT being able to CONTROL your EMOTIONS.

I am getting INCREASINGLY worried that you will not be able to CONSTRAIN yourself at TAM3.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by shanek
Thomas Jefferson refused to enforce the alien and sedition act...
From this link: (http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/)
Many Americans questioned the constitutionality of these laws. Indeed, public opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts was so great that they were in part responsible for the election of Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, to the presidency in 1800. Once in office, Jefferson pardoned all those convicted under the Sedition Act, while Congress restored all fines paid with interest.
And from this link: (http://www.multied.com/Bio/RevoltBIOS/JeffersonThomas.html)
From the moment that Jefferson was inaugurated, he began what he described as the Revolution of 1800. This was his attempt to repeal major actions that he felt the Federalists had taken to needlessly strengthen the hand of the Federal government. This included allowing the Alien and Sedition Act to lapse and the repeal of the federal whiskey tax.
It seems then that Jefferson didn't decree that this law shouldn't be enforced, only that he pardoned those convicted and let the law lapse.
Originally posted by shanek
...and got rid of the whiskey tax, declaring them to be unconstitutional.
From my previous quote, he "repealed" the federal whiskey tax. Does this mean he made use of this power we are discussing?
Originally posted by shanek
Andrew Jackson dissolved the central bank, declaring it to be unconstitutional.
From this random link: (http://www.pacinst.com/terrorists/chapter2/jackson.html)
Andrew Jackson was not happy with the central bank. When Biddle sought to renew the bank’s charter in 1832, President Jackson put his re-election bid on the line and vetoed Congress’ attempt to renew the charter.
It appears that he also let this law lapse.

To sum up, if the links I googled are right, and if "repealed" means what I think it does, only Thomas Jefferson has used this power to make null a law on a whiskey tax.

[Sushi]

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[Otther]

Implicitly...

has the one body that is explicitly supposed to interpret law ever use the interpretation you're using? If not, it'd seem your interpretation was using itself as an arguement for it's validity.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Sushi
Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Gosh! Does it really say that!?

Make a point Sush-honey. Shanek could use the assistance. Not because he isn't able but because there are so many questions. Lend him a hand. Tell you what. How about you take the question I asked him and answer them for him. I'm a willing student.

[CBL4]

The constitution addresses this issue. He can be impeached.Clearly, he could be impeached. However, since I have not heard this suggested for this crime, it does not seem to be a practical approach. He seems to have gotten away with incredible abuse of power without hardly anyone but the ACLU noticing.

There seems to be an attitude "He was overruled by the Supreme Court but as long as it let himself be overruled, it's OK." I have not heard any suggestion of punishment. In a karmical world, he would be locked in a jail with out knowing why or whether he would ever get out. At this point, I would be happy just to see an investigation of his actions.

CBL

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CBL4
Clearly, he could be impeached. However, since I have not heard this suggested for this crime, it does not seem to be a practical approach. He seems to have gotten away with incredible abuse of power without hardly anyone but the ACLU noticing.


What does that tell you? I'm not trying to be a smartass, BTW. I'm just suggesting that The People, as represented by the congress, are constitutionally tasked with noticing, or not noticing as the case may be, any asserted high crimes and misdemeanors. The ACLU is a voice, to be sure, and a sometimes influential one, but the responsibility is nonetheless given to the congress.

Consider that if every president were impeached for every reversal of law or policy by the Supreme Court, then every president would be impeached.

Perhaps, just possibly, congress understands that it is sometimes necessary to abuse the constitution in order to protect and defend it. They could be wrong in their understanding, I admit, but they are nevertheless the check and balance the constitution provides.

We could pass an amendment that provided otherwise, I suppose. If you have a suggestion as to how it might be worded, I'd be willing to politely debate it with you. I might even support it.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
How is deferring to the opinion of the legislators and the judges keeping the enforcement power separate from the legislative and the judicial? It is protecting the judical and legislative in that the executive cannot simply override their opinion based on his opinion.

This presumes that reasonable people will differ as to the meaning of the Constitution, a premise that I am not sure you accept...

This seems backwards to me. This would mean that the President would have to wait for the courts to rule to enforce a law. But, of course, the courts cannot rule until a case is brought before them. Catch-22. Only if you assume a direct temporal relationship. The legislative power is first, but then the judicial and executive coincide. Recognizing the concept of stare decisis, that a court will rule consistent with prior decisions helps this a bit. Absent precident on point, the executive should defer to the implied finding of congress that the law is constitutional. Beyond the separation of powers issues, this policy will allow a future challenge to the constitutionality of the statute. No catch 22 at all.


Which is not explicitly defined in the Constitution. It is only implcit in that it specifies that the Congress shall have legislative power, the President executive, and the Supreme Court and inferior courts the judicial. It says nothing about the standards for which one must defer to the opinion of another. Those standards are implied in the roles themselves. Plus, the president has legislative powers apart from his pure executive power, and I refer only to when he is acting as a pure executive in enforcing law.


Ah, but here we come to the crux of the matter—the President must, in his own mind, decide which ones are "clearly illegal." Which, given the mutually exclusive nature of the law and the Constitution presented in the hypothetical, is presented as a given in the scenario.

No it isn't. In the vast majority of cases people can and have disagreed as to whether a statute contradicted the constitution.

The real crux you are identifying is that you really don't accept that reasonable people can differ. In your mind anyone that disagrees with what you see as What The Constitution Says is clearly wrong and not being reasonable.


You're really talking around the subject. There is a difference between refusing to observe law and refusing to enforce an unconstitutional law.
Not in the context I am using. I pretty meant that these underlings would be refusing to observe a law because they saw it as unconstitutional, but hey, it gives you a chance to not only dodge the toughest question but also spit out insulting platitudes in the apparent attempt to make yourself believe that you have some kind of noble insight. Like this:

Do I have to point out, YET AGAIN, that the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and therefore, falls into the category of what must be observed—in fact, it stands at the very top of it? Did that make you feel better? It isn't like I have pointed that out roughly 18783 times, mainly when defending Marbury v. Madison against idiots that don't understand what judicial review is.



You imply that one must ignore the LAW of the Constitution in order to observe inferior laws. This does not follow. Why should one not also observe the LAW of the Constitution?

No implication of the sort. This is just your taking anything written in the worst possible light and running with it. I think you have some need to believe that people make these sorts of claims in order that you can feel all warm and fuzzy when belching out your simplistic platitudes about the Constitution.

It was a good job of avoiding the question though. Well played.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
My understanding is that the death penalty is a function of the executive, not the judicial. As such, the President would have the power to ban it. If, however, you are correct and it's a function of the judicial system, he wouldn't have the power to ban it; he wouldn't have any control over it in the first place.



The death penalty is created by the legislature, handed down by the judicary, and executed by the executive.

By your telling the executive could not only refuse to execute someone (w/o using pardon or commutation powers which are a seperate issue) he could also kill someone in defiance of a court order.

Not so far-fetched hypo:

X, when 17 years old, committs capital murder in Virginia and gets sentenced to death. Two weeks before the execution date, the United States Supreme Court rules in a seperate case (5-4) that via the 8th and 14th amendments that execution of persons who are under 18 at the time of the crime is prohibited as cruel and unusual punishment and this prohibition applies to the states.

The Virginia governor, who is a strict constructionalist and a fanatic for the framer's intent is swayed by Scalia's dissent that since the framers did not find execution of under 18 persons cruel or unusual, the constitution cannot be seen as prohibiting such a practice. The death sentence is not contrary to the constitution, no matter what those geeks in black mu-mus claim, says the governor.

Can he whack the kid?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Can he whack the kid?

Dang. Your good. Are you sure you're from Left Virgina?

[CBL4]

Consider that if every president were impeached for every reversal of law or policy by the Supreme Court, then every president would be impeached.This is a strawman. I do not advocate impeachment for all reversal or even all reversals that show the president actually committed a high crime and misdemenor. I just think at some point the abuse of power is too great to be ignored. I am not talking about petty crimes likely lying at a civil case or a unconstitutional search. I am talking about keeping a US citizen in solitary confinement for 3 years without giving him a lawyer or a hearing. This seems to me to be a case for impeachment.

Perhaps, just possibly, congress understands that it is sometimes necessary to abuse the constitution in order to protect and defend it. They could be wrong in their understanding, I admit, but they are nevertheless the check and balance the constitution providesAny congressman thinks that it is OK to abuse the constitution in anything short of an emergency is unfit for the job. I agree that it is their constitutional right and duty to impeach presidents who have committed high crimes.

BTW, I accepted the imprisonment immediately after 9/11 for people who were thought to be connected to terrorism. Hamdi was not a threat to commit terrorism while he was in Afghanistan. I would be happy to see him tried for treason. I just to be sure that you will get a trial or hearing before being locked up.

CBL

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
It is protecting the judical and legislative in that the executive cannot simply override their opinion based on his opinion.

Uh, no. In fact, what you are saying is the exact opposite because you are saying that the President's opinion must give way to what the legislative and judicial branches say.

[qoute]This presumes that reasonable people will differ as to the meaning of the Constitution,[/quote]

That's not MY presumption. MY presumption is that politicians will do whatever they can to try and mangle the meaning of the Constitution into supporting whatever they want. That's hardly the same thing.

Absent precident on point, the executive should defer to the implied finding of congress that the law is constitutional.

I don't really see how that is implied at all. And our founders CERTAINLY didn't consider it to be implied.

Those standards are implied in the roles themselves. Plus, the president has legislative powers apart from his pure executive power, and I refer only to when he is acting as a pure executive in enforcing law.

I want to see you support this. Enforcing law is NOT the same as CREATING law, which is what legislating is.

The real crux you are identifying is that you really don't accept that reasonable people can differ.

No, that just isn't true at all. What YOU are ignoring is that more often than not Congress passes laws NOT EVEN CARING whether it's Constitutional or not, and the Supreme Court has been known to use all sorts of twisted logic to avoid finding some things unconstitutional (like the draft).

Not in the context I am using.

Yes, even in the context you are using it. They are two entirely different things.

I pretty meant that these underlings would be refusing to observe a law because they saw it as unconstitutional, but hey, it gives you a chance to not only dodge the toughest question but also spit out insulting platitudes in the apparent attempt to make yourself believe that you have some kind of noble insight. Like this: Did that make you feel better?[/b]

How lawyerly of you to accuse me of avoiding the question when you have done so yourself.

So, answer straight: How come the President MUST comply with every single law EXCEPT the Constitution?

No implication of the sort. This is just your taking anything written in the worst possible light and running with it.

No, that is the logical consequence of your assertion.

It was a good job of avoiding the question though. Well played.

Excuse me, but YOU were the one avoiding the questions there.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
By your telling the executive could not only refuse to execute someone (w/o using pardon or commutation powers which are a seperate issue) he could also kill someone in defiance of a court order.

No, he COULDN'T. The idea as presented is that the President has determined that the death penalty violates the Constitution. This gives us the conundrum, which STILL REMAINS UNASWERED, of my original post: How can the President then execute both the death penalty and the Constitution? He can't, so he MUST favor the Constitution.

Killing someone in defiance of a court order is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING as no one may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The President would be, in effect, SENTENCING the person to death, something only the judicial can do.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Dang. Your good.

No, he isn't. That was SO easy to rebut,

[DanishDynamite]

I'm disappointed. I thought shanek would reply to debunking of his statements.

[Rob Lister]

I don't mind you snipping the crux of my point but it does make it difficult to have a logical debate.

I hope I haven't snipped the crux of yours...if I have, consider it payback, but it is not my intent

Originally posted by CBL4

Any congressman thinks that it is OK to abuse the constitution in anything short of an emergency is unfit for the job.

1) Who decides what is and is not an emergency?

2) is it possible that what constitutes an emergency to them may not necessarily constitute an emergency to you? Especially given that they are, necessarily, privy to more information than you?

3) How does the constitution address those congressmen that are 'unfit for the job'?

4) See 1)

Look, if you want to spin, I can spin too. So far, with you, I have not. But why bother?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Uh, no. In fact, what you are saying is the exact opposite because you are saying that the President's opinion must give way to what the legislative and judicial branches say.

So I am saying the exact opposite as what I am saying? Huh?

This presumes that reasonable people will differ as to the meaning of the Constitution,

That's not MY presumption. MY presumption is that politicians will do whatever they can to try and mangle the meaning of the Constitution into supporting whatever they want. That's hardly the same thing.

Funny, you could have just agreed with the next sentence where I suggest you do not agree that reasonable people can differ...



I don't really see how that is implied at all. And our founders CERTAINLY didn't consider it to be implied.

Now you have gotten just silly. Read the sentence you are refering to. I was talking about the implication that when congress passes a law they imply that they believe the law is constitutional. The founders have nothing to do with this concept.

I want to see you support this. Enforcing law is NOT the same as CREATING law, which is what legislating is.
Are you denying that the veto power is not a legislative power, even though it applies to the process of legislation?

Did you stop reading at some point? Or could this be an intentional muddying of the water?


No, that just isn't true at all. What YOU are ignoring is that more often than not Congress passes laws NOT EVEN CARING whether it's Constitutional or not, and the Supreme Court has been known to use all sorts of twisted logic to avoid finding some things unconstitutional (like the draft).

This is your response to the claim that you do not believe that reasonable people differ, therefore anyone who disagrees with you is wrong? Why not just admit it is true, since this is basically what you are saying here, with examples.



Yes, even in the context you are using it. They are two entirely different things.

Ha ha. Take part of my explaining the context out of context. Cute.

How lawyerly of you to accuse me of avoiding the question when you have done so yourself.

Just like a computer picture specialist to not know an answer if it bit him on the always getting clobbered in an obscure local race butt.

So, answer straight: How come the President MUST comply with every single law EXCEPT the Constitution?

He does. Absent your fixation on one sentence where I didn't explicitly modify something and your ignoring where I more clearly state what I meant this charge is nonsense.

