Proud fans of a 132-year old tradition

It is currently Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:23 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: OT: Obamacare Ruled Constitutional
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:28 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 12321
Substitute2 wrote:
I don't disagee with the notion that the national government has taken over in almost all phases of power and states have been greatly diminished. To prevent 50 countries from being created, the consolidation of power is a natural evolution of our federal system. Don't see any viable option outside of dissolving our country.

How about this: Follow the Constitution.

Substitute2 wrote:
One area that is especially offensive to me is "exectutive orders" from the President. It makes the executive branch have legislative powers that surely weren't intended in the constitution. When did anyone give them power to enforce or not enforce parts of laws they don't like? And why has the SC not dealt with that issue?

The Supreme Court has struck down executive orders just twice in more than 225 years. The reason for this is respect between the branches of government, as the Supreme Court does not like to countermand the fashion in which the President executes his functions.

Or so they say. I suspect that the real reason the Supreme Court is hesitant to challenge Executive orders can be explained by Stalin's comment about the Pope's criticisms: "How many divisions does he have?"

The Supreme Court relies on the Executive branch to enforce its orders. The Supreme Court therefore is going to avoid a fight with the executive branch, whenever possible.

Substitute2 wrote:
Here's another: The War powers Act was passed to limit the executive branch from conducting long wars without congress declaring them as wars. It, of course came after Vietnam (a police action) was never a declared war. So, why hasn't this law been before the SC for validation yet?

The War Powers Act is almost certainly unconstitutional. The Constitution prevents Congress from granting the executive branch authority, while retaining the right to take away that power or dictate how the power is used. Doing so is termed a "legislative veto."

If Congress grants the Executive branch the authority to conduct a war, then Congress may take away that authority only by passing a new law and presenting it to the President for signature. If the President vetoes it, then Congress needs to override the veto.

I therefore suspect that potential litigants are dissuaded from taking the War Powers Act to the Federal Court of Appeals or Supreme Court because they have been advised that it will likely be deemed unconstitutional.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 111 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits