Political Crossfire Forums

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: If the law is unconstitutional in an application that is not stipulated, then that law should be vetoed and returned to congress with an explanation of what stipulation must be made for the law to become constitutional.

What if the context, situation, event, occurrence, or circumstance in which the operation of the law would be unconstitutional is unknown to the president at the time of signing? Is he still required to veto the bill?

If he is as uncertain as you suggest, the question should either be addressed in committee or sign it with the understanding as it is laid out in the Legislation.

The President has only TWO options, sign the bill into law or veto it. PERIOD.
That is what the Constitution says.

[Publius2006]

Medius wrote: Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: His actions were clearly unconstitutional

Medius:

What on earth are you talking about? The very impetus of the Prize Cases are Lincoln's conduct was not unconstitutional. Re-read the cases.

Quote: I see no basis for this to expand presidential powers when there are three fully functioning branches.


This was not an operative premise upon which the Prize cases rested their conclusion so I am quite simply mystified as to why you keep brining it up in relation to the Prize Cases.

Quote: We are talking about the expansion of presidential powers for the purpose of "National Security".


No we are talking about signing statements. Why don't you get on board and discuss the relevant issue as opposed to all of these tangential points you keep discussing?

Quote: No, we aren't. This is a matter of civil defense.

Another digression and ultimately erroneous fact. We are at war with Al Qaeda. In addition, Congress authorized the use of force and this was not granted because we are at peace. frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107.pdf

Quote: His signing statements are suspensions of the law, declared by the people through our representatives. We are talking about checks and balances here. The rights of the people are housed not only in the Bill of Rights but also in the balance of power. We the People have our interests bound in congress and our laws should not be ignored by anyone in this country except where the Judicial branch finds the law contrary to the constitution.

While I do think that the president is infringing upon our personal liberties, the real issue here is whether he can ignore a law because of "National Security" when there is no constitutional foundation for this.

No, NONE of this is an issue here. The issue is the use of signing statements not the antagonistic relationship between national security and individual rights. You are quite simply raising red herrings.

Quote: It was not my intention to make a strawman here, this was my understanding of your argument. As far as I can tell it still seems to be the core of your argument.

Then you have yet to understand my argument. My argument is not at all concerned with national security versus individual rights and liberties. My argument does not entertain any of the red herrings you illuminate for discussion here. Consequently, you have not grasped the core of my argument at all.

My argument has been and continues to be the signing statements are not necessarily unconstitutional depending on the "context" in which they are signed and based on my reading of the text of the U.S. Constitution. This is my argument and the issue. You are quite simply raising red herrings.

Quote: is not a reason to give the Executive Branch any powers beyond what is outlined directly in the constitution.

This is a great red herring. Perhaps you'd actually like to discuss the topic of signing statements?

Signing statements are not a power given to the Executive Branch in the Constitution of the United States. The taking of any additional powers by any branch of the federal government is an infringement upon those branches to whom the power was delegated by the constitution.

These signing statements aren't a 'clarification' or an explanation of 'enforcement' they are an outright change by inserting a stipulation which was not included into the law by the Legislative Branch. Additionally they leave no recourse to congress. If the law is unconstitutional in an application that is not stipulated, then that law should be vetoed and returned to congress with an explanation of what stipulation must be made for the law to become constitutional.

Exactly. I could not have said it better myself.

[Jimmy Madison]

Quote: f he is as uncertain as you suggest, the question should either be addressed in committee or sign it with the understanding as it is laid out in the Legislation.


Okay so you have a disagreement with the use of signing statements. Do you dispute the authority of the president to refuse to enforce and follow ANY law he believes is unconstitutional in some context?

[John Galt]

Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: f he is as uncertain as you suggest, the question should either be addressed in committee or sign it with the understanding as it is laid out in the Legislation.


Okay so you have a disagreement with the use of signing statements. Do you dispute the authority of the president to refuse to enforce and follow ANY law he believes is unconstitutional in some context?

A follow up: Can a different President refuse to enforce legislation if he believes it unconstitutional?

As for the committee thing, I am sorry, we don't have a crystal ball. Stuff happens, things change. COMPELETLY UNFORSEEABLE is COMPLETELY UNFORSEEABLE. What if something that was plainly constitutional in all known uses suddenly shows its unconstituional aspects. Is a President who signed it forced into violating the Constitution and his oath of office to appease this view of yours?