The simple answer is he must always comply, but sometimes his opinion is not controlling as to what "following the constitution" means. I know this is an alien concept to you, but sometimes reasonable people disagree about these things, and there are people who can accept this as part of reality without imputing malicious motives and utter stupidity on the part of who they disagree with.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Killing someone in defiance of a court order is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING as no one may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
No court order in my hypo, simply a Supreme Court decision in a different case. Even if there were a court order what if that order is unconstitutional as this one seems to be? The kid had a trial, the court found him guilty and sentenced him within the law. No due process problem.

All that happened is the Court decided after the fact that the punishment was unconstitutional, against the plain meaning of the text as well as the framer's intent.

If in fact the executive is to enforce the law, and the law is still on the books, how can the executive not go ahead and execute the kid? Isn't he then violating his oath of office by failing to execute a perfectly good law since he is not bound by the court and the court is wrong anyway?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I'm disappointed. I thought shanek would reply to debunking of his statements.

Yeah. Almost forgot about those "examples" of his...

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I'm disappointed. I thought shanek would reply to debunking of his statements.

I have, and I am. If they're not the reply you would like, that's not my problem.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
1) Who decides what is and is not an emergency?

2) is it possible that what constitutes an emergency to them may not necessarily constitute an emergency to you? Especially given that they are, necessarily, privy to more information than you?

The Constitution gives guidelines. For example, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." So in order to constitute an "emergency" bad enough to suspend habeas corpus, it would have to a) be in a case of rebellion or invasion, and b) required for the public safety.

3) How does the constitution address those congressmen that are 'unfit for the job'?

Article I Section 2 Clause 1 seems to cover it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
So I am saying the exact opposite as what I am saying? Huh? [/b]

I explained what I meant.

Funny, you could have just agreed with the next sentence where I suggest you do not agree that reasonable people can differ...

I guess that depends on if you consider people twisting the words of the Constitution to fit whatever they want as being "reasonable."

Now you have gotten just silly. Read the sentence you are refering to. I was talking about the implication that when congress passes a law they imply that they believe the law is constitutional.

Uh, no, YOU are silly for claiming that there is or ever was any such impliciation.

The founders have nothing to do with this concept.

Incorrect. Our founders were GREATLY concerned about it, which is why they wrote the document to be explicitly constructed and limited Congress only to the functions in Article I Section 8. A lot of the debates, as well as the Federalist/anti-Federalist papers have to do with Congress abridging their Constitutional authority.

Are you denying that the veto power is not a legislative power, even though it applies to the process of legislation?

The veto power is expressly granted to the President by the Constitution, so this doesn't help you.

Did you stop reading at some point? Or could this be an intentional muddying of the water?

On your part, maybe...

This is your response to the claim that you do not believe that reasonable people differ, therefore anyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

Blah blah blah blah.

Let me put this as simply as I can so that not even you can twist it: saying that reasonable people CAN disagree does NOT mean it can be assumed that people are being reasonable whenever they DO agree. You are making that assumption, and it is logically invalid. Until we find a genuine psychic who can read minds and tell exactly what Congress thinks and elect him President, we need to have the powers of the executive separate in case Congress actually DOES do such a thing (and are you denying that they do, in fact, do this on a regular basis?).

Ha ha. Take part of my explaining the context out of context. Cute.

Ha ha. Keep covering for having no response for my rebuttals. Cute.

Just like a computer picture specialist to not know an answer if it bit him on the always getting clobbered in an obscure local race butt. [/B] He does. Absent your fixation on one sentence where I didn't explicitly modify something and your ignoring where I more clearly state what I meant this charge is nonsense.

The simple answer is he must always comply, but sometimes his opinion is not controlling as to what "following the constitution" means. I know this is an alien concept to you, but sometimes reasonable people disagree about these things, and there are people who can accept this as part of reality without imputing malicious motives and utter stupidity on the part of who they disagree with.

Blah blah blah again. This is mere backpedalling. If he must ALWAYS comply, then in the hypothetical I posed he MUST go with the SUPREME LAW, the Constitution, and NOT with the act passed by Congress.

You could have just said that in the beginning and avoided all of this.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
No court order in my hypo, simply a Supreme Court decision in a different case. Even if there were a court order what if that order is unconstitutional as this one seems to be? The kid had a trial, the court found him guilty and sentenced him within the law. No due process problem.

Well, then, if the President has no cause to make such a judgement on his own, he would have NO CHOICE but to execute him. But if what I say is true, the President could easily decide not to execute him.

If in fact the executive is to enforce the law, and the law is still on the books, how can the executive not go ahead and execute the kid?

When did I ever say he must? You're twisting the arguments around now. I'm saying the President gets to make the call and NOT execute the kid. So how is your hypothetical an example of a President EXECUTING someone without due process? If he was SENTENCED, that's due process.

Isn't he then violating his oath of office by failing to execute a perfectly good law since he is not bound by the court and the court is wrong anyway?

Either you're being deliberately dishonest or you have no idea what it is I'm arguing...

[shanek]

By the way...

...Is NO ONE going to ANSWER THE QUESTION????

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek



I guess that depends on if you consider people twisting the words of the Constitution to fit whatever they want as being "reasonable."

Yep, keep coming with the illustrations of how you react to those that disagree. They are "twisting the words of the constitution."



Uh, no, YOU are silly for claiming that there is or ever was any such impliciation. So I am silly for the belief that if congress passes a law they are implying a belief that they have the power to pass that law?

I guess this comes back to the part about you imputing malicious motives on the part of those that disagree. Apparently you believe Congress meets and says things like "yeah, we have no power to pass this law but lets do it anyway."




Incorrect. Our founders were GREATLY concerned about it, which is why they wrote the document to be explicitly constructed and limited Congress only to the functions in Article I Section 8. A lot of the debates, as well as the Federalist/anti-Federalist papers have to do with Congress abridging their Constitutional authority.

They debated over whether Congress implies it has the power to pass a law when Congress passes that law? I missed that section of the debates.

The veto power is expressly granted to the President by the Constitution, so this doesn't help you.
What help me? I am pointing out that the President has legislative powers granted by the constitution. Are you even following along here?

I said:

"Plus, the president has legislative powers apart from his pure executive power,"

You replied that you would like to see me support that. Then I said the veto power is legislative in nature.

Your above response makes no sense in this exchange.



Let me put this as simply as I can so that not even you can twist it: saying that reasonable people CAN disagree does NOT mean it can be assumed that people are being reasonable whenever they DO agree.

You mean disagree here? If so this is true sofar

You are making that assumption, and it is logically invalid.
Nope. I am pointing out that I have rarely if ever seen an example of your having a disagreement about the constitution where you did not in some way attribute bad faith, utter stupidity, or both to the person disagreeing with you. They are pretty much always twisting words are blatantly going against the language. That is if they are not lying.

That I do not make this assumption is clear from my original post where I establish the exception w/r/t absurdly beyond reason.

Until we find a genuine psychic who can read minds and tell exactly what Congress thinks and elect him President, we need to have the powers of the executive separate in case Congress actually DOES do such a thing (and are you denying that they do, in fact, do this on a regular basis?).



This makes no sense. How does reading the minds of Congress make a bit of difference? The issue is whether the act in fact contradicts the constitution. What advantage does such a power have in that regard?

I am denying they do this on a regular basis. To claim that it does occur is at best bombastic and at worst is a sign of being a crackpot.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek

...

When did I ever say he must?

...



Anyone want to help out shanek here with the last question, about where he says the guy must enforce a law that does not contradict the constitution?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
By the way...

...Is NO ONE going to ANSWER THE QUESTION????

The one that I answered with my first post?

Yet another example of how you paint those that disagree with you. An answer you do not disagree with is declared to not be an answer at all.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Yep, keep coming with the illustrations of how you react to those that disagree. They are "twisting the words of the constitution."

Again, you're doing a desperate all-or-nothing weaseling. SOME might be disagreeing, but SOME might be twisting the words of the Constitution. Since we can't know without being psychic, we have to put protections in place against those who would twist them for their own purposes. THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE IGNORED FOR THE LAST THREE REPLIES NOW.

So I am silly for the belief that if congress passes a law they are implying a belief that they have the power to pass that law?

No, you're silly for saying that the fact that Congress passes a law implies that they believe in its constitutionality, at least so much as it should restrain the President from giving the law its due consideration.

They debated over whether Congress implies it has the power to pass a law when Congress passes that law? I missed that section of the debates.

:rolleyes: If you aren't even going to read what I write, what's the point? There is NO WAY you could have reasonable read that from "And our founders CERTAINLY didn't consider it [the constitutionality of the law] to be implied [when Congress passes an act]."

I am pointing out that the President has legislative powers granted by the constitution.

No, he doesn't. He has the power to take an action to STOP legislation, but that's not the same thing. He can't draft the act or vote on it or anything.

That I do not make this assumption is clear from my original post where I establish the exception w/r/t absurdly beyond reason.

But you still have yet to respond to my response to that: if it's not the President himself who decides that it's "absurdly beyond reason," then who decides that, and where did he get the power to decide it? If it IS the President, then how are you not agreeing with me?

This makes no sense. How does reading the minds of Congress make a bit of difference?

Because that's really the only way to know if there is an honest disagreement or a deliberate twisting of the words.

The issue is whether the act in fact contradicts the constitution.

YOU were the one who brought up the motivations of Congress, something only they can know.

I am denying they do this on a regular basis. To claim that it does occur is at best bombastic and at worst is a sign of being a crackpot.

Then why were they so dead-set against Ron Paul's proposal that all acts be accompanied by a statement citing the part of the Constitution that gives them the power to pass that act?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Anyone want to help out shanek here with the last question, about where he says the guy must enforce a law that does not contradict the constitution?

If you can't support it yourself, don't go asking others to do it for you.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
The one that I answered with my first post?

You DIDN'T ANSWER IT! You've spent all this time attacking one of the givens in the hypothetical—THAT'S NOT ANSWERING IT!!!

[shanek]

Strange, FindLaw consideres the veto to be an executive, not legislative power:

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=5c/5ced535f72c024aa8cbe7e8cf2fb9455

a power vested in a chief executive to prevent permanently or temporarily the enactment of measures passed by a legislature

Also, in the section covering the veto in Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constituion (§880) that the common law tradition was that the veto power was ALWAYS held by the executive.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shriek
You DIDN'T ANSWER IT! You've spent all this time attacking one of the givens in the hypothetical—THAT'S NOT ANSWERING IT!!!

[shanek]

Hmmm...seems that Mr. Story agrees with me as well. Oh, well, he was only a Supreme Court Justice, what would he know about it?

The constitution, contemplating the grant of limited powers, and distributing them among various functionaries, and the state governments, and their functionaries, being also clothed with limited powers, subordinate to those granted to the general government, whenever any question arises, as to the exercise of any power by any of these functionaries under the state, or federal government, it is of necessity, that such functionaries must, in the first instance, decide upon the constitutionality of the exercise of such power. It may arise in the course of the discharge of the functions of any one, or of all, of the great departments of government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The officers of each of these departments are equally bound by their oaths of office to support the constitution of the United States, and are therefore conscientiously bound to abstain from all acts, which are inconsistent with it. Whenever, therefore, they are required to act in a case, not hitherto settled by any proper authority, these functionaries must, in the first instance, decide, each for himself, whether, consistently with the constitution, the act can be done. If, for instance, the president is required to do any act, he is not only authorized, but required, to decide for himself, whether, consistently with his constitutional duties, he can do the act.

—Commentaries on the Constitution, §374

Yeah, that Joseph Story; what a raving loonie...

[Dorian Gray]

Perhaps, just possibly, congress understands that it is sometimes necessary to abuse the constitution in order to protect and defend it. You must be a conservative. Only a conservative believes things like "one must break the law to protect it" and "you have to go to war to keep the peace".

Perhaps this crappy obfuscated microcosmic pedantic nitpicking thread can have it's arse kicked into gear if someone used a REAL example.

Like keeping prisoners without due process based on some skirting of international law - thank you Bush lawyers!. Bush did it for over a year before the SCOTUS did anything. It would seem that the hypothetical 17-year old would have been a goner for quite a while before the SCOTUS did anything.

This particular SC group also seems to want to hot-potato a lot of issues, dismissing some on technicalities. Example: dismissing the "under God" in schools case because the man who brought it wasn't a custodial parent - a very weaselly thing to do, in my opinion - and one that raised a whole bunch of other issues.

[CFLarsen]

Shanek,

I hate to break your concentration, but where, in the thread you pointed to, did I refuse to answer the question?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Shanek,

I hate to break your concentration, but where, in the thread you pointed to, did I refuse to answer the question?

How can I POSSIBLY point to you NOT answering the question? YOU DIDN'T ANSWER IT! You didn't answer it then, and you're not answering it now. Pathetic.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Perhaps this crappy obfuscated microcosmic pedantic nitpicking thread can have it's arse kicked into gear if someone used a REAL example.


Affirmative action.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Affirmative action.

Whoops. Now you'll have to deal with Patrick posting to this already hysterical thread.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
How can I POSSIBLY point to you NOT answering the question? YOU DIDN'T ANSWER IT! You didn't answer it then, and you're not answering it now. Pathetic.

But where did I refuse to answer it?

Not answering a question is not the same as refusing it. I could simply choose not to participate in parts of a thread. You do that too, don't you?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Again, you're doing a desperate all-or-nothing weaseling. SOME might be disagreeing, but SOME might be twisting the words of the Constitution. Since we can't know without being psychic, we have to put protections in place against those who would twist them for their own purposes. THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE IGNORED FOR THE LAST THREE REPLIES NOW.

I generally disregard nonsense. Above you are saying that the subjective state of mind of the author somehow trumps the objective words of same. I have no response to this, much like I have no response to a claim that since it takes six pancakes to shingle Snoopy's doghouse, Michael Moore should play quarterback for the Miami Heat when they try to qualify for Wimbleton.




No, you're silly for saying that the fact that Congress passes a law implies that they believe in its constitutionality, at least so much as it should restrain the President from giving the law its due consideration.

At least the nonsense is on topic. However that you deny the implication is telling in how you view those that share the universe with you. Of course, that also gives a glimpse into why you have a violent reaction to the concept of defering to others when there is a reasonable disagreement...

:rolleyes: If you aren't even going to read what I write, what's the point?
So, I say X, you massively misconstrue X and start screaming about some nonsense, and my failure to accompany on your fanciful tangent is in your eyes my ignoring what you say...

