|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
14th October 2004, 10:47 AM | #1 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
|
The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)
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? |
14th October 2004, 11:19 AM | #2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)
Quote:
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.) |
14th October 2004, 11:25 AM | #3 |
Poisoned Waffles
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
|
Re: The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)
Quote:
Ouch. My own cynicism is beginning to poison my bloodstream! |
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
14th October 2004, 11:30 AM | #4 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
|
Re: Re: The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)
Quote:
Quote:
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? |
14th October 2004, 11:30 AM | #5 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 17,528
|
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).
|
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
|
|
14th October 2004, 11:31 AM | #6 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
|
Quote:
|
14th October 2004, 11:57 AM | #7 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 17,528
|
Quote:
This post of mine from a different thread, posed as a question, summarizes my lay understanding:
Quote:
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.) |
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
|
|
14th October 2004, 12:05 PM | #8 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
|
Quote:
|
14th October 2004, 12:08 PM | #9 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
|
Quote:
|
14th October 2004, 12:12 PM | #10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
|
Re: The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
14th October 2004, 12:25 PM | #11 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Re: Re: The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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. |
14th October 2004, 12:57 PM | #12 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,752
|
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?
|
14th October 2004, 01:11 PM | #13 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
|
Re: Re: The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)
Quote:
Quote:
|
14th October 2004, 01:15 PM | #14 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
|
Quote:
Quote:
Why do I always get the feeling that you consider yourself superior to everybody else? |
14th October 2004, 01:16 PM | #15 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
|
Re: Re: Re: The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)
Quote:
|
14th October 2004, 01:17 PM | #16 |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,319
|
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. |
14th October 2004, 01:20 PM | #17 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et a
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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? |
14th October 2004, 01:22 PM | #18 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 172
|
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?
|
14th October 2004, 01:24 PM | #19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
|
Quote:
|
14th October 2004, 01:26 PM | #20 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
14th October 2004, 01:28 PM | #21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
|
Quote:
|
14th October 2004, 01:31 PM | #22 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
|
Quote:
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. |
14th October 2004, 01:34 PM | #23 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 172
|
Quote:
|
14th October 2004, 01:38 PM | #24 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
|
Quote:
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. |
14th October 2004, 01:38 PM | #25 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
14th October 2004, 01:40 PM | #26 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
|
Quote:
"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. |
14th October 2004, 01:44 PM | #27 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,346
|
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 |
14th October 2004, 01:45 PM | #28 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
|
Quote:
Answer it now, please. |
14th October 2004, 01:45 PM | #29 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
|
Quote:
Quote:
Unless you think not enforcing is equal to executing. Do you? |
14th October 2004, 01:46 PM | #30 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
|
Quote:
|
14th October 2004, 01:48 PM | #31 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
|
Quote:
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? |
14th October 2004, 01:49 PM | #32 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
|
Quote:
|
14th October 2004, 01:49 PM | #33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
|
Quote:
|
14th October 2004, 01:53 PM | #34 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
|
Quote:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...tid=1870589246 You only kept going on about:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
14th October 2004, 02:03 PM | #35 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
|
Quote:
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. |
14th October 2004, 02:05 PM | #36 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am getting INCREASINGLY worried that you will not be able to CONSTRAIN yourself at TAM3. |
14th October 2004, 02:09 PM | #37 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,752
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
14th October 2004, 02:09 PM | #38 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 576
|
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."
|
14th October 2004, 02:11 PM | #39 |
Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 172
|
Quote:
|
14th October 2004, 02:13 PM | #40 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
|
Quote:
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. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|