ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


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.
Tags libertarianism , michael badnarik

Reply
Old 14th October 2004, 10:47 AM   #1
shanek
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?
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 11:19 AM   #2
Suddenly
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)

Quote:
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.)
  Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 11:25 AM   #3
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 58,080
Re: The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)

Quote:
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!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 11:30 AM   #4
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Re: Re: The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 11:30 AM   #5
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 15,273
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.
My authority is total - Trump
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 11:31 AM   #6
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
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?
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 11:57 AM   #7
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 15,273
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.)
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
My authority is total - Trump
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 12:05 PM   #8
Rob Lister
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
Quote:
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.
Rob Lister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 12:08 PM   #9
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by varwoche
Not quite, your post mischaracterizes my stance (somewhat).
Okay, thank you for clarifying.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 12:12 PM   #10
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Re: The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 12:25 PM   #11
Suddenly
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Re: Re: The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)

Quote:
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.
Quote:



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.

Quote:


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.
  Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 12:57 PM   #12
DanishDynamite
Penultimate Amazing
 
DanishDynamite's Avatar
 
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?
DanishDynamite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:11 PM   #13
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Re: Re: The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)

Quote:
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.

Quote:
[blah blah blah blah]
Answer the question, Claus.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:15 PM   #14
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:16 PM   #15
Rob Lister
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
Re: Re: Re: The Constitution and the President (for CFLarsen, hgc, varwoche, et al)

Quote:
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.
Rob Lister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:17 PM   #16
HarryKeogh
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.
HarryKeogh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:20 PM   #17
shanek
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:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
To allow the executive to simply disregard