No, he doesn't. He has the power to take an action to STOP legislation, but that's not the same thing. He can't draft the act or vote on it or anything.
Is the veto power part of the legislative process? A yes or no works just fine here... To maybe remind you, part of this is that the President also signs bills to make them into law. The President is involved in the legislative process, and when he is he has legislative powers.



But you still have yet to respond to my response to that: if it's not the President himself who decides that it's "absurdly beyond reason," then who decides that, and where did he get the power to decide it? If it IS the President, then how are you not agreeing with me? He does. It comes from the basic principle that nobody is ever forced act illegally. This is in conflict with the basic role as an enforcer of the law, in that what the law is in general or particular is not up to the enforcer of a law, as a basic principle of seperation of powers. Part of deciding what the law is is determining whether two laws conflict with one another, and which takes precidence if they do.

The conflict is worked out by using the concept of standard of review, and this is supported by the practical measures put into place by the framers, making the legislative branch the one branch that can kick out the others and the general body of political philosophy that influenced the thinking of the framers (Locke and so forth).

I don't agree with you as you ignore the second part of this, and you basically ignore or misconstrue everything I say to explain it.



Because that's really the only way to know if there is an honest disagreement or a deliberate twisting of the words.

Yep. You really are favoring subjective intent over objective content. Existential absurdist much? How do you know by this sentence that I am responding to your point? I may really be asking you if you have ever tried dried mango.

Either way, you should try the dried mango. I'm serious. They sell it at most Sam's Clubs. I've been seeing it more in grocery stores. Good stuff.

YOU were the one who brought up the motivations of Congress, something only they can know.

No, I brought up a reasonable assumption that congress as a body can be assumed to not consider their own acts illegal, so therefore passage of an act speaks as an endorsement of constitutionality by Congress. Has nothing to do with reading minds, and in fact this is a response to the fact that not only can we not read minds, but Congress has (last time I checked) more than one mind involved. Thus we have this assumed "constructive" finding.

Then why were they so dead-set against Ron Paul's proposal that all acts be accompanied by a statement citing the part of the Constitution that gives them the power to pass that act?

Because it would be a massive waste of time and resources? Not to mention the real-world tactical implications of such a requirement.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
If you can't support it yourself, don't go asking others to do it for you.

So are you not claiming that the executive must enforce a law that is not in conflict with the constitution or in any other way invalid?

I just want to get this clear...

Can the executive choose to not enforce a completely valid, legal, and constitutional law?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Strange, FindLaw consideres the veto to be an executive, not legislative power:

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=5c/5ced535f72c024aa8cbe7e8cf2fb9455

Nope, they say it is "rested in the executive." This does not speak to the fact that it is not part of the pure enforcement power, which was the tangential point I was making.



Also, in the section covering the veto in Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constituion (§880) that the common law tradition was that the veto power was ALWAYS held by the executive.

Being held by the executive is quite a different story than describing the nature of the power. Not that you aren't obsessing about a tangent or anything.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Hmmm...seems that Mr. Story agrees with me as well. Oh, well, he was only a Supreme Court Justice, what would he know about it?
The irony here is that when confronted with the fact that Story wrote a rather negative opinion w/r/t jury nullification you don't seem to be so fond of him... Not to mention that this whole argument is centered around your rejection of the Supreme Court as authority.


—Commentaries on the Constitution, §374

This says nothing about what the President should consider and what weight he should give to the data he considers. Given what the president should consider (express Supreme court decisions, implied opinion of Congress) in making his decison is my whole point, this section doesn't say anything to contradict that.



Yeah, that Joseph Story; what a raving loonie...

Was he a loonie when he said:

It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to the law; and it is the duty of the jury to follow the law, as it is laid down by the court.

U S v. Battiste, 24 F.Cas. 1042

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But where did I refuse to answer it?

Not answering a question is not the same as refusing it. I could simply choose not to participate in parts of a thread. You do that too, don't you?

Claus, are you going to answer the question or not?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Claus, are you going to answer the question or not?

I just want to know where I refused to answer the question. It seems you cannot show me.

Oh, well.... :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I generally disregard nonsense.

NONSENSE??? Saying that, while some Congressmen may pass a bill out of differing views of the Constitution while others do it in flagrant violation of it is NONSENSE??? Whereas your one-thing-or-the-other, no-middle-ground position is somehow reasonable?

Above you are saying that the subjective state of mind of the author somehow trumps the objective words of same.

I'm saying that you can't always count on people to be honest in what they do and say; especially politicians. The fact that you are denying this is staggering.

So, I say X, you massively misconstrue X and start screaming about some nonsense, and my failure to accompany on your fanciful tangent is in your eyes my ignoring what you say...

You are so desperate...your ability to evade direct points is truly mindblowing.

Is the veto power part of the legislative process?

I don't think so. Neither does FindLaw or Joseph Story.

To maybe remind you, part of this is that the President also signs bills to make them into law.

A bill can become a law without the President's signature.

He does.

So then, you answer to the question in the hypothetical is...?

It comes from the basic principle that nobody is ever forced act illegally. This is in conflict with the basic role as an enforcer of the law, in that what the law is in general or particular is not up to the enforcer of a law, as a basic principle of seperation of powers.

You're evading the question again. This is if he is given conflicting laws and can logically and realistically only execute one of them.

Part of deciding what the law is is determining whether two laws conflict with one another, and which takes precidence if they do.

Okay; so which takes precedence in the above scenario? The act of Congress or the Supreme Law of the Land?

I don't agree with you as you ignore the second part of this, and you basically ignore or misconstrue everything I say to explain it.

I'm just trying to get you to answer a question.

Because it would be a massive waste of time and resources?

It would be a waste of time and resources to cite ONE CLAUSE in the Constitution giving them the power to pass that act???

Not to mention the real-world tactical implications of such a requirement.

Such as?

[varwoche]

Has concensus been reached that of the 3 examples cited, that only Jefferson/whisky tax is a pertinent?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Can the executive choose to not enforce a completely valid, legal, and constitutional law?

This was taken care of above: yes, he can. But he CANNOT have any effect, one way or the other, on the powers of the judiciary. You seem to take me saying the latter and claim it means I'm saying the former.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
The irony here is that when confronted with the fact that Story wrote a rather negative opinion w/r/t jury nullification you don't seem to be so fond of him...[/b]

Oh, here we go again...I don't have the right to cite the guy unless I believe 100% with everything he says, right?

Story brought up his objections in the Battiste case, where the defense was actually arguing against the nullification. Story knew that the jury was from a highly prohibitionist area, and you'll notice he didn't (and couldn't) actively prohibit the jury from nullifying the law; he just didn't want their bias overcoming their rational decision. Story himself was an emancipationist, as I'm sure you know, but he wanted the issue dealt with properly: by a Constitutional amendment. The big reason here, which you'll know if you've read §1757-1762 of the Commentaries on the Constitution, is that, of a jury's decision, the questions of fact as determined by the jury cannot be overturned by a superior court. Also, Story said nothing (at least, that has survived of his writings) of jury nullification outside of this one case.

All of this, of course, is an off-topic distraction from the main point: if Badnarik is a "loonie" for saying the President can refuse to execute unconstitutional laws, then Story was, too.

[more irrelevancies deleted]

This says nothing about what the President should consider and what weight he should give to the data he considers.

No, it doesn't, meaning that it is UP TO THE PRESIDENT TO DECIDE THAT FOR HIMSELF.

[more irrelevancies deleted]

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I just want to know where I refused to answer the question. It seems you cannot show me.

Oh, well.... :rolleyes:

So, you're NOT going to answer the question...but this, apparently, is not a refusal to answer the question. So you just rewrite the dictionary....

If you won't answer the question, will you at least answer the question about you answering the question?

[shanek]

Originally posted by varwoche
Has concensus been reached that of the 3 examples cited, that only Jefferson/whisky tax is a pertinent?

I don't see how, as the alien and sedition act and the bank bill were both acts of Congress as well.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
NONSENSE??? Saying that, while some Congressmen may pass a bill out of differing views of the Constitution while others do it in flagrant violation of it is NONSENSE??? Whereas your one-thing-or-the-other, no-middle-ground position is somehow reasonable? Saying that intent somehow trumps content, especially considering a group is the one producing the content, is existential nonsense of the highest order.



I'm saying that you can't always count on people to be honest in what they do and say; especially politicians. The fact that you are denying this is staggering. This is a misapplication in what I am stating w/r/t the assumption. There is a similar line from your beloved JUSTICE STORY where he mentions as part of analyzing a federal slave trade statute that he assumes that Congress, in drafting it, had an understanding of the trade. He says this in the case I cite above.

This is the sort of thing I am saying, as a functional matter we assume these sorts of things, that congress acts with some level of understanding. This is a functional assumption, not a moral one.

Story was not making a factual claim that the body had this understanding, and I am not making a factual claim about intent. These are just functional assumptions used in assessing the output of a legislative body. Nothing more.



I don't think so. Neither does FindLaw or Joseph Story.

As I pointed out they simply mentioned that the executive holds these powers, which I do agree with. I am, however saying that these powers are part of the legislative process. Different issue.


A bill can become a law without the President's signature.

So? That doesn't eliminate this stuff from the legislative process.

So then, you answer to the question in the hypothetical is...?

Did I not just type the words "he does?" Can you at least recognize an answer?



You're evading the question again. This is if he is given conflicting laws and can logically and realistically only execute one of them. I am explaining my answer, as to how he should determine which to execute.



Okay; so which takes precedence in the above scenario? The act of Congress or the Supreme Law of the Land? As should be clear, this depends on other data not given. I have attempted to illustrate what data is necessary and what effect it will have. For some reason you call this evasion.



I'm just trying to get you to answer a question.

No, you are refusing to accept any answer but the one you agree with.

It would be a waste of time and resources to cite ONE CLAUSE in the Constitution giving them the power to pass that act???
Yes. It is not necessary. Thus it is a waste of time and resources.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
So, you're NOT going to answer the question...but this, apparently, is not a refusal to answer the question. So you just rewrite the dictionary....

1 : to express oneself as unwilling to accept <refuse a gift> <refuse a promotion>
2 a : to show or express unwillingness to do or comply with <refused to answer the question> b : DENY <they were refused admittance to the game>
Webster

Now, I have not expressed myself as unwilling to answer it. I have not denied, either. Have I showed unwillingness? Well, you will have to prove that I did, and didn't simply not participate in that part of the discussion.

How do you suggest we tell the difference between "Refusing by not answering" and "Not partaking in the discussion"? Because if you cannot, then we can all run around and accuse each other of "refusing" to answer questions, even though we are merely online. Which would be unfair.

Originally posted by shanek
If you won't answer the question, will you at least answer the question about you answering the question?

OK, you lost me there. That sounds like this... (http://www.infinitecat.com/)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Oh, here we go again...I don't have the right to cite the guy unless I believe 100% with everything he says, right?

Nope, just that something like this contradicts you, you scream that it is just an argument from authority and it doesn't matter, etc. I find this amusing and illustrative of your general "ends justify the means" debating tactics.

All of this, of course, is an off-topic distraction from the main point: if Badnarik is a "loonie" for saying the President can refuse to execute unconstitutional laws, then Story was, too.

So did I. The argument here is the process of decision, the details of which Story does not mention.





No, it doesn't, meaning that it is UP TO THE PRESIDENT TO DECIDE THAT FOR HIMSELF.
Which is what I have said. You seem to have no concept of differing levels of discretion. Story most likely did, but he wrote in a different era for an audience not as addled with the massive lack of practical understanding of legal and political concepts as you seem to be.

Just because a person has a decision does not mean that the person is to just act within his own opinion. There are times when a person acts by his own opinion, and times when the office demands that certain other criteria be employed.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by varwoche
Has concensus been reached that of the 3 examples cited, that only Jefferson/whisky tax is a pertinent?

Not EVEN that one, so far as I know. Jefferson convinced congress to repeal the act. It does not therefore follow as an example.

[TillEulenspiegel]

As I've stated before there are practical remedies provided for in the way our government is set up by design and in the Constitution.

To see how they work in the real world , look at Judge Moore on the judicial side and Gov.George Wallace of the executive side.

Any member of any of the three branches are also subject to sanction by impeachment as well.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Saying that intent somehow trumps content,

YOU'RE the one saying that, not me. I'm saying the content (i.e., that which contradicts the Constitution) trumps the intent (i.e., "honest disagreement," "deliberate twisting," or whatever the reason). I DON'T CARE WHY they passed it; if it violates the Constitution, and I'm President, I'm not executing that. It's as simple as that.

Did I not just type the words "he does?" Can you at least recognize an answer?

I want a definitive answer that you can't reasel out of later and call it an invalid assumption like you usually do. Is it the fact that you are saying, in my hypothetical scenario, that the President should (or, at least, could) choose the Supreme Law of the Land over the act of Congress?

As should be clear, this depends on other data not given. I have attempted to illustrate what data is necessary and what effect it will have. For some reason you call this evasion. [/b]

No, I call it evasion because ALL of your illustrations have to do with determining whether the act contradicts the Constitution, which I have GIVEN in the hypothetical!

No, you are refusing to accept any answer but the one you agree with.

WRONG, sir. I want you to give me a definitive answer that you can't weasel out of later.

Yes. It is not necessary. Thus it is a waste of time and resources.

:rolleyes:

I love the fact that you think supporting the Constitution is unnecessary...

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Now, I have not expressed myself as unwilling to answer it. I have not denied, either. Have I showed unwillingness? Well, you will have to prove that I did, and didn't simply not participate in that part of the discussion.

Even if you could weasel out of it then, you're certainly doing so now, in that the question has been directly posed to you, you have responded directly to that question, and failed to give an answer.

How do you suggest we tell the difference between "Refusing by not answering" and "Not partaking in the discussion"?

Because you WERE partaking in the discussion! You made, and continue to make, the argument that a President who would do so "oversteps his authority," that in doing so he "shows remarkably disrespect for it," or numerous other things I could quote. You took part in that discussion. You just skipped over the posts asking this question.

