Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Can the President ever be compelled to follow the Laws of this Nation?
As you can see, he is attempting to change the Laws he has already broken so that He and others can not be held accountable.

Ex Post Facto out the window? Interesting...

I admit that I did not know much about Signing Statements, but now it seems more and more along the lines of a line-item veto mixed with a Presidential middle finger.
Not too long ago, I read an article where several legal analysts actually researched Bush's actions and claims he's violated several hundred laws during his presidency.

[LostSoul3412]

Nathyn wrote: Not too long ago, I read an article where several legal analysts actually researched Bush's actions and claims he's violated several hundred laws during his presidency.

I wouldn't doubt it.

[John Galt]

Nathyn wrote: John Galt wrote: Nathyn wrote: bigstick61 wrote: However, since his duty is to uphold the Constitution, it would be a violation of his oath to execute such laws. In the other cases I entirely agree with you.
But only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret something as "unconstitutional."

Says WHO? Certianly not the Constitution. Then WHO has made you believe this lie?
Congress and the President can act in ways which are constitutional and unconstitutional, and should consider that.

But if, for example, the Supreme Court judged something as unconstitutional, neither Congress nor the President could claim the court's judgement is wrong and ignore it, or else there's no checks and balances.

If the President believes a law is unconstitutional, it's his duty to veto it. He can't pick-and-choose. This practice is recent.

Actually, no, you are not right. The Constitution does not make Supreme Court final arbitor. Only because people wrongly believe this is true does the President and the Congress not act.

But think about it, two branches have agreed, and one disagreed. Check and balances? Ha!

"The Court has made its decision -- now let it enforce it."
- Andrew "The Man" Jackson



As for this practice, the President is merely asserting his duty to defend the Constitution over these laws if there is some unforseen instance where if the law would be applied it would be in his view unconstitutional and that he would enforce the Constitution. He DOES NOT have to make these signing statements; he is stating truisms about the executive branch.

[pazzo83]

John Galt wrote: Nathyn wrote: John Galt wrote: Nathyn wrote: bigstick61 wrote: However, since his duty is to uphold the Constitution, it would be a violation of his oath to execute such laws. In the other cases I entirely agree with you.
But only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret something as "unconstitutional."

Says WHO? Certianly not the Constitution. Then WHO has made you believe this lie?
Congress and the President can act in ways which are constitutional and unconstitutional, and should consider that.

But if, for example, the Supreme Court judged something as unconstitutional, neither Congress nor the President could claim the court's judgement is wrong and ignore it, or else there's no checks and balances.

If the President believes a law is unconstitutional, it's his duty to veto it. He can't pick-and-choose. This practice is recent.

Actually, no, you are not right. The Constitution does not make Supreme Court final arbitor. Only because people wrongly believe this is true does the President and the Congress not act.

But think about it, two branches have agreed, and one disagreed. Check and balances? Ha!

"The Court has made its decision -- now let it enforce it."
- Andrew "The Man" Jackson



As for this practice, the President is merely asserting his duty to defend the Constitution over these laws if there is some unforseen instance where if the law would be applied it would be in his view unconstitutional and that he would enforce the Constitution. He DOES NOT have to make these signing statements; he is stating truisms about the executive branch.

Then who DOES the USC make the final arbitor wrt constitutionality? If the President can simply disregard a SC ruling, then what is the point of having the judiciary check the executive and legislative branches?

[John Galt]

pazzo83 wrote: John Galt wrote: Nathyn wrote: John Galt wrote: Nathyn wrote: bigstick61 wrote: However, since his duty is to uphold the Constitution, it would be a violation of his oath to execute such laws. In the other cases I entirely agree with you.
But only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret something as "unconstitutional."

Says WHO? Certianly not the Constitution. Then WHO has made you believe this lie?
Congress and the President can act in ways which are constitutional and unconstitutional, and should consider that.

But if, for example, the Supreme Court judged something as unconstitutional, neither Congress nor the President could claim the court's judgement is wrong and ignore it, or else there's no checks and balances.

If the President believes a law is unconstitutional, it's his duty to veto it. He can't pick-and-choose. This practice is recent.

Actually, no, you are not right. The Constitution does not make Supreme Court final arbitor. Only because people wrongly believe this is true does the President and the Congress not act.

But think about it, two branches have agreed, and one disagreed. Check and balances? Ha!

"The Court has made its decision -- now let it enforce it."
- Andrew "The Man" Jackson



As for this practice, the President is merely asserting his duty to defend the Constitution over these laws if there is some unforseen instance where if the law would be applied it would be in his view unconstitutional and that he would enforce the Constitution. He DOES NOT have to make these signing statements; he is stating truisms about the executive branch.

Then who DOES the USC make the final arbitor wrt constitutionality? If the President can simply disregard a SC ruling, then what is the point of having the judiciary check the executive and legislative branches?

There are judiciary checks, but deciding the Constitutionality of Federal legislation is not one of them. The enumeration of speicifc powers does not mean to imply that the powers of the people have otherwise been abridged and therefore the people themselves are final arbitors on Constitutional issues.

It's not really a check if 1 can override 2. That's what we call "tyranny", or specifically in this instance, the krytocracy.

[Nathyn]

John Galt wrote: Nathyn wrote: John Galt wrote: Nathyn wrote: bigstick61 wrote: However, since his duty is to uphold the Constitution, it would be a violation of his oath to execute such laws. In the other cases I entirely agree with you.
But only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret something as "unconstitutional."

Says WHO? Certianly not the Constitution. Then WHO has made you believe this lie?
Congress and the President can act in ways which are constitutional and unconstitutional, and should consider that.

But if, for example, the Supreme Court judged something as unconstitutional, neither Congress nor the President could claim the court's judgement is wrong and ignore it, or else there's no checks and balances.

If the President believes a law is unconstitutional, it's his duty to veto it. He can't pick-and-choose. This practice is recent.

Actually, no, you are not right. The Constitution does not make Supreme Court final arbitor. Only because people wrongly believe this is true does the President and the Congress not act.

But think about it, two branches have agreed, and one disagreed. Check and balances? Ha!

"The Court has made its decision -- now let it enforce it."
- Andrew "The Man" Jackson



As for this practice, the President is merely asserting his duty to defend the Constitution over these laws if there is some unforseen instance where if the law would be applied it would be in his view unconstitutional and that he would enforce the Constitution. He DOES NOT have to make these signing statements; he is stating truisms about the executive branch.
Oh yes, let's all join Andrew Jackson's military junta. Politicians don't need to follow the law. They have all the power!!!

[evilWombat]

Bush's signing statements are legal, so long as they are only statements. The Constitution does not recognize signing statements as carrying any formal force of law. If they are deemed relevant at all, they must be considered as executive orders rather than additions to Congress's laws. Basically, the President can say whatever he likes in a signing statement, but it does not become a part of our legal code.

The President can make all the signing statements he wants, but enforcement of these statements will make me very nervous.