[Norrin Radd]

Publius2006 wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: John Galt wrote: Publius2006 wrote: However, in the Federalist Papers it is explicitly stated that the power of judicial review was intended for the Supreme Court, and that this power was merely implied.

Where?

Also, how is it "explict" AND "implied"?

Yes, I would like to see this also.

In the writings of Jefferson, Hugo Black and others, they believed the Supreme Court was the weakest branch of government and that there is nothing in the constitution which gives them the power to decide all things constitutional.


Federalist #16 (concerning the passage of unconstitutional laws by the legislature)

"If the judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature, they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional and void."

This is straight from the pen of the founding fathers who framed the constitution. Therefore it should be obvious that, although judicial review was not discussed in the constitution, it was very much so intended to exist by those who created it.

Obvious huh?

Gee, were there any founding fahters who took a different view?

House of Representatives in 1789 James Madison said:

"I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the judicial; but I beg to know upon what principle it can he contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another, in marking out the limits of the powers of the several departments."

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."

—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny."

--Patrick Henry

More quotes from Famous, well respected people...........

"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be fixed by decisions of the supreme Court, then the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."
--Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:

Chief Justice Marlin T. Phelps, Arizona supreme Court:
"Nothing was further from the minds of the Framers of the Constitution, than that the supreme Court should ever make the Supreme Law of the Land."

Prof. Abram Chayes, Harvard law school:
"[Judicial action in the last two decades] adds up to a radical transformation of the role and function of the judiciary in American life. Its chief function now is as a catalyst of social change with judges acting as planners of large scale."

Prof. William Forrester, Cornell law school:
"The Court has assumed, gradually, the role of deciding the problems on its own and ...the American people and their selected officials gradually have accepted the Court as the political instrument for lawmaking."

Prof. Edward S. Corwin:
"[Attorneys have been] prone to identify the judicial version of the Constitution as the authentic Constitution."


"For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scarecrow; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please."--Jefferson

"In many cases, the decisions of the Executive and Legislative departments, thus made, become final and conclusive, being from their very nature and character incapable of revision. Thus, in measures exclusively of a political, Legislative, or Executive character, it is plain that as the supreme authority as to these questions belongs to the Legislative and Executive departments, they cannot be re-examined elsewhere." US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

"Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over the Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive."
Andrew Jackson

If any broad, unlimited power to hold laws unconstitutional because they offend what this Court conceives to be the "[collective] conscience of our people" is vested in this Court by the Ninth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or any other provision of the Constitution, it was not given by the Framers, but rather has been bestowed on the Court by the Court...........Use of any such broad, unbounded judicial authority would make of this Court's members a day-to-day constitutional convention."

---Justice Hugo Black in his Griswold dissent

There are many other quotes, but I don't have time to look them all up right now. Common sense dictates that if the framers had wanted the Supreme Court to have so much power, the justices would never had been life apointments.

As Jefferson said........

"The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow,) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and little to-morrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one." Thomas Jefferson. 1821. p. 181. Platt, Suzy, ed. Respectfully Quoted—A Dictionary of Quotations from the Library of Congress. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1989.

--Letter to Charles Hammond, Aug 18, 1821

There are many other quotes, especially from Jefferson as he lived long enough to see the Judiciary usurp their power and he was enough of an expert on liberty to see the dangers.

ONE last quote from Jefferson.........

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies
were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of
the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way
they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency
of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold
and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to
concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the
public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law
by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of
the constitution, and working its change by construction, before
any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm
has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth,
man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all
liability to account."

-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Monsieur A. Coray, 31 October 1823)

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: f he is as uncertain as you suggest, the question should either be addressed in committee or sign it with the understanding as it is laid out in the Legislation.


Okay so you have a disagreement with the use of signing statements. Do you dispute the authority of the president to refuse to enforce and follow ANY law he believes is unconstitutional in some context?

Is He willing to show just cause ?
Many seem to be of the opinion that if the President exclaims that something is unconstitutional, it therefore must be.
Is it too much to ask for the President to show the preciseness of unconstitutionality?

Besides, the President is charged with either signing into Law the legislation in question or
he must Veto it in total and send the bill and his constitutional concerns back to Congress.

Perhaps if President Bush had issued 800 VETO's, Congress would have been shown to be inept and have been forced to write Legislation which would pass Constitutional muster.