In the original statement to you in this thread, I said you had "avoided" the question. You RESPONDED with, "Where have I refused to answer it?" indicating you were using the word "refused" to be synonymous with "avoid." You did, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, avoid it. Just 'fess up and answer the question.

Will you answer the question or not?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by varwoche
And guess what shanek, in these threads, on the occasions when the signal to noise ratio is within my personal tolerance threshhold, I am a willing student. So carry on please.

Given Shanek's last twenty posts I have to ask...

How's that threshold holding up?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Nope, just that something like this contradicts you, you scream that it is just an argument from authority and it doesn't matter, etc.

Except that I am not employing an argument by authority. As I have already said at least three times now, if saying the President gets to refuse to execute laws that, in his estimation, violates the Constitution makes Badnarik a
"loonie," then it makes Joseph Story a "loonie" too. That is a proper and effective rebuttal. Bringing up jury nullification is just a desperate attempt to avoid the issue.

So did I. The argument here is the process of decision, the details of which Story does not mention.

But in the hypothetical I posed, the decision had already been determined. It DOES violate the Constitution. Can the President then choose not to execute that law?

Which is what I have said.

Then why won't you just answer straight? In the above scenario, the President is very much justified in not executing the law. Do you agree with this or not?

Just because a person has a decision does not mean that the person is to just act within his own opinion. There are times when a person acts by his own opinion, and times when the office demands that certain other criteria be employed.

Okay, what are these times when the "office" demands that he employ other criteria, who decides when those times are, what are those other criteria, and who has the power to impose those criteria on the President?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
YOU'RE the one saying that, not me. I'm saying the content (i.e., that which contradicts the Constitution) trumps the intent (i.e., "honest disagreement," "deliberate twisting," or whatever the reason). I DON'T CARE WHY they passed it; if it violates the Constitution, and I'm President, I'm not executing that. It's as simple as that.

Which is fine. I just have problems with your concept of "violates the constitution" as I think it is absurd.



I want a definitive answer that you can't reasel out of later and call it an invalid assumption like you usually do. Is it the fact that you are saying, in my hypothetical scenario, that the President should (or, at least, could) choose the Supreme Law of the Land over the act of Congress?
Yes. I am actually defending this very idea in the thread that you were too thin-skinned to follow. Where we part is how the determination is made.

:rolleyes:

I love the fact that you think supporting the Constitution is unnecessary...

I love the fact that you think that meaningless symbolism is a significant and worthwhile use of congressional time and resources. In this regard I see your reaction to this as barely a step above those that think that anyone not flying a flag from their car antannae is unpatriotic.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Not EVEN that one, so far as I know. Jefferson convinced congress to repeal the act.

He stopped enforcing the act before they repealed it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Which is fine. I just have problems with your concept of "violates the constitution" as I think it is absurd. [/B]

It's absurd that an act might violate the Constitution?

Where we part is how the determination is made.

Since I haven't made any claims about how the President should make the determination, merely that it should be left up to him to make the determination in the first place, I am completely at a loss to understand where you think we "part."

I love the fact that you think that meaningless symbolism

Enforcing the Constitution is "meaningless symbolism?" Actually showing the Constitutional justification for an act is "meaningless symbolism?"

If I have a contract with you, and I am requesting that you take an act under that contract, is it "meaningless symbolism" for me to actually cite the paragraph and clause that requires you to take that action?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Except that I am not employing an argument by authority.
Uh huh, so the screaming about Story being a supreme court justice was exactly what then?

As I have already said at least three times now, if saying the President gets to refuse to execute laws that, in his estimation, violates the Constitution makes Badnarik a
"loonie," then it makes Joseph Story a "loonie" too. That is a proper and effective rebuttal. Bringing up jury nullification is just a desperate attempt to avoid the issue.

I disagree based on the fact that, first of all, there is nothing to show that Story would share your concept of "in his estimation," and second, so what if Story is by today's standards a loonie? A lot of the older judges wrote opinions that would be shocking by today's standards...

Okay, what are these times when the "office" demands that he employ other criteria, who decides when those times are, what are those other criteria, and who has the power to impose those criteria on the President?

1) When he is acting in an enforcement capacity

2) The Constitution

3) Congress, who can sanction the president for violating the constitution.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Given Shanek's last twenty posts I have to ask...

How's that threshold holding up?

HOW IS THIS ANSWERING THE QUESTION!!?!?!?!

WHY DONT YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU ... YOU VIRGINIAN!!!!








just foolin... sorry...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Uh huh, so the screaming about Story being a supreme court justice was exactly what then?

One more nail in the "loonie" claim's coffin. If Story can't be considered a "loonie" for taking that position, then neither can Badnarik.

I disagree based on the fact that, first of all, there is nothing to show that Story would share your concept of "in his estimation,"

Um, excuse me?

If, for instance, the president is required to do any act, he is not only authorized, but required, to decide for himself, whether, consistently with his constitutional duties, he can do the act.

What does "decide for himself" mean?

so what if Story is by today's standards a loonie?

Then I want Claus and others who are calling Badnarik a "loonie" to acknowledge that. Either making this claim alone makes you a loonie or it doesn't; either way, they're both loonies, or neither one could be considered to be a loonie on this basis.

1) When he is acting in an enforcement capacity

Where is this capacity separated from the other executive powers?

2) The Constitution

Where?

3) Congress, who can sanction the president for violating the constitution.

Only by impeachment, and the Constitution specifically says that he can only be impeached for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Even if you could weasel out of it then, you're certainly doing so now, in that the question has been directly posed to you, you have responded directly to that question, and failed to give an answer.

No proof from you, then.

Originally posted by shanek
Because you WERE partaking in the discussion! You made, and continue to make, the argument that a President who would do so "oversteps his authority," that in doing so he "shows remarkably disrespect for it," or numerous other things I could quote. You took part in that discussion. You just skipped over the posts asking this question.

You seem to assume that I have to address each and every point you make, and answer each and every question you put (even to others).

In fact, you seem to demand that I pay attention to your every move. I'm sorry, shanek, but I do have other things in my life. I just don't appreciate having it thrown in my face that I refuse your questions.

Originally posted by shanek
In the original statement to you in this thread, I said you had "avoided" the question. You RESPONDED with, "Where have I refused to answer it?" indicating you were using the word "refused" to be synonymous with "avoid." You did, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, avoid it. Just 'fess up and answer the question.

There is nothing to "fess up" on. I asked where I had refused to answer it, and you could not show it, despite your later claim that I had.

Originally posted by shanek
Will you answer the question or not?

Like I told you: You lost me on that one.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
There is nothing to "fess up" on. I asked where I had refused to answer it, and you could not show it, despite your later claim that I had.

My claim was that you AVOIDED it; YOU introduced the word "refused." And, by your own admission, YOU DID AVOID IT, did you not?

Now, are you going to answer the question or not?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
He stopped enforcing the act before they repealed it.

So you say and I do not necessarily doubt you. Please provide a reference to him "refusing to enforce it". I sure the reference you provide will be referenced by other historical work and your use of the term "enforce" will be the typical one.

Why don't you pick a better example, something more recent. You've only been ranting in caps now for three pages. I salute you for not raising your fonts.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
My claim was that you AVOIDED it; YOU introduced the word "refused." And, by your own admission, YOU DID AVOID IT, did you not?

Now, are you going to answer the question or not?

Since this is the upteenth time you've posted that, I'll post this for the second time. Suddenly has answered your question. It does appear that you don't like the answer but nonetheless, there it is. You seem to be the only one that doesn't.

Such a rebel. If only you had a worthwhile cause.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek

Then I want Claus and others who are calling Badnarik a "loonie" to acknowledge that. Either making this claim alone makes you a loonie or it doesn't; either way, they're both loonies, or neither one could be considered to be a loonie on this basis.
As one of the "Badnarik is a loony" crowd, I don't recall anybody naming him a loony for this alone (though I'm willing to be shown wrong). There are many reasons for considering Badnarik a few cards short of a full deck, several of which has been cited more often than this.


Originally posted by shanek
the Constitution specifically says that he can only be impeached for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Don't you consider a presidents refusal to "faithfully execute" a law based by Congress a high crime or misdemeanour?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
My claim was that you AVOIDED it; YOU introduced the word "refused." And, by your own admission, YOU DID AVOID IT, did you not?

No. You are reading far, far too much into that. Why keep blaming me for that?

Originally posted by shanek
Now, are you going to answer the question or not?

If you are not going to clarify what you mean, then I cannot answer it. You can, of course, turn that into me refusing/avoiding/whatever the question. Do as you please.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kerberos
As one of the "Badnarik is a loony" crowd, I don't recall anybody naming him a loony for this alone (though I'm willing to be shown wrong). There are many reasons for considering Badnarik a few cards short of a full deck, several of which has been cited more often than this.

You are quite right. There are many reasons why Badnarik is a loonie.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
So you say and I do not necessarily doubt you. Please provide a reference to him "refusing to enforce it". I sure the reference you provide will be referenced by other historical work and your use of the term "enforce" will be the typical one.

I'll see if I can look up a direct historical reference soonish.

Why don't you pick a better example, something more recent.

Largely because it just hasn't seemed to happen much recently...here lately, it seems to be the President that's the source of much of the unconstitutional activities of government.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Since this is the upteenth time you've posted that, I'll post this for the second time. Suddenly has answered your question.

For reasons I have already given, he hasn't.

Such a rebel. If only you had a worthwhile cause.

Oh, yes, liberty and a Constiutional government is just such a meaningless cause... :rolleyes:

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by shanek
here lately, it seems to be the President that's the source of much of the unconstitutional activities of government.

But it's all in good causes, so we forgive him. Right?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
As one of the "Badnarik is a loony" crowd, I don't recall anybody naming him a loony for this alone (though I'm willing to be shown wrong).

Claus made the claim that Badnarik would be "overstepping his authority by declaring something to be unconstitutional" during a discourse to prove that he is a "loonie." Therefore, he is clearly stating that the President defending the Constitution in such a way is an indicator of "loonieness."

Don't you consider a presidents refusal to "faithfully execute" a law based by Congress a high crime or misdemeanour?

No; I consider actually committing a high crime or misdemeanor a high crime or misdemeanor.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No. You are reading far, far too much into that. Why keep blaming me for that?

So, you ARE denying that you have avoided the question?

If you are not going to clarify what you mean, then I cannot answer it.

I cannot clarify what I mean if you do not express to me the source of any confusion you have.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are quite right. There are many reasons why Badnarik is a loonie.

Is saying he will refuse to execute laws that violate the Constitution one of them?

[shanek]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
But it's all in good causes, so we forgive him. Right?

I don't.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by shanek
I don't.

I know. I can hear your teeth grinding from here.



It would be funnier if I weren't of the opinion that the Constitution has had its day and is going to be quietly ignored in more and more areas of American life. Oh, well. Nothing lasts forever, and we've had a good run for a couple of centuries. I expect life in the US will still be tolerable for a few more decades. Let's enjoy it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
So, you ARE denying that you have avoided the question?

I am denying that I avoided the question. I am denying that I refused to answer the question.

Is that clear now?

Originally posted by shanek
I cannot clarify what I mean if you do not express to me the source of any confusion you have.

So, you cannot clarify, because you don't know what you asked me?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek
Claus made the claim that Badnarik would be "overstepping his authority by declaring something to be unconstitutional" during a discourse to prove that he is a "loonie." Therefore, he is clearly stating that the President defending the Constitution in such a way is an indicator of "loonieness."
Perhaps it's stating that this a one reason for considering him a loony, but it's not stating that this is the sole, whole or sufficient reason for considering him a loony.


Originally posted by shanek
No; I consider actually committing a high crime or misdemeanor a high crime or misdemeanor.
So in your world the President can refuse to implement any law he chooses to, and Congress cannot legally impeach him?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kerberos
So in your world the President can refuse to implement any law he chooses to, and Congress cannot legally impeach him?

Very good question.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
How's that threshold holding up? Huh, pardon, speak up please...

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I am denying that I avoided the question. I am denying that I refused to answer the question.

Is that clear now?

Sure. Now, are you going to answer the question?

So, you cannot clarify, because you don't know what you asked me?

No, I cannot clarify, because you cannot tell me why what I asked you needs clarifying. Explain that to me, and I will gladly clarify.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Perhaps it's stating that this a one reason for considering him a loony, but it's not stating that this is the sole, whole or sufficient reason for considering him a loony.

So, it is, therefore, a property of "loonieness." So, then, Joseph Story must share this property of "looniness," too, right?

So in your world the President can refuse to implement any law he chooses to, and Congress cannot legally impeach him?

Not unless in so refusing he commits treason, bribery, or another high crime or misdemeanor.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by shanek
I have, and I am. If they're not the reply you would like, that's not my problem.
Uh...no, you have not replied. Most, if not all, of your examples of Presidents previously using this power of decreeing non-enforcement were wrong.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Sure. Now, are you going to answer the question?

What question??

Originally posted by shanek
No, I cannot clarify, because you cannot tell me why what I asked you needs clarifying. Explain that to me, and I will gladly clarify.

OK, you want to play games. Can't point to the question you want me to answer. Fine with me. I have other, fractionally more important things in my life. Like determining if my belly button lint contains encoded messages from Planet X.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by varwoche
Has concensus been reached that of the 3 examples cited, that only Jefferson/whisky tax is a pertinent?
No, shanek has yet to address my post.

[DanishDynamite]

shanek:

------------
Originally posted by varwoche
Has concensus been reached that of the 3 examples cited, that only Jefferson/whisky tax is a pertinent?
------------
I don't see how, as the alien and sedition act and the bank bill were both acts of Congress as well.
Answer not understood.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
No, shanek has yet to address my post.

Nor my request for the reference regarding Jefferson.

I think that one was wrong as well. I'm sure he'll provide a historically referenced website soon though.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Not EVEN that one, so far as I know. Jefferson convinced congress to repeal the act. It does not therefore follow as an example.
Ah, thanks. I wasn't sure what "repeal" meant, and thought it perhaps meant using this special power of the President.

So, "repeal" means something the US Congress does. What is it exactly?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by shanek
He stopped enforcing the act before they repealed it.
Evidence?

[TillEulenspiegel]

http://members.fortunecity.com/poetry7/argumentsketch.html

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Ah, thanks. I wasn't sure what "repeal" meant, and thought it perhaps meant using this special power of the President.

So, "repeal" means something the US Congress does. What is it exactly?

It means they pass a new law that says the old law is no longer a law. The process is exactly the same as with any other law created by the congress.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by shanek
Not unless in so refusing he commits treason, bribery, or another high crime or misdemeanor.
From this link: (http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/impeach1.htm)
Impeachment proceedings can be brought for any offence - there is no requirement in the Constitution that it can only be for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"; these are merely the circumstances under which removal from office is obligatory - although, because the process is so cumbersome and time-consuming, it is rarely used and is limited to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Nor my request for the reference regarding Jefferson.

I think that one was wrong as well. I'm sure he'll provide a historically referenced website soon though.
:) I'm sure he will.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
It means they pass a new law that says the old law is no longer a law. The process is exactly the same as with any other law created by the congress.
In which case the three examples from shanek of this Presidential power being used, have been shown to be less than stelar examples. In fact, unless shanek can show otherwise, they have been shown to be false.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Ah, thanks. I wasn't sure what "repeal" meant, and thought it perhaps meant using this special power of the President.

So, "repeal" means something the US Congress does. What is it exactly?

"Volstead Act Repealed"

Nullified. Overturned. "P*ss off, we made a mistake!" :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What question??

The question I asked in the very first post of this thread. Are you going to answer it or not?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
You're President. You are charged by the Constitution in Article II Section 3 with "tak[ing] Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." You have two laws before you. They are mutually exclusive, so contradictory that there's no way you can execute them both. It's one or the other. One of these is an act passed by Congress, and the other is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Which one are you going to execute?

The one passed by Congress. I'm not sure what the "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND" is. I mean we have the Constitution. Is "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND" the woo-woo term for the Constitution? Why do you have to capitalize everything?

Anyhow, Congress passes bills. The President either signs them into law, or vetos them. In this example, I guess I (as the President) would sign it into law.

I mean, most of us learned this is first or second grade. Perhaps you were out sick that day? It would explain a lot.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
From this link: (http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/impeach1.htm)

That's not what Hamilton said in Federalist #69:

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.

And it isn't what "Brutus" said in anti-Federalist #15:

The only clause in the constitution which provides for the removal of the judges from office, is that which declares, that "the president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." By this paragraph, civil officers, in which the judges are included, are removable only for crimes. Treason and bribery are named, and the rest are included under the general terms of high crimes and misdemeanors. — Errors in judgement, or want of capacity to discharge the duties of the office, can never be supposed to be included in these words, high crimes and misdemeanors. A man may mistake a case in giving judgment, or manifest that he is incompetent to the discharge of the duties of a judge, and yet give no evidence of corruption or want of integrity. To support the charge, it will be necessary to give in evidence some facts that will shew, that the judges commited the error from wicked and corrupt motives.

So, there both sides of the debate are disagreeing with your link.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Ah, thanks. I wasn't sure what "repeal" meant, and thought it perhaps meant using this special power of the President.

So, "repeal" means something the US Congress does. What is it exactly?

Others have answered this question; but I would point out that, while the President does not have the power to repeal laws passed by Congress, he does have the power to repeal executive orders.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
The one passed by Congress. I'm not sure what the "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND" is. I mean we have the Constitution. Is "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND" the woo-woo term for the Constitution?

No, the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution's term for the Constituion, as per Article VI Paragraph 2.

Why do you have to capitalize everything?

It's called "emphasis." Jefferson used caps for emphasis in the Declaration of Independence.

Anyhow, Congress passes bills. The President either signs them into law, or vetos them. In this example, I guess I (as the President) would sign it into law.

If it were signed into law by a previous President, you wouldn't have this option.

[DanishDynamite]

shanek:
That's not what Hamilton said in Federalist #69:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And it isn't what "Brutus" said in anti-Federalist #15:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only clause in the constitution which provides for the removal of the judges from office, is that which declares, that "the president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." By this paragraph, civil officers, in which the judges are included, are removable only for crimes. Treason and bribery are named, and the rest are included under the general terms of high crimes and misdemeanors. — Errors in judgement, or want of capacity to discharge the duties of the office, can never be supposed to be included in these words, high crimes and misdemeanors. A man may mistake a case in giving judgment, or manifest that he is incompetent to the discharge of the duties of a judge, and yet give no evidence of corruption or want of integrity. To support the charge, it will be necessary to give in evidence some facts that will shew, that the judges commited the error from wicked and corrupt motives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, there both sides of the debate are disagreeing with your link.
No they aren't. I'll restate what my link said, for your convenience:
Impeachment proceedings can be brought for any offence - there is no requirement in the Constitution that it can only be for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"; these are merely the circumstances under which removal from office is obligatory
This in no way contradicts your excerpts. In case you still don't understand, the key point here is the "removal from office" bit.

BTW, will you ever address my debunking of your examples in US history where Presidents made use of this special power?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
BTW, will you ever address my debunking of your examples in US history where Presidents made use of this special power? At present, this is the only thing that interests me. It's tangible. If the examples are bogus, the whole argument is bogus.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
This in no way contradicts your excerpts. In case you still don't understand, the key point here is the "removal from office" bit.

That makes NO sense. The WHOLE POINT of impeachment is removal from office. And the Constitution specifically says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." That's it. That's the whole of Article II Section 4. It gives NO OTHER WAY the President can be impeached.

Amendment 25 Section 4 does give another way the President can be removed from office, on the application of the VP and a majority of the principal officers, but that's hardly the same thing.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by shanek
That makes NO sense. The WHOLE POINT of impeachment is removal from office. And the Constitution specifically says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." That's it. That's the whole of Article II Section 4. It gives NO OTHER WAY the President can be impeached.

Amendment 25 Section 4 does give another way the President can be removed from office, on the application of the VP and a majority of the principal officers, but that's hardly the same thing.
Your limited understanding of the Constitution is sad to see.

Once again, for shanek, here is what my link said:
Impeachment proceedings can be brought for any offence - there is no requirement in the Constitution that it can only be for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"; these are merely the circumstances under which removal from office is obligatory
My highlighting.

Now, are you ever going to address my debunking of your examples?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by varwoche
At present, this is the only thing that interests me. It's tangible. If the examples are bogus, the whole argument is bogus.
For some reason shanek won't address these points. Odd.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Your limited understanding of the Constitution is sad to see.

Once again, for shanek, here is what my link said:

I don't care WHAT your LINK said. There's what the CONSTITUION says. And the Constitution DOES NOT allow for the impeachment of the President for any other reasons than treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. I have pointed out THE CONSTITUTION saying this, so your LINK is worthless.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
For some reason shanek won't address these points. Odd.

I have already given the reason: I want to be able to cite the historical texts to a level of detail that you people will accept.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by shanek
I don't care WHAT your LINK said. There's what the CONSTITUION says. And the Constitution DOES NOT allow for the impeachment of the President for any other reasons than treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. I have pointed out THE CONSTITUTION saying this, so your LINK is worthless.
Your opinion and a dollar will buy a cup of coffee.

Kindly show valid evidence that my link is wrong.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by shanek
I have already given the reason: I want to be able to cite the historical texts to a level of detail that you people will accept.
You have not even addressed my post.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Your opinion and a dollar will buy a cup of coffee.

Kindly show valid evidence that my link is wrong.

Already have: Article II Section 4. Your excuse that he could be impeached but not removed is easly rebutted by Article I Section 3 Paragraph 7: removal from office is all you can do with impeachment.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
I have already given the reason: I want to be able to cite the historical texts to a level of detail that you people will accept.

Surely you can find at least one website that backs up your claim. If not, start with a title and a library of congress number if you have it.

I'm pretty sure you know what the reference is. I'm pretty sure you would not have just made those ...er...facts up out of thin air.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Surely you can find at least one website that backs up your claim. If not, start with a title and a library of congress number if you have it.

All I can recall is the title: "A History of the United States" by Clarence B. Carson. It's a 5-volume history textbook, IMO the best one ever written. He details a lot of things other history texts gloss over or even leave out entirely. But since I don't have a copy of it on my own, it'll have to wait until I can get my hands on it again. IIRC, the ones I was talking about were covered in Volume 2.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
All I can recall is the title: "A History of the United States" by Clarence B. Carson. It's a 5-volume history textbook, IMO the best one ever written. He details a lot of things other history texts gloss over or even leave out entirely. But since I don't have a copy of it on my own, it'll have to wait until I can get my hands on it again. IIRC, the ones I was talking about were covered in Volume 2.

Let me get this right: You don't have a reference. You "recall" the title (correctly???) of a reference...maybe. You suggest he "details" things other books "glossed over" or "left out entirely".

I'm sure when you finally "get your hands" on a copy, and quote from it, you'll include the references he includes concerning Jefferson's refusal to execute the law.

You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath, though I'm sure you'd rather I do just that.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by shanek
Already have: Article II Section 4. Your excuse that he could be impeached but not removed is easly rebutted by Article I Section 3 Paragraph 7: removal from office is all you can do with impeachment.
Article II, section 3, paragrah 7:Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
My highlighting.

"Shall not extend further than removal"

So, the possible consequences of impeachment shall not go beyond removal from office. No lower limit that I can see.

And no limit to impeaching.

Try again, shanek.

And when are you going to address my debunking of your examples?

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Article II, section 3, paragrah 7:
My highlighting.

"Shall not extend further than removal"

So, the possible consequences of impeachment shall not go beyond removal from office. No lower limit that I can see.

Well, that's very tortured reasoning. What is there that's "lesser" than removal from office that is within the powers granted them by the Constituion?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, that's very tortured reasoning. What is there that's "lesser" than removal from office that is within the powers granted them by the Constituion?

You are correct, shanek. Clearly, unless the president is actually removed from office, no other "punishment" is possible. DD probably wouldn't know that because he's not culturally close to our form of government.

Now, have you got that reference handy?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek
So, it is, therefore, a property of "loonieness." So, then, Joseph Story must share this property of "looniness," too, right?
You're moving the goalposts, the issue was whether this alone made him a loony, and I don't recall anybody saying that.

Originally posted by shanek
Not unless in so refusing he commits treason, bribery, or another high crime or misdemeanor.
And what is a "high crime or misdemeanour"? Wouldn't refusing to execute his Constitutional obligations qualify? If yes then your much touted presidential power of not inforcing laws, extend only so far as Congress lets it. If no then you've basically made some very "interesting changes in article 2 section 3 of the Constitution the new revised adition would read something like:
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union if he wants to, and ...he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed unless he bloody well chooses not to".

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Article II, section 3, paragrah 7:
My highlighting.

"Shall not extend further than removal"

So, the possible consequences of impeachment shall not go beyond removal from office. No lower limit that I can see.
I'm sorry, but I'll have to agree with Shanek here. The absence of an explicit lower limit is IMO irrelevant, since it would be totally subjective if another penalty than removal is a lesser or greater punishment.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
And no limit to impeaching.
It's true that it's nowhere explicitly stated that they can't impeach him for anything they choose, but they aren't really given the power to do so anywhere either, and if they could impeach him for anything they could do so for a bad haircut if they choose to. I'd say that they can only impeach him for the crimes listed in the Constitution. The problem is of course what exactly is meant by "high crimes and misdemeanours" which seems rather broad to me. Shanek insist that it had a very specific meaning under common law, but AFAIR he never specified what this meaning was, let alone provide evidence for it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
The question I asked in the very first post of this thread. Are you going to answer it or not?

Perhaps.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
I don't care WHAT your LINK said. There's what the CONSTITUION says. And the Constitution DOES NOT allow for the impeachment of the President for any other reasons than treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. I have pointed out THE CONSTITUTION saying this, so your LINK is worthless.

Perhaps you could exemplify "other high crimes and misdemeanors"?

A "misdemeanor" is a minor crime, e.g. jaywalking, right?

A misdemeanor is a crime carrying a potential penalty of as little as one day in jail, irrespective of whether the person serves actual jail time.
Source (yes, from a gun site, woohoo!) (http://www.gunowners.org/fs9714.htm)

So, the President could be impeached for jaywalking.

(And please cut it out with the yelling. This is the Internet, not Jefferson. On the Internet, WRITING IN CAPS CONSTITUTES YELLING.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
You're moving the goalposts, the issue was whether this alone made him a loony, and I don't recall anybody saying that.

Then why was it included in a thread explaining why Badnarik is a "loonie"? It's either a criterion for being a loonie or it isn't. Which is it?

And what is a "high crime or misdemeanour"?

The term is straight out of British common law. In &sect;762 of his commentaries, Story said that they consisted of "gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, in the discharge of the duties of political office." It's basically a defensive measure to get rid of a dangerous President who is a threat to the security and liberty of the republic.

Wouldn't refusing to execute his Constitutional obligations qualify? If yes then your much touted presidential power of not inforcing laws, extend only so far as Congress lets it.

That makes no sense! His Constitutional obligations DO NOT EXTEND to executing laws that violate the Constitution! That's a contradiction in terms. In fact, should he so execute them, he would be in violation of his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and that arguably would be impeachable.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Perhaps you could exemplify "other high crimes and misdemeanors"?

A "misdemeanor" is a minor crime, e.g. jaywalking, right?

No, not in the meaning it had at the time the Constitution was written. See the above post.

(And please cut it out with the yelling. This is the Internet, not Jefferson. On the Internet, WRITING IN CAPS CONSTITUTES YELLING.)

ONLY IF AN ENTIRE SENTENCE IS IN CAPS. If it's only a COUPLE OF WORDS, it is EMPHASIS. It, along with the shouting thing, is a holdover from the text-only days when these things couldn't be properly stressed with italics or bold-face type. In this forum, quoted texts are automatically bold-faced, so that removes the use of bolding as an emphasizer. So I use caps for emhasis and italics for stress. Perfectly in line with netiquette.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Perhaps you could exemplify "other high crimes and misdemeanors"? You see, there was this blue dress...