Try ' "statement on signing" AND construe'
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/index.html

Search Database: Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (2006)

[1]

pd30de05 Statement on Signing the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental

[2]

pd16ja06 Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

[3]

pd19jn06 Statement on Signing the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act

[4]

pd17jy06 Statement on Signing the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act

[5]

pd30de05 Statement on Signing the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services

[6]

pd13mr06 Statement on Signing the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act

[7]

pd13fe06 Statement on Signing the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

[8]

pd29my06 Statement on Signing the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act

[9]

pd16ja06 Statement on Signing the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/2001.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/2002.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/2003.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/2004.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/2005.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wcomp/2006.html

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php

[Jimmy Madison]

Quote: Is He willing to show just cause ?
Many seem to be of the opinion that if the President exclaims that something is unconstitutional, it therefore must be.
Is it too much to ask for the President to show the preciseness of unconstitutionality?


Pray do tell where the President needs to show just cause? Or is this just a personal preference you possess?

Quote: Besides, the President is charged with either signing into Law the legislation in question or
he must Veto it in total and send the bill and his constitutional concerns back to Congress.


Will you ever answer the question or continue your avoidance of having to give an answer? If at the time of signing President X cannot foresee any instance in which the law would be unconstitutional, but 3 years later such a context develops, can the President refuse to enforce the law in said context?

[Medius]

Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: If the law is unconstitutional in an application that is not stipulated, then that law should be vetoed and returned to congress with an explanation of what stipulation must be made for the law to become constitutional.

What if the context, situation, event, occurrence, or circumstance in which the operation of the law would be unconstitutional is unknown to the president at the time of signing? Is he still required to veto the bill?

If it were unknown then there would not be a signing statement. By putting the signing statement on the law, it is exhibiting advanced knowledge of one or more applications of such law being unconstitutional.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: Is He willing to show just cause ?
Many seem to be of the opinion that if the President exclaims that something is unconstitutional, it therefore must be.
Is it too much to ask for the President to show the preciseness of unconstitutionality?


Pray do tell where the President needs to show just cause? Or is this just a personal preference you possess?

Quote: Besides, the President is charged with either signing into Law the legislation in question or
he must Veto it in total and send the bill and his constitutional concerns back to Congress.


Will you ever answer the question or continue your avoidance of having to give an answer? If at the time of signing President X cannot foresee any instance in which the law would be unconstitutional, but 3 years later such a context develops, can the President refuse to enforce the law in said context?

Dear Jimmy, how often must it be repeated before you will understand what the Constitution says?
Quote: Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;
If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.
If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.


Medius is right when stating: "If it were unknown then there would not be a signing statement. By putting the signing statement on the law, it is exhibiting advanced knowledge of one or more applications of such law being unconstitutional."

President Bush and the Republican Leadership consistently call for UP or DOWN votes yet, when the Constitution mandates that the ONLY manner in which the President has authority with regards to Legislation is either signing the proposed bill into LAW or Vetoing it and returning it to the responsible body with his objections, he fails to do so.
That is patently unconstitutional.
These Signing Statements are in fact the Presidents Objections yet, he is not following the Constitution.

[Medius]

Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: Is He willing to show just cause ?
Many seem to be of the opinion that if the President exclaims that something is unconstitutional, it therefore must be.
Is it too much to ask for the President to show the preciseness of unconstitutionality?


Pray do tell where the President needs to show just cause? Or is this just a personal preference you possess?

Quote: Besides, the President is charged with either signing into Law the legislation in question or
he must Veto it in total and send the bill and his constitutional concerns back to Congress.


Will you ever answer the question or continue your avoidance of having to give an answer? If at the time of signing President X cannot foresee any instance in which the law would be unconstitutional, but 3 years later such a context develops, can the President refuse to enforce the law in said context?

While he might not need to show just cause, disobeying the laws of our nation is an impeachable offense.

Lets take one example of where the President is unfounded in his application of a signing statement. It is the President's opinion that congress is not allowed to restrict the Executive Branch from the use of torture. So lets see the constitutional powers:

Legislative Powers wrote: To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

Seems to me that congress is well within their power to limit how the military conducts their activities. Surely the President is the highest strategic commander when it comes to the method of waging war, however, he must work within the rules set forth by congress regarding rules of captures, engagement, and punishment.

If congress says that our military will not take part in torture, then they cannot legally do so, even under the direct command of the President. I don't see how he has any constitutional objection to a law that is directly within the congressional scope of powers.

Lets look at the Presidential scope of powers regarding the military.