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by Kerberos
It's true that it's nowhere explicitly stated that they can't impeach him for anything they choose, but they aren't really given the power to do so anywhere either, and if they could impeach him for anything they could do so for a bad haircut if they choose to. I'd say that they can only impeach him for the crimes listed in the Constitution. The problem is of course what exactly is meant by "high crimes and misdemeanours" which seems rather broad to me. Shanek insist that it had a very specific meaning under common law, but AFAIR he never specified what this meaning was, let alone provide evidence for it.
If the haircut was bad enough they could impeach him for it (on the grounds of imbecility--see below :) ), but they would have to suffer the political consequences in their home districts afterwards.
C-SPAN Capitol Questions (http://www.c-span.org/questions/week119.asp)

The Congress decides the definition: by majority vote in the House for impeachment, and by 2/3 vote in the Senate for conviction. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment. Then Representative Gerald Ford put it into practical perspective in 1970, when he said an impeachable offense is "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

"High crimes and misdemeanors" entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment -- treason and bribery -- were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered, and suggested adding the word "maladministration." Madison argued that term was too vague, so Mason then proposed "high crimes and misdemeanors," a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a "misdemeanor" meant "mis-demeanor,"or bad behavior (neglect of duty and corruption were given as examples), while "high crimes" was roughly equivalent to "great offenses."

Lawyers and historians are still arguing about the exact meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," dividing into three schools of thought about the appropriate definition: (1) serious criminality evidenced by breaking existing law; (2) an abuse of office, and (3) the Alexander Hamilton standard (Federalist 65) of "violation of public trust."
"'High Crimes and Misdemeanors'": Recovering the Intentions of the Founders (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/mcdowell.htm)

The use of the word "high" in "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was used to emphasize that it was a crime or misdemeanor against the commonwealth. The objects of impeachment, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "are those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to the injuries done immediately to the society itself."

Because such political offences are of "so various and complex a character" they do not admit of a simple list. To determine if particular political abuses rise to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" recourse must be had to the great common law tradition which the founders understood to be "the great basis of our jurisprudence." In the view of such men as Story and John Marshall, the common law was an indispensable "guide, and check, and expositor in the administration of the rights, duties, and jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution and law." A survey of the common law authorities to whom the founders looked for guidance, such as Sir William Blackstone, indicates that such "crimes against public justice," as "obstructing the execution of lawful process" and "willful and corrupt perjury" would in all likelihood have been understood by the founders as constituting "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" as used in the Constitution.

Further, the record fails to support the claim that impeachable offences are limited to only those abuses that occur in the official exercise of executive power. As seen in the authorities, impeachable offences, in both English and American history, have been understood to extend to "personal misconduct," violation of . . . trust," and "immorality and imbecility," among other charges. [my emphasis] It seems to me that the Libertarian emphasis(?) on this subject springs from some sort of fantasy that if they are able, by some miracle, to get their man into the Oval Office, he'll be able to declare half the government "unconstitutional." And the other branches won't have any say in the matter. For example, see Badnarik's plans for his first day in office [scroll down]: (http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2004/tle265-20040404-02.html)
a) Declare that all four national emergencies are immediately terminated, as well as the presumption of Emergency War Powers. ...

b) Declare that all 20,000+ gun control laws in the United States are unconstitutional and unenforceable....

c) Issue another valid executive order to my subordinates executives working for the IRS. That order would instruct them to come to work, make a pot of coffee, and begin working on their resumes' pending a federal grand jury investigation as to the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Internal Revenue Code. ...[Did I mention that Badnarik is a Tax Protestor who didn't pay his taxes for many years, until his campaign handlers straightened it out for him?]

d) Declare the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to be unconstitutional, and prohibit that organization from printing even one more dollar of fiat currency. ...

e) I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535 members would be required to sit through a special version of my Constitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congress understood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I would insist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped. Those videos could then be used as future evidence should they ever vote to violate the rights of Americans again.

f) I would take a short break for lunch.
The "Constitution class" is one of my favorites--someone needs to inform this "Constitutional scholar" about the concept of "separation of powers."

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
The "Constitution class" is one of my favorites--someone needs to inform this "Constitutional scholar" about the concept of "separation of powers."

HE understands it. YOU don't, or else you would realize that the President has the power to do ALL of the things he mentioned. Deferring to Congress or the Supreme Court, as others here have suggested or implied that he must do, IS a violation of the separation of powers.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Case in point.

So you believe he can "require" the Congress to sit through his class, and "insist" that they take his "oath"?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by varwoche
At present, this [the three historical examples] is the only thing that interests me. It's tangible. If the examples are bogus, the whole argument is bogus. Unless this thread is actually a post-modern review of the movie Groundhog Day, the three examples remain the only sub-topic of interest.

Other than unsupported opinion, is there any evidence that any of the three cited examples are pertinent?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
So you believe he can "require" the Congress to sit through his class,

Yes, under Article II, Section 3, Clause 2.

and "insist" that they take his "oath"?

It's not HIS oath, it's the CONSTITUTION'S oath, as per paragraph 3 of Article VI.

[shanek]

Originally posted by varwoche
Unless this thread is actually a post-modern review of the movie Groundhog Day, the three examples remain the only sub-topic of interest.

Other than unsupported opinion, is there any evidence that any of the three cited examples are pertinent?

No, it's actually irrelevant. A President doesn't have to have exercised the power in the past in order to have that power; so no matter what excuses you come up with against whatever examples I present none of it refutes the point of this thread.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, under Article II, Section 3, Clause 2.
You're a funny guy.
Under what circumstances can Presidents call a special session of Congress? (http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly67.asp)

Article II, section 3, of the Constitution grants the President authority to call for an extraordinary, or "special," session of Congress after it has already adjourned [he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them . . . ] However, while the President can force the Congress to meet he cannot force them to act. He can state the reason for his calling them into session and place before them and the nation his request. Congress would still retain the authority as an independent branch of government to act or not act on the President's request, and to transact other business if it so wishes. [my emphasis]
He can call a special session only if they are not already in session; and he can't force them to do diddly-squat.

It's not HIS oath, it's the CONSTITUTION'S oath, as per paragraph 3 of Article VI.
Fine, I'll rephrase: do you think Badnarik can force them to retake their oath of office?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
You're a funny guy.

He can call a special session only if they are not already in session; and he can't force them to do diddly-squat.


Fine, I'll rephrase: do you think Badnarik can force them to retake their oath of office?

I might vote for the dim-witt just to see what both or either house do when he tries to lecture him. My bet is that it would be quite embarrassing for him, and entertaining for the rest of the nation.

C-SPAN's ratings would certainly improve.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
He can call a special session only if they are not already in session;

It DOES NOT SAY THAT and you know it!!! Here's what the Constitution REALLY says in that clause:

he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;

It only says "extraordinary" Occasions, and leaves it UP TO THE PRESIDENT to decide when those "extraordinary" (meaning it doesn't happen often, not when extraordinary circumstances require it) occasions are. It says NOTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER about Congress not being in session when he does it.

Fine, I'll rephrase: do you think Badnarik can force them to retake their oath of office?

The Constitution says they have to take it; the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land; the President is given the power to execute the law. Sounds like it to me.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I might vote for the dim-witt just to see what both or either house do when he tries to lecture him. My bet is that it would be quite embarrassing for him, and entertaining for the rest of the nation.

Until people realize how little of what our government does is actually authorized by the Constitution. Unlike the political woo-woos on this forum, the people out there actually become OUTRAGED when they learn this. Just because your mind is so closed as to be bigoted to the reality of our Constitutional system of government, don't extend your failings to everyone else.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
It DOES NOT SAY THAT and you know it!!! Here's what the Constitution REALLY says in that clause:



It only says "extraordinary" Occasions, and leaves it UP TO THE PRESIDENT to decide when those "extraordinary" (meaning it doesn't happen often, not when extraordinary circumstances require it) occasions are. It says NOTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER about Congress not being in session when he does it.

So? It says nothing about his ability to dictate what they discuss, or who they allow, within that chamber. He has no business there unless invited by them. If the constitution says otherwise, please advise. Even with the state of the union, they invite him. He doesn't just show up willy-nilly.



Originally posted by shanek
The Constitution says they have to take it; the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land; the President is given the power to execute the law. Sounds like it to me.

They already have taken it upon taking office. There is no law that they have to take it twice. He can present such a law to the congress if he wants. And they can reject it, table it, or otherwise ignore it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
So? It says nothing about his ability to dictate what they discuss, or who they allow, within that chamber. He has no business there unless invited by them.

That is absolutely ridiculous. The Constitution gives him the power directly to convene them.

If the constitution says otherwise, please advise.

The Constitution doesn't HAVE to say otherwise. You are reading things into the document that aren't there.

He can present such a law to the congress if he wants. And they can reject it, table it, or otherwise ignore it.

It ALREADY IS A LAW!!! IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!! Geez... arguing around in circles with woo-woos is certainly frustrating...

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
Until people realize how little of what our government does is actually authorized by the Constitution. Unlike the political woo-woos on this forum, the people out there actually become OUTRAGED when they learn this. Just because your mind is so closed as to be bigoted to the reality of our Constitutional system of government, don't extend your failings to everyone else.

So since you can't refute the arguments and facts presented, you feel you must resort to arguments ofdire circumstances and ad homs?

Take it elsewhere dude. You don't scare me, and your insults I wear as a badge of honor.

[shanek]

By the way, here it is:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

No word WHATSOEVER about when or how many times they can be made to make affirmation. They're bound by it, always, for the entire term of their office.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
That is absolutely ridiculous. The Constitution gives him the power directly to convene them.

And nothing, is seems, beyond that. They set the agenda as they see fit. They could spend the session making making fun of him. I would. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.



Originally posted by shanek
The Constitution doesn't HAVE to say otherwise. You are reading things into the document that aren't there.

One of us is. I think it is you. It says he can convene them, nothing beyond that. Please feel free to make up stuff as you wish.



Originally posted by shanek
It ALREADY IS A LAW!!! IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!! Geez... arguing around in circles with woo-woos is certainly frustrating...

No, it is not the law. But perhaps if you chose a larger font, and colored it red, and THEN wrote in all caps, I might understand.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
By the way, here it is:



No word WHATSOEVER about when or how many times they can be made to make affirmation. They're bound by it, always, for the entire term of their office.

If they're bound to it always, for the entire term of office, then there's no law that requires them to retake it. You lose again.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
And nothing, is seems, beyond that. They set the agenda as they see fit.

The Constitution doesn't say that. The dictionary definition of convene is, "To summon to appear, as before a tribunal." That definitely implies a power over the meeting being convened.

One of us is. I think it is you. It says he can convene them, nothing beyond that. Please feel free to make up stuff as you wish.

I am making up NOTHING. YOU are.

No, it is not the law.

Yes, it is!!! Article VI Paragraph 2 makes that plain&mdash;it states it directly! It's the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND!

But perhaps if you chose a larger font, and colored it red, and THEN wrote in all caps, I might understand.

If you'd just stop denying reality, and actually READ THE CONSTITUTION, you'd understand...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
If they're bound to it always, for the entire term of office, then there's no law that requires them to retake it. You lose again.

You're just a woo-woo. They are ALWAYS bound to it. If we go by your "logic," then they're NEVER required to actually take it to begin with! Reductio ad absurdum.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek
Then why was it included in a thread explaining why Badnarik is a "loonie"? It's either a criterion for being a loonie or it isn't. Which is it?
Well for my money it really depends on how far you take it. If Badnarik really believes that he can repeal all gun laws, most tax laws and likely a bunch of other laws, without getting impeached so fast he won't know what hit him that definitely is a indication of loonieness. However my characterisation of Badnarik as a loony is based on the totality of his wacky standpoints not on one single issue.

Originally posted by shanek
The term is straight out of British common law. In &sect;762 of his commentaries, Story said that they consisted of "gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, in the discharge of the duties of political office." It's basically a defensive measure to get rid of a dangerous President who is a threat to the security and liberty of the republic.
It seems to me that refusing to execute his Constitutional obligations, would fit in nicely under gross neglect or usurpation.

Originally posted by shanek
That makes no sense! His Constitutional obligations DO NOT EXTEND to executing laws that violate the Constitution! That's a contradiction in terms. In fact, should he so execute them, he would be in violation of his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and that arguably would be impeachable.
What you seem unable to grasp is that Congress might not agree that the law is unconstitutional. They will se it as the president refusing to faithfully execute the laws, an offence which is most certainly impeachable. Do you agree that a refusal to execute constitutional laws would be an impeachable offence? If you do then this presidential veto-power over unconstitutional laws would be almost worthless, since Congress are the ones who have the power of impeachment, and thus are the ones who will decide whether the president was justified in refusing to execute the law.

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

Do you consider yourself smarter and more knowledgable than all other people here?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
The Constitution doesn't say that. The dictionary definition of convene is, "To summon to appear, as before a tribunal." That definitely implies a power over the meeting being convened.

No it doesn't. The dictionary example has no legal basis. If you can find some legal case, especially involving the congress, I might be willing to stop making fun of you. I suspect I'll get that right after I get the reference to Jefferson refusing to execute the law.

BTW, and to witt: Art I, Sect 5 Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Originally posted by shanek
I am making up NOTHING. YOU are.

One of us is. I think it is you.


Originally posted by shanek
Yes, it is!!! Article VI Paragraph 2 makes that plain&mdash;it states it directly! It's the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND!

Bigger fonts perhaps might help you make your moot point. Your interpretation of that law is far outside the norm. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise by citing S.C. cases that deal with this issue.



Originally posted by shanek
If you'd just stop denying reality, and actually READ THE CONSTITUTION, you'd understand...

Bigger fonts are again necessary. Otherwise I just won't get it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Well for my money it really depends on how far you take it. If Badnarik really believes that he can repeal all gun laws, most tax laws and likely a bunch of other laws,

He wouldn't be repealing them, just declaring them unconstitutional and refusing to enforce them. Which, as the only person in this thread who has actually bothered to answer the question has said, he has the power to do (albeit in a very roundabout way).

without getting impeached

Where did he say he thought he could do so without being impeached?