Presidential Powers wrote: The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

Funny how the "when called into the actual service of the United States" gets lost as if it had no meaning. However, even this being the case, the president is only given the power of commander in chief. I don't see anything in there about "and may do whatever he wants in cases of National Security".

[Jimmy Madison]

Quote: Medius is right when stating: "If it were unknown then there would not be a signing statement. By putting the signing statement on the law, it is exhibiting advanced knowledge of one or more applications of such law being unconstitutional."


No, Medius' reasoning rests upon a false dilemma. He erroneously assumes a signing is used solely for the purpose of expressing known constitutional objections. If, however, it is true a signing statement is used to merely assert a Presiden'ts power to not follow or enforce a law which MAY or MAY not be unconstitutional in some UNSPECIFIED context in the future, then Medius argument falls apart and in fact has done so. Some of President Bush's signing statements do not admit of IMMEDIATE or KNOWN constitutional objections at the time of signing but rather are nothing more than CONTINGENCY/HYPOTHETICAL/CONDITIONAL CLAUSES, stipulating, If X, then Y. Which renderd Medius' point, and your support for it, weak.

Quote: Dear Jimmy, how often must it be repeated before you will understand what the Constitution says?


Is this a joke? The following excerpt from your post does not answer my question. My query: If at the time of signing President X cannot foresee any instance in which the law would be unconstitutional, but 3 years later such a context develops, can the President refuse to enforce the law in said context?

Your reply: Quote: Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;
If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.
If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Great! The only problem is I do not think YOU know what the Constitution says because this part of the text DOES NOT answer my question. Try again.

Quote: These Signing Statements are in fact the Presidents Objections yet, he is not following the Constitution.

Wrong again Richard. Some of the President's Signing Statements are not objections but rather CONDITIONAL/HYPOTHETICAL/CONTIGENCY statements. President Bush CANNOT make an objection when the OBJECTION is UNKNOWN and has not manifested itself. A point you keep missing.

The text of the U.S. Constitution, which you keep citing, asserts the President shall note his "objections". The very text of the U.S. Constitution, a text you hysterically insinuate I do not grasp, ASSUMES the President KNOWS the objections. A President CANNOT place into writing his objections when the situation, context, event, or occurrence which would cause the OBJECTION is unknown and has not manifested itself, ergo, the OBJECTION is unknown to the President and the Objection has not manifested itself in such a way for one to be cognizance of it. Once again this is a point you do not seem to comprehend.

So perhaps you can actually answer the question without resorting to some text of the U.S. Constitution which does not answer the question and additionally, you have demonstrated a lack of understanding the text itself.

[Jimmy Madison]

Quote: If it were unknown then there would not be a signing statement. By putting the signing statement on the law, it is exhibiting advanced knowledge of one or more applications of such law being unconstitutional.

False dilemma Medius. The signing statements can and are used for much more than you assume here. Your conditional of If X, then Y, NOT Y therefore, NOT X, is translated as follows. There is a signing statement, therefore, it is known to the President. You erroneously assume a signing is used solely for the purpose of expressing known constitutional objections. If, however, it is true a signing statement is used to merely assert a Presiden'ts power to not follow or enforce a law which MAY or MAY not be unconstitutional in some UNSPECIFIED context in the future, then your argument falls apart and in fact has done so. Some of President Bush's signing statements do not admit of IMMEDIATE or KNOWN constitutional objections at the time of signing but rather are nothing more than CONTINGENCY/HYPOTHETICAL/CONDITIONAL CLAUSES, stipulating, If X, then Y.

[Publius2006]

Norrin Radd wrote: Publius2006 wrote: Norrin Radd wrote: John Galt wrote: Publius2006 wrote: However, in the Federalist Papers it is explicitly stated that the power of judicial review was intended for the Supreme Court, and that this power was merely implied.

Where?

Also, how is it "explict" AND "implied"?

Yes, I would like to see this also.

In the writings of Jefferson, Hugo Black and others, they believed the Supreme Court was the weakest branch of government and that there is nothing in the constitution which gives them the power to decide all things constitutional.


Federalist #16 (concerning the passage of unconstitutional laws by the legislature)

"If the judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature, they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional and void."

This is straight from the pen of the founding fathers who framed the constitution. Therefore it should be obvious that, although judicial review was not discussed in the constitution, it was very much so intended to exist by those who created it.

Obvious huh?

Gee, were there any founding fahters who took a different view?