However my characterisation of Badnarik as a loony is based on the totality of his wacky standpoints not on one single issue.

Is the idea that the President can refuse to execute unconstitutional laws one of these "wacky standpoints"?

It seems to me that refusing to execute his Constitutional obligations, would fit in nicely under gross neglect or usurpation.

And how would he be doing that? Are you saying the President has a Constitutional obligaiton to excecute laws the Constitution doesn't even permit in the first place??

What you seem unable to grasp is that Congress might not agree that the law is unconstitutional.

No, I get that. So what?

Do you agree that a refusal to execute constitutional laws would be an impeachable offence?

Only if doing so amounts to a high crime or misdemeanor. So it depends on the law and the consequences of him refusing to execute it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
shanek,

Do you consider yourself smarter and more knowledgable than all other people here?

No, but I seem to be the only one willing to read the Constitution and go by what it actually says, not what I or some other bogus "authority" WANTS it to say. If you don't think that's the case, then ask yourself why am I the only one actually QUOTING the Constitution to defend my position?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
No it doesn't. The dictionary example has no legal basis. If you can find some legal case, especially involving the congress, I might be willing to stop making fun of you.

If you won't accept the plain words of the Constitution, then there's no point trying to convince you of ANYTHING. You're a COMPLETE woo-woo.

BTW, and to witt: Art I, Sect 5 Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Right. Now, what does that have to do with the President convening both houses? If it's not the President that governs the proceedings then such a case, then whom? Which house?

One of us is. I think it is you.

I'm the one backing up what I say with RELEVANT citations to the Constitution.

Bigger fonts perhaps might help you make your moot point.

It's NOT a moot point. You said the Constitution was NOT the law. It IS.

Your interpretation of that law

It's not my interpretation&mdash;IT'S WHAT IT SAYS!!!

is far outside the norm.

Argumentum ad populum.

Feel free to demonstrate otherwise by citing S.C. cases that deal with this issue.

Don't have to. The Supreme Court is not the interpreter of the Constitution, no matter what powers they've pretended to give themselves.

Bigger fonts are again necessary. Otherwise I just won't get it.

You won't get it no matter what. You're a complete woo-woo.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
No, but I seem to be the only one willing to read the Constitution and go by what it actually says, not what I or some other bogus "authority" WANTS it to say.

It appears that you consider any authority except you and those you support as bogus.

Originally posted by shanek
If you don't think that's the case, then ask yourself why am I the only one actually QUOTING the Constitution to defend my position?

You are not the only person reading it or quoting it. You are, however, the only one making things up about what the words mean. Like I said, quote legal examples of your position and you might improve. Talking in all caps helps too, I suppose.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
So? It says nothing about his ability to dictate what they discuss, or who they allow, within that chamber. He has no business there unless invited by them. If the constitution says otherwise, please advise. Even with the state of the union, they invite him. He doesn't just show up willy-nilly.
I have to agree with Shanek and Badnarik on most points.

the Constitution says Article 2 section 3:"He [the President] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper"

This gives him the power to convene Congress, and it also dictates that he can, and in fact must, instruct them on the state of the Union and recommend a course of action. I think that his constitutional course would fit in under giving Congress information on the state of the union (Badnarik stating that the Constitution is being violated on these and these points) and recommend such measures that he deems necessary and expedient (Badnarik explaining how the violations of the constitution that he thinks are taking place should be remedied).

The place where I think Badnarik got it wrong is that I don't think his power to convene Congress, allows him to force the individual members to attend. I think it most likely means that Congress will formally be in session and can thus make decisions, not that every member must attend.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
If you won't accept the plain words of the Constitution, then there's no point trying to convince you of ANYTHING. You're a COMPLETE woo-woo.

A woo-woo I might, or might not be, but I'm a voting woo-woo nonetheless.

Come up with some legal precedent that supports your interpretation and you might change my mind. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to make fun of you...and your candidate.

I'm sure you won't notice. It's not as if everyone else doesn't do that too.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
No, but I seem to be the only one willing to read the Constitution and go by what it actually says, not what I or some other bogus "authority" WANTS it to say. If you don't think that's the case, then ask yourself why am I the only one actually QUOTING the Constitution to defend my position?

Who is smarter and more knowledgable than you, then?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I have to agree with Shanek and Badnarik on most points.

the Constitution says Article 2 section 3:"He [the President] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper"

This gives him the power to convene Congress, and it also dictates that he can, and in fact must, instruct them on the state of the Union and recommend a course of action. I think that his constitutional course would fit in under giving Congress information on the state of the union (Badnarik stating that the Constitution is being violated on these and these points) and recommend such measures that he deems necessary and expedient (Badnarik explaining how the violations of the constitution that he thinks are taking place should be remedied).

The place where I think Badnarik got it wrong is that I don't think his power to convene Congress, allows him to force the individual members to attend. I think it most likely means that Congress will formally be in session and can thus make decisions, not that every member must attend.

Yours is an extrapulation based upon an interpretation that is in conflict with Art I, Sect 5.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it's actually irrelevant. A President doesn't have to have exercised the power in the past in order to have that power; so no matter what excuses you come up with against whatever examples I present none of it refutes the point of this thread. PARDON ME?

Do you realize that you are declaring your own argument irrelevant?

Thomas Jefferson refused to enforce the alien and sedition act and got rid of the whiskey tax, declaring them to be unconstitutional. Andrew Jackson dissolved the central bank, declaring it to be unconstitutional. No one at the time, not Congress, not the courts, not anyone, stood up and said, "Hey, you can't do that!"

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Yours is an extrapulation based upon an interpretation that is in conflict with Art I, Sect 5.
I just read art 1 sect 5, I don't see how it contradicts anything I said.

Edited to add: Also I don't se how I extrapolate anything, everything except the last bit, where I disagree with Badnarik seem to me to be exactly what the constitution says. The president can convene Congress, and he must inform them of the state of the union and recommend appropriate measures.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I just read art 1 sect 5, I don't see how it contradicts anything I said.

My position is that if each house has the constitutional authority to determine the rules of its proceedings (which I read as 'agenda'), then that agenda, or the rules of its proceedings, cannot be set by an outside source. I could be mistaken but that pretty much excludes even the president from addressing them if they deem him unworthing to do so.

They could, for example, require that he deliver his state of the union address in writing, and the same for any other 'considerations as he might think proper'.

Now, mine too is an extrapulation of an interpretation but I think mine is at least upheld, supported, by tradition. Ref the link provided by Mahatma Kane Jeeves. Is this the final word? Of course not. I'm willing to consider other sources.

It's still a silly argument, either way, but a somewhat fun one. There's no way a president is going to get elected and then intentionally, it would seem, belittle every single sitting member of congress.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
No, the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution's term for the Constituion, as per Article VI Paragraph 2.


But you didn't use all caps here. I wonder why?

Originally posted by shanek

It's called "emphasis." Jefferson used caps for emphasis in the Declaration of Independence.

How are we supposed to differentiate between your use of ALL CAPS for emphasis and your use of ALL CAPS during one of your hissy fits?

Originally posted by shanek

If it were signed into law by a previous President, you wouldn't have this option.

That is correct. And your point is.....??

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
It appears that you consider any authority except you and those you support as bogus.

There is no valid authority for the Constitution other than the Constitution itself. Insisting otherwise is to abandon skepticism and to refuse to examine the evidence directly.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
The place where I think Badnarik got it wrong is that I don't think his power to convene Congress, allows him to force the individual members to attend. I think it most likely means that Congress will formally be in session and can thus make decisions, not that every member must attend.

This is a good point. I don't see anything that gives the President the power to compel attendance or to sanction those who do not attend.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Who is smarter and more knowledgable than you, then?

Well, Suddenly is the first that comes to mind.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Yours is an extrapulation based upon an interpretation that is in conflict with Art I, Sect 5.

No, it isn't. Article I Section 5 deals with how each House manages its own proceedings. Obviously that logically does not apply to a joint meeting, let alone one convened by the President.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, Suddenly is the first that comes to mind.

...............and??

[shanek]

Originally posted by varwoche
PARDON ME?

Do you realize that you are declaring your own argument irrelevant?

That wasn't an argument. That was a response to a request for information.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
My position is that if each house has the constitutional authority to determine the rules of its proceedings (which I read as 'agenda'), then that agenda, or the rules of its proceedings, cannot be set by an outside source. I could be mistaken but that pretty much excludes even the president from addressing them if they deem him unworthing to do so.

They could, for example, require that he deliver his state of the union address in writing, and the same for any other 'considerations as he might think proper'.
It's a general rule of law that the more specific law or paragraph takes precedence over the less specific. That means that Congress' broad power of deciding its own agendam is overruled by the presidents specific right to make suggestions. Of course I don't see anything in the Constitution that dictates that his address must be oral so you're most likely correct that they could insist that he put his suggestions in written form. I didn't think of that possibility. I suppose congress might use their power to determine protocol to avoid his lecture, though I think that insisting that he delivers his address in written form, and then not read it, would be violating at least the spirit of the Constitution. On the other hand I don't think that the presidential power to convene Congress, was really meant to be used the way Badnarik intends to either.

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Now, mine too is an extrapulation of an interpretation but I think mine is at least upheld, supported, by tradition. Ref the link provided by Mahatma Kane Jeeves. Is this the final word? Of course not. I'm willing to consider other sources.
I think we may be misunderstanding each other, since I don't see anything in Kane's link that contradicts my position, quite the opposite since it says that "The President's rationale for calling an extraordinary Congress, although subject to public and political scrutiny, is not subject to challenge."
I'm not saying that Badnarik could force Congress to actually follow any of his suggestions, simply that he could convene Congress, and explain how he saw the state of the union and his suggestions for what should be done.

Originally posted by Rob Lister
It's still a silly argument, either way, but a somewhat fun one. There's no way a president is going to get elected and then intentionally, it would seem, belittle every single sitting member of congress.
Correction, there's no way a sane president is going to do that. It really would be great fun if Badnarik was elected, and I doubt that he could do permanent harm in the few weeks that would pass before he and his vice president was both impeached - perhaps you should vote him in. :p

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
My position is that if each house has the constitutional authority to determine the rules of its proceedings (which I read as 'agenda'), then that agenda, or the rules of its proceedings, cannot be set by an outside source.

That is certainly true; and if we were talking about the President setting the rules for how the House or Senate conducts its proceedings while in session then you would have a point. That would be a violation of the separation of powers. But that's NOT what we're talking about. We're talking about a JOINT session CONVENED BY THE PRESIDENT.

They could, for example, require that he deliver his state of the union address in writing,

There's nothing in the Constitution giving Congress the power to tell the President how he must conduct his Constitutional business. That would also be a violation of the separation of powers.

Now, mine too is an extrapulation of an interpretation but I think mine is at least upheld, supported, by tradition.

Tradition is meaningless as per Constitutional construction. It was tradition that no President served more than two terms, a tradition (which, like most of the others, including how the State of the Union is delivered to Congress, began with George Washington) that didn't have any power to stop FDR from serving multiple terms. It took a Constitutional amendment to force the issue. Tradition, when it comes to Constitutional law, is MEANINGLESS.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
...............and??

And what? I'm trying to have a discussion here, Claus. I don't have time for games.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Correction, there's no way a sane president is going to do that. It really would be great fun if Badnarik was elected, and I doubt that he could do permanent harm in the few weeks that would pass before he and his vice president was both impeached - perhaps you should vote him in. :p

If he's such fun, and such a kook, and wouldn't to any harm, and would quickly be replaced anyway, and he can't stand up to either of the other candidates, then why did they use the force of men with guns to stop him from entering the debates?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
And what? I'm trying to have a discussion here, Claus. I don't have time for games.

Then don't play any yourself.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
If he's such fun, and such a kook, and wouldn't to any harm, and would quickly be replaced anyway, and he can't stand up to either of the other candidates, then why did they use the force of men with guns to stop him from entering the debates?

Who are "they"? Who authorized them to use guns?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Then don't play any yourself.

And what games am I playing?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Who are "they"? Who authorized them to use guns?

The Democrat and Republican parties, through their front organization, the CPD.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3740146.stm

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
The Democrat and Republican parties, through their front organization, the CPD.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3740146.stm

Yeah, but...that's not the government, is it?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
And what games am I playing?

This game. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870637022&highlight=games)

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yeah, but...that's not the government, is it?

Did I say it was the government? No. I said the Democrat and Republican candidates.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
This game. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870637022&highlight=games)

Trying to get you to answer a perfectly straightforward question is a game?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Did I say it was the government? No. I said the Democrat and Republican candidates.

These are, I believe, private entities?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Trying to get you to answer a perfectly straightforward question is a game?

But you had no idea what "perfectly straightforward" question it was you wanted me to answer?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
These are, I believe, private entities?

Claus, you're so bigoted you just parrot the same non-answer no matter what the claim was.

THIS was the claim:

If he's such fun, and such a kook, and wouldn't to any harm, and would quickly be replaced anyway, and he can't stand up to either of the other candidates, then why did they use the force of men with guns to stop him from entering the debates?

I said what I meant. I said NOTHING about the government in that claim. YOU are the one playing games. YOU are the one obfuscating. YOU are the one trying to derail the thread instead of (for once) engaging in a rational debate.

You are a woo-woo and a bigot. Deal with it, Mr. Pseudo-skeptic.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But you had no idea what "perfectly straightforward" question it was you wanted me to answer?

GOD, YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR!!!

I TOLD YOU SEVERAL TIMES IT WAS THE QUESTION IN THE VERY FIRST QUESTION!!!!

SEE THIS, CLAUS??? THIS IS YELLING!!! BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO GET THROUGH YOUR BIGOTED, WOO-WOO MIND!!!

THE QUESTION WAS IN MY VERY FIRST POST, CLAUS!!!! THE ONE THAT STARTED THIS THREAD!!!!

You are a LIAR, Claus. And you know it, and so does everyone else here. Now, go ahead and write it off as a "hissy-fit." That's a lot easier than actually having to debate rationally.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
Claus, you're so bigoted you just parrot the same non-answer no matter what the claim was.