House of Representatives in 1789 James Madison said:

"I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the judicial; but I beg to know upon what principle it can he contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another, in marking out the limits of the powers of the several departments."

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."

—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny."

--Patrick Henry

More quotes from Famous, well respected people...........

"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be fixed by decisions of the supreme Court, then the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."
--Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:

Chief Justice Marlin T. Phelps, Arizona supreme Court:
"Nothing was further from the minds of the Framers of the Constitution, than that the supreme Court should ever make the Supreme Law of the Land."

Prof. Abram Chayes, Harvard law school:
"[Judicial action in the last two decades] adds up to a radical transformation of the role and function of the judiciary in American life. Its chief function now is as a catalyst of social change with judges acting as planners of large scale."

Prof. William Forrester, Cornell law school:
"The Court has assumed, gradually, the role of deciding the problems on its own and ...the American people and their selected officials gradually have accepted the Court as the political instrument for lawmaking."

Prof. Edward S. Corwin:
"[Attorneys have been] prone to identify the judicial version of the Constitution as the authentic Constitution."


"For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scarecrow; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please."--Jefferson

"In many cases, the decisions of the Executive and Legislative departments, thus made, become final and conclusive, being from their very nature and character incapable of revision. Thus, in measures exclusively of a political, Legislative, or Executive character, it is plain that as the supreme authority as to these questions belongs to the Legislative and Executive departments, they cannot be re-examined elsewhere." US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

"Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over the Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive."
Andrew Jackson

If any broad, unlimited power to hold laws unconstitutional because they offend what this Court conceives to be the "[collective] conscience of our people" is vested in this Court by the Ninth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, or any other provision of the Constitution, it was not given by the Framers, but rather has been bestowed on the Court by the Court...........Use of any such broad, unbounded judicial authority would make of this Court's members a day-to-day constitutional convention."

---Justice Hugo Black in his Griswold dissent

There are many other quotes, but I don't have time to look them all up right now. Common sense dictates that if the framers had wanted the Supreme Court to have so much power, the justices would never had been life apointments.

As Jefferson said........

"The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow,) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and little to-morrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one." Thomas Jefferson. 1821. p. 181. Platt, Suzy, ed. Respectfully Quoted—A Dictionary of Quotations from the Library of Congress. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1989.

--Letter to Charles Hammond, Aug 18, 1821

There are many other quotes, especially from Jefferson as he lived long enough to see the Judiciary usurp their power and he was enough of an expert on liberty to see the dangers.

ONE last quote from Jefferson.........

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies
were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of
the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way
they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency
of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold
and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to
concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the
public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law
by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of
the constitution, and working its change by construction, before
any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm
has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth,
man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all
liability to account."

-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Monsieur A. Coray, 31 October 1823)

First of all, I believe that simply one quote from Jefferson would have been sufficient.

Second, if you had read one of my latter posts in which I admitted that it was a "stretch of faith to assume that because Hamilton believed in the idea of judicial review, that all of the other members of the convention did as well," then you would have seen that your post was a bit unnecessary.

Third, I must say that I object to your considering Andrew Jackson as a well respected person, especially when it comes to the powers of the Supreme Court and the system of checks and balances. :)

Also, it seems to me as though a great many of the quotes you cited (particularly the more modern ones) were dealing more with the issue of judicial activism, which is different and more controversial than judicial review.

Finally, in response to your claim that if the founding fathers had wanted the judiciary to have such "expansive" powers that they never would have given them life terms, I must say that I disagree. The reason that founding fathers gave Supreme Court justices such terms is to insulate them from public opinion and prevent types of judicial activism, not because they felt that the courts were the weakest branch (which most of them did believe, though, at the time.)

[Medius]

Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: If it were unknown then there would not be a signing statement. By putting the signing statement on the law, it is exhibiting advanced knowledge of one or more applications of such law being unconstitutional.

False dilemma Medius. The signing statements can and are used for much more than you assume here. Your conditional of If X, then Y, NOT Y therefore, NOT X, is translated as follows. There is a signing statement, therefore, it is known to the President. You erroneously assume a signing is used solely for the purpose of expressing known constitutional objections. If, however, it is true a signing statement is used to merely assert a Presiden'ts power to not follow or enforce a law which MAY or MAY not be unconstitutional in some UNSPECIFIED context in the future, then your argument falls apart and in fact has done so. Some of President Bush's signing statements do not admit of IMMEDIATE or KNOWN constitutional objections at the time of signing but rather are nothing more than CONTINGENCY/HYPOTHETICAL/CONDITIONAL CLAUSES, stipulating, If X, then Y.