THIS was the claim:f he's such fun, and such a kook, and wouldn't to any harm, and would quickly be replaced anyway, and he can't stand up to either of the other candidates, then why did they use the force of men with guns to stop him from entering the debates?


No, that was not the claim, it is only your twisting of the claim.

The claim was by Kerberos:

Correction, there's no way a sane president is going to do that. It really would be great fun if Badnarik was elected, and I doubt that he could do permanent harm in the few weeks that would pass before he and his vice president was both impeached - perhaps you should vote him in.

Your claim of his claim was quite different. Your claim regarded someone that was handedly handled while trying to crash a party.

[varwoche]

From where I stand, the lack of a precedent, though not 100% determinitive, is hugely relevant.

Does anyone agree or disagree?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
No, that was not the claim,

That was MY claim.

Your claim of his claim was quite different. Your claim regarded someone that was handedly handled while trying to crash a party.

A "party" which he, by all rights, should have been to, and would have been even in a banana republic.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek
If he's such fun, and such a kook, and wouldn't to any harm, and would quickly be replaced anyway, and he can't stand up to either of the other candidates, then why did they use the force of men with guns to stop him from entering the debates?
Because it's a debate, not a comedy show. Quite aside from the fact that I wasn't really serious when I said that Badnarik wouldn't do any harm if elected (which you had no way of knowing of course), it in no way follows that Badnarik must be allowed to participate in the debates, just because he's a harmless kook. There are thousands if not millions of harmless kooks in US, and not a single one was allowed in the debates.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Because it's a debate, not a comedy show. Quite aside from the fact that I wasn't really serious when I said that Badnarik wouldn't do any harm if elected (which you had no way of knowing of course), it in no way follows that Badnarik must be allowed to participate in the debates, just because he's a harmless kook. There are thousands if not millions of harmless kooks in US, and not a single one was allowed in the debates.

But only one of them was on the ballot in the state of Arizona.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
I said what I meant. I said NOTHING about the government in that claim. YOU are the one playing games. YOU are the one obfuscating. YOU are the one trying to derail the thread instead of (for once) engaging in a rational debate.

You are a woo-woo and a bigot. Deal with it, Mr. Pseudo-skeptic.

If two private organizations, using their constitutional right to bear arms....do something which they deem is right....then, that is wrong, because it is in conflict with what you believe in?

"Yes" or "no" will do.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Because it's a debate, not a comedy show. Quite aside from the fact that I wasn't really serious when I said that Badnarik wouldn't do any harm if elected (which you had no way of knowing of course), it in no way follows that Badnarik must be allowed to participate in the debates, just because he's a harmless kook. There are thousands if not millions of harmless kooks in US, and not a single one was allowed in the debates.

err...actually your right. Neither of the kooks participating were harmless. But lets be realistic here. :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If two private organizations, using their constitutional right to bear arms....do something which they deem is right....then, that is wrong, because it is in conflict with what you believe in?

"Yes" or "no" will do.

That has NOTHING to do with what I claimed AND YOU KNOW IT. The question was, if Badnarik's just a harmless kook, why NOT let him debate so they can soundly thrash him?

It's only if they're afraid of him that they'll take forceful measures to stop him from debating.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by varwoche
From where I stand, the lack of a precedent, though not 100% determinitive, is hugely relevant.

Does anyone agree or disagree?

I agree completely. He promised to provide the reference someday but I'm not holding my breath. I think he made it up but perhaps he just misremembered it.

At any rate, he has since deemed (somewhere up the thread, I won't bother looking) those examples unimportant.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
GOD, YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR!!!

I TOLD YOU SEVERAL TIMES IT WAS THE QUESTION IN THE VERY FIRST QUESTION!!!!

SEE THIS, CLAUS??? THIS IS YELLING!!! BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO GET THROUGH YOUR BIGOTED, WOO-WOO MIND!!!

THE QUESTION WAS IN MY VERY FIRST POST, CLAUS!!!! THE ONE THAT STARTED THIS THREAD!!!!

You are a LIAR, Claus. And you know it, and so does everyone else here. Now, go ahead and write it off as a "hissy-fit." That's a lot easier than actually having to debate rationally.

This is far easier:

Originally posted by shanek
No, I cannot clarify, because you cannot tell me why what I asked you needs clarifying. Explain that to me, and I will gladly clarify.

Your post, I believe, is the first (close to) all-YELLING post from you. I am not sure if I should feel honored. But I do think I should advice you to LOWER YOUR VOICE, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT EXHIBITING THE BEHAVIOR THAT RANDI WANTS PEOPLE TO EXHIBIT HERE.

Clear?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek
But only one of them was on the ballot in the state of Arizona.
So what? I haven't done much research on Presidential debates, but it seems to me that Badnariks exclusion stems from the free choice of the various individuals involved. If you were anything but a Libertarian, you might object on the grounds that power was being misused, but if I understand Libertarianism correctly, you don't recognise that as a problem, unless it's government power that is misused.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
That has NOTHING to do with what I claimed AND YOU KNOW IT. The question was, if Badnarik's just a harmless kook, why NOT let him debate so they can soundly thrash him?

Because doing so would distract from their thrashing of each other. I'm sure the debates would have been more interesting however.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
That has NOTHING to do with what I claimed AND YOU KNOW IT. The question was, if Badnarik's just a harmless kook, why NOT let him debate so they can soundly thrash him?

It's only if they're afraid of him that they'll take forceful measures to stop him from debating.

No, no, no...you complain of private entities enforcing their constitutional rights to bear arms, because they prevent your political hero to appear in debates which they legally control, according to the Constitution.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
This is far easier:

No, it isn't, liar, because as you well know I was responding to YOUR accusation that I refused to "clarify" what I was talking about. I was talking about the question posed in the VERY FIRST POST of this thread. I asked you what more you could need clarifying. I told you that if you provided that, I would happily clarify. YOU FAILED TO DO SO.

Why don't you just ANSWER THE QUESTION? Or is that something only YOU get to demand of others?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, no, no...you complain of private entities enforcing their constitutional rights to bear arms, because they prevent your political hero to appear in debates which they legally control, according to the Constitution.

Answer the question, Liar.

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

Please.

What is your complaint regarding Badnarik not being able to attend the debates?

Is it because of a government body preventing him from attending the debates, using "guns"?

Or is it because of a non-government body preventing him from attending the debates, using "guns"?

And, really: Stop calling people liars, just because they disagree with you, and/or show your arguments to be invalid. With every such post, you only portray yourself as a raving loonie.

Step back for a second and see what the heck you are doing.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
shanek,

Please.

What is your complaint regarding Badnarik not being able to blah blah blah

Claus, the question is, if Badnarik is such an easy target, why would Bush and Kerry be so adamant about not debating him?

If you have no answer for it, just say so.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Claus, the question is, if Badnarik is such an easy target, why would Bush and Kerry be so adamant about not debating him?

If you have no answer for it, just say so.

You have been arguing all along that the reason why Badnarik was refused to enter the debates was because of "men with guns."

Who are these men? Are they government? Yes or no?

[hgc]

Gee whiz! I step away for a few days, and come back to find a 6-page thread with my name in the title. If only I had been here I could have been called a liar, bigot and pseudo-skeptic many times over, like Larsen (you bastard!).

I'll start with this question to Shane. Why is this question to ClausClaus, the question is, if Badnarik is such an easy target, why would Bush and Kerry be so adamant about not debating him?in any way releveant to Badnarik's right to participate in the debate?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You have been arguing all along that the reason why Badnarik was refused to enter the debates was because of "men with guns."

I have not argued that ONCE in this thread, Claus, and you know it. Now stop the derail and answer the question.

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
I'll start with this question to Shane. Why is this question to Clausin any way releveant to Badnarik's right to participate in the debate?

I really wish people could follow a simple argument...The question is WHY the Democrats and Republicans would NOT want Badnarik to debate with Bush and Kerry, if what the Badnarik detractors keep saying here is true?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Claus, you're so bigoted you just parrot the same non-answer no matter what the claim was.


So you are avoiding answering as to whether the CPD is a private entity or not.

You know the answer, but you don't want to say it, because it will destroy the entire house of cards you have built around these debates.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
GOD, YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR!!!

I TOLD YOU SEVERAL TIMES IT WAS THE QUESTION IN THE VERY FIRST QUESTION!!!!

SEE THIS, CLAUS??? THIS IS YELLING!!! BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO GET THROUGH YOUR BIGOTED, WOO-WOO MIND!!!

THE QUESTION WAS IN MY VERY FIRST POST, CLAUS!!!! THE ONE THAT STARTED THIS THREAD!!!!

You are a LIAR, Claus. And you know it, and so does everyone else here. Now, go ahead and write it off as a "hissy-fit." That's a lot easier than actually having to debate rationally.

HISSY FIT!!!!!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
That has NOTHING to do with what I claimed AND YOU KNOW IT. The question was, if Badnarik's just a harmless kook, why NOT let him debate so they can soundly thrash him?

It's only if they're afraid of him that they'll take forceful measures to stop him from debating.

This is the same arguement every tomato-can boxer in the history of pugilism has used - "If I'm such a tomato-can, then why is the champ afraid of me? Why not fight me so he can soundly thrash me?". It's a matter of time. Do they have to debate every "harmless loony"? Would the boxing champ have to fight every person on earth before he can be called the world champion?

I await your usual twisted "logic".

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by Kerberos
This gives him the power to convene Congress, and it also dictates that he can, and in fact must, instruct them on the state of the Union and recommend a course of action. I think that his constitutional course would fit in under giving Congress information on the state of the union (Badnarik stating that the Constitution is being violated on these and these points) and recommend such measures that he deems necessary and expedient (Badnarik explaining how the violations of the constitution that he thinks are taking place should be remedied).

I hadn't thought of the State of the Union as a loophole in this context. You could be right, but the power to convene is separate from the State of the Union instruction.
A House concurrent resolution sets aside the day and time for a joint session “for receiving such communication as the President of the United States shall be pleased to make to them� and is passed by both the House and Senate.[Source (http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Special_Exhibits/stateUnion.html) ]

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
I really wish people could follow a simple argument...The question is WHY the Democrats and Republicans would NOT want Badnarik to debate with Bush and Kerry, if what the Badnarik detractors keep saying here is true? I know that's the proximate question, and I suppose that they don't want him there for their own goddamn reasons.

What you failed to address is how the entire line of argument about why Kerry and Bush don't want to debate Badnarik is relevant to Badnarik's right, as posited by you, to participate in the debate.

Now it's your turn to try to follow a simple line of reasoning. I give you no better than Badnarik's chances of becoming president.

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
What you failed to address is how the entire line of argument about why Kerry and Bush don't want to debate Badnarik is relevant to Badnarik's right, as posited by you, to participate in the debate.

I "failed to address it" because it's NOT PART OF THE CLAIM!!!

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
I "failed to address it" because it's NOT PART OF THE CLAIM!!! Oh my. You are quite around the bend, aren't you?

I'll provide your quote that led us here (from prev page of this thread):If he's such fun, and such a kook, and wouldn't to any harm, and would quickly be replaced anyway, and he can't stand up to either of the other candidates, then why did they use the force of men with guns to stop him from entering the debates?So I ask again: Why is this relevant to the question of Badnarik's right, as posited by you, to participate in the debate?

[hgc]

Now to the real substance and point of this thread. I know it's been gone over much already, but since I missed most of the fun I'll get my jabs in now for what it's worth.

To quote Shane in his opening salvo:
...
First of all, a quick debunking that such an ability of the President would amount to "dictatorial power." This is clearly ridiculous for two reasons: 1) a dictator wouldn't be restricted by a Constitution to begin with,..
... What restriction is the constitution if you have unanswerable (except by impeachment) authority to interpret said constitution? None. That's the kind of power your and Badnarik's interesting take on the oath of office clause gives a president. If the president can interpret the constitutionality of legislative laws, then he is free to enforce them or not on his very own say-so. President comes into office and doesn't like an existing law, or has a law passed by veto override, then all he has to do say "don't like that law, it's not constitutional." Congress be damned.2).. a dictator would also wield legislative and judicial power, neither of which is obtained by the President merely deciding how to execute the law, which is his job under the Constitution.
...Interesting twist. The things Badnarik claims he will do on his first day are a lot more than "merely deciding how to execute the law." By pushing aside Congress' lawmaking authority and the Supreme Court's judicial authority, he becomes the supreme leader, unchecked and unbalanced.

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
I'll provide your quote that led us here (from prev page of this thread):So I ask again: Why is this relevant to the question of Badnarik's right, as posited by you, to participate in the debate?

It's not. THAT ISN'T THE QUESTION. That has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION. The question, WHICH NO ONE WANTS TO ANSWER, is WHY don't they want him to debate?

[shanek]

Originally posted by hgc
To quote Shane in his opening salvo:What restriction is the constitution if you have unanswerable (except by impeachment) authority to interpret said constitution? None.

Ridiculous, for reasons I've already stated: The President wields executive power, not legislative or judicial.

Why does the President have the power to execute every law EXCEPT the Supreme Law?

That's the kind of power your and Badnarik's interesting take on the oath of office clause gives a president. If the president can interpret the constitutionality of legislative laws, then he is free to enforce them or not on his very own say-so.

I have presented several sources, most notably Story's commentaries, showing that this just isn't so. Or are you HONESTLY saying that Story thought the President should weild supreme dictatorial power?

Interesting twist. The things Badnarik claims he will do on his first day are a lot more than "merely deciding how to execute the law."

No; that is EXACTLY what he is proposing.

By pushing aside Congress' lawmaking authority and the Supreme Court's judicial authority,

He isn't, and the very claim is absurd in the extreme. They ALL have to do with him EXECUTING the laws.

Are you going to answer the question?

[hgc]

Originally posted by shanek
It's not. THAT ISN'T THE QUESTION. That has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION. The question, WHICH NO ONE WANTS TO ANSWER, is WHY don't they want him to debate? They don't want him to debate because they don't view him as a serious candidate.

There. Answered. It was irrelevant in the first place, but you seem to place a whole hell of a lot of store in the question anyway. What did you think? That everyone else was afraid to give you an answer to such a ridiculously simple question?