If they were unspecified then they wouldn't be signed onto the bill. I think most of his signing statements are very clear in saying that "This law doesn't apply to the Executive Branch". If he knows it does not apply then the law is bunk and should be vetoed and sent back.

If the reasoning were to truly be unknown, then the president wouldn't need to put a signing statement on the law. He knows full well as to what applications of these laws are in question and makes this clear by attempting to nullify the law under these applications with these signing statements.

[GTTofAK]

Medius wrote: Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: If it were unknown then there would not be a signing statement. By putting the signing statement on the law, it is exhibiting advanced knowledge of one or more applications of such law being unconstitutional.

False dilemma Medius. The signing statements can and are used for much more than you assume here. Your conditional of If X, then Y, NOT Y therefore, NOT X, is translated as follows. There is a signing statement, therefore, it is known to the President. You erroneously assume a signing is used solely for the purpose of expressing known constitutional objections. If, however, it is true a signing statement is used to merely assert a Presiden'ts power to not follow or enforce a law which MAY or MAY not be unconstitutional in some UNSPECIFIED context in the future, then your argument falls apart and in fact has done so. Some of President Bush's signing statements do not admit of IMMEDIATE or KNOWN constitutional objections at the time of signing but rather are nothing more than CONTINGENCY/HYPOTHETICAL/CONDITIONAL CLAUSES, stipulating, If X, then Y.

If they were unspecified then they wouldn't be signed onto the bill. I think most of his signing statements are very clear in saying that "This law doesn't apply to the Executive Branch". If he knows it does not apply then the law is bunk and should be vetoed and sent back.

If the reasoning were to truly be unknown, then the president wouldn't need to put a signing statement on the law. He knows full well as to what applications of these laws are in question and makes this clear by attempting to nullify the law under these applications with these signing statements.

And if the congress overrides the Presidents veto, is the law now suddenly constitutional? Is the power of congress absolute? Is the President required to violate his oath of office?

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Medius, I'm afraid all Jimmy Madison can offer to this debate is a hypothetical straw-man argument rather than a clear reading of the Constitution.

Perhaps it is people like him that the President finds comfort in because they too think the Constitution is just a G#d D@mn piece of paper?

This theory of the Unitary executive is really troubling.
Quote: In American political and legal discourse, the unitary executive theory is a controversial theory of Constitutional interpretation that addresses aspects of the separation of powers. The theory argues that the power of Congress to divest the President of control of the executive branch is limited.

I believe this question of it's validity should be resolved prior to the next election of a US President.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

GTTofAK wrote: Medius wrote: Jimmy Madison wrote: Quote: If it were unknown then there would not be a signing statement. By putting the signing statement on the law, it is exhibiting advanced knowledge of one or more applications of such law being unconstitutional.

False dilemma Medius. The signing statements can and are used for much more than you assume here. Your conditional of If X, then Y, NOT Y therefore, NOT X, is translated as follows. There is a signing statement, therefore, it is known to the President. You erroneously assume a signing is used solely for the purpose of expressing known constitutional objections. If, however, it is true a signing statement is used to merely assert a Presiden'ts power to not follow or enforce a law which MAY or MAY not be unconstitutional in some UNSPECIFIED context in the future, then your argument falls apart and in fact has done so. Some of President Bush's signing statements do not admit of IMMEDIATE or KNOWN constitutional objections at the time of signing but rather are nothing more than CONTINGENCY/HYPOTHETICAL/CONDITIONAL CLAUSES, stipulating, If X, then Y.

If they were unspecified then they wouldn't be signed onto the bill. I think most of his signing statements are very clear in saying that "This law doesn't apply to the Executive Branch". If he knows it does not apply then the law is bunk and should be vetoed and sent back.

If the reasoning were to truly be unknown, then the president wouldn't need to put a signing statement on the law. He knows full well as to what applications of these laws are in question and makes this clear by attempting to nullify the law under these applications with these signing statements.

And if the congress overrides the Presidents veto, is the law now suddenly constitutional? Is the power of congress absolute? Is the President required to violate his oath of office?

How does this Unitary executive theory settle the dilemma you present?

Quote: The judicial branch implications are that no part of the executive branch can sue another part because "the executive cannot sue himself." If the federal courts were to adjudicate disputes between executive agencies, it would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.
~snip~
The Justice Department has used the unitary executive theory to decide that the Environmental Protection Agency may not bring a legal suit against the U.S. military, since there would be only one party in the suit: the president.

What need is there for a Representative Government comprised of Congressional Representatives if this theory holds water?

[Norrin Radd]

Publius2006 wrote:
This is straight from the pen of the founding fathers who framed the constitution. Therefore it should be obvious that, although judicial review was not discussed in the constitution, it was very much so intended to exist by those who created it.


First of all, I believe that simply one quote from Jefferson would have been sufficient.

Second, if you had read one of my latter posts in which I admitted that it was a "stretch of faith to assume that because Hamilton believed in the idea of judicial review, that all of the other members of the convention did as well," then you would have seen that your post was a bit unnecessary.

Third, I must say that I object to your considering Andrew Jackson as a well respected person, especially when it comes to the powers of the Supreme Court and the system of checks and balances. :)

Also, it seems to me as though a great many of the quotes you cited (particularly the more modern ones) were dealing more with the issue of judicial activism, which is different and more controversial than judicial review.

Finally, in response to your claim that if the founding fathers had wanted the judiciary to have such "expansive" powers that they never would have given them life terms, I must say that I disagree. The reason that founding fathers gave Supreme Court justices such terms is to insulate them from public opinion and prevent types of judicial activism, not because they felt that the courts were the weakest branch (which most of them did believe, though, at the time.)

First of all, Jefferson was one of the greatest thinkers on liberty who ever lived...in my opinion.

Second of all, you used the word obvious, which in my opinion was ridiculous.

Third of all, you admit that most of the founding fathers believed the supreme court was the weakest branch of government, yet you seem to support judicial review.

While some people might see a diference between judicial review and judicial activism, I do not. One leads to the other and this is what Jefferson tried to warn us about, which is why I posted so many quotes from him.

Although Jefferson was not a part of the drafting of the consitution, he was one of the most respected founding fathers, as almost all of them knew that no one spent more time reading, discussing and reflecting on what is needed to protect liberty.

Lastly, I do not believe my post was unnecessary, as many people have never read the quotes I posted from Jefferson before, as well as the other quotes. Also, I would like to know why you do not believe Jackson was a respected person. He was the last president who fought hard against the banks. I respect him a lot. Why don't you?

[Jimmy Madison]

Quote: Medius, I'm afraid all Jimmy Madison can offer to this debate is a hypothetical straw-man argument rather than a clear reading of the Constitution.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This is the joke of the month. You couldn't render a clear reading of the U.S. Constitution if all of the Framers were present to help you. Which explains why you cannot adequately answer the question.

So let's review shall we because you are having some difficulty following the progression of the dialogue.

You said:

Quote: The President has only TWO options, sign the bill into law or veto it. PERIOD.
That is what the Constitution says.

To which I accepted as a valid reading of the U.S. Constitution as it relates to the President signing a bill into law. I have italicized this language because the part of the U.S. Constitution you keep relying upon is in regards to the SIGNING OF A BILL INTO LAW and not my next question.

I asked, "Do you dispute the authority of the president to refuse to enforce and follow ANY law he believes is unconstitutional in some context?

To which you replied in the following manner. Quote: Is He willing to show just cause ?
Many seem to be of the opinion that if the President exclaims that something is unconstitutional, it therefore must be.
Is it too much to ask for the President to show the preciseness of unconstitutionality?


Somehow you think you have answered the question by asking questions. Furthermore, your questions make no sense at all because no such burden exists on the President at all other than this is nothing more than a preference you possess.

Then you follow up with the following remark. Quote: Besides, the President is charged with either signing into Law the legislation in question or
he must Veto it in total and send the bill and his constitutional concerns back to Congress.


No, this still does not answer my question of, "Do you dispute the authority of the president to refuse to enforce and follow ANY law he believes is unconstitutional in some context?

So to this point you have failed to answer my question. Instead you have presented a host of questions and relied upon a paraphrase of the text of the U.S. Constitution which has absolutely NOTHING to do with my question but the procedure for signing a bill into law or vetoing it.

After I made this point unequivocally clear you proceed with the same flawed modus operandi as before under the delusion you are answering the question with the following retort.

Quote: Dear Jimmy, how often must it be repeated before you will understand what the Constitution says?

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;
If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.
If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. :lol: :lol:

Not one word, combination of words to form a phrase, combination of words to make a sentence, or run-on sentences in this part of the U.S. Constitution ANSWERS my question of, drum roll please, Do you dispute the authority of the president to refuse to enforce and follow ANY law he believes is unconstitutional in some context?

NOTHING IN SECTION 7, NO LANGUAGE IN SECTION 7, addresses, answers, implies an answer, infers an answer, or explicitly gives an answer to my question of, "Do you dispute the authority of the president to refuse to enforce and follow ANY law he believes is unconstitutional in some context?

In fact it is deplorably laughable you even suggest the contrary. Then you have the audacity to make these remarks.

Quote: Medius, I'm afraid all Jimmy Madison can offer to this debate is a hypothetical straw-man argument rather than a clear reading of the Constitution.


This remark coming from a guy who has just repeatedly relied on a part of the U.S. Constitution which contains NO LANGUAGE, PHRASE, SENTENCE, or REASONING to answer my question. Which demonstrates to me YOU, not me, not Medius, not Galt, not GTT of AK, cannot read the plain language of the U.S. Constitution.

However, your jokes are entertaining and all of us here needed the laugh. Where do I leave you a tip? [/b]

[Jimmy Madison]

Quote: Medius, I'm afraid all Jimmy Madison can offer to this debate is a hypothetical straw-man argument rather than a clear reading of the Constitution.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This is the joke of the month. You couldn't render a clear reading of the U.S. Constitution if all of the Framers were present to help you. Which explains why you cannot adequately answer the question.

So let's review shall we because you are having some difficulty following the progression of the dialogue.

You said:

Quote: The President has only TWO options, sign the bill into law or veto it. PERIOD.
That is what the Constitution says.

To which I accepted as a valid reading of the U.S. Constitution as it relates to the President signing a bill into law. I have italicized this language because the part of the U.S. Constitution you keep relying upon is in regards to the SIGNING OF A BILL INTO LAW and not my next question.

I asked, "Do you dispute the authority of the president to refuse to enforce and follow ANY law he believes is unconstitutional in some context?

To which you replied in the following manner. Quote: Is He willing to show just cause ?
Many seem to be of the opinion that if the President exclaims that something is unconstitutional, it therefore must be.
Is it too much to ask for the President to show the preciseness of unconstitutionality?


Somehow you think you have answered the question by asking questions. Furthermore, your questions make no sense at all because no such burden exists on the President at all other than this is nothing more than a preference you possess.

Then you follow up with the following remark. Quote: Besides, the President is charged with either signing into Law the legislation in question or
he must Veto it in total and send the bill and his constitutional concerns back to Congress.


No, this still does not answer my question of, "Do you dispute the authority of the president to refuse to enforce and follow ANY law he believes is unconstitutional in some context?

So to this point you have failed to answer my question. Instead you have presented a host of questions and relied upon a paraphrase of the text of the U.S. Constitution which has absolutely NOTHING to do with my question but the procedure for signing a bill into law or vetoing it.

After I made this point unequivocally clear you proceed with the same flawed modus operandi as before under the delusion you are answering the question with the following retort.

Quote: Dear Jimmy, how often must it be repeated before you will understand what the Constitution says?

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;
If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.
If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. :lol: :lol:

Not one word, combination of words to form a phrase, combination of words to make a sentence, or run-on sentences in this part of the U.S. Constitution ANSWERS my question of, drum roll please, Do you dispute the authority of the president to refuse to enforce and follow ANY law he believes is unconstitutional in some context?

NOTHING IN SECTION 7, NO LANGUAGE IN SECTION 7, addresses, answers, implies an answer, infers an answer, or explicitly gives an answer to my question of, "Do you dispute the authority of the president to refuse to enforce and follow ANY law he believes is unconstitutional in some context?

In fact it is deplorably laughable you even suggest the contrary. Then you have the audacity to make these remarks.

Quote: Medius, I'm afraid all Jimmy Madison can offer to this debate is a hypothetical straw-man argument rather than a clear reading of the Constitution.


This remark coming from a guy who has just repeatedly relied on a part of the U.S. Constitution which contains NO LANGUAGE, PHRASE, SENTENCE, or REASONING to answer my question. Which demonstrates to me YOU, not me, not Medius, not Galt, not GTT of AK, cannot read the plain language of the U.S. Constitution.

However, your jokes are entertaining and all of us here needed the laugh. Where do I leave you a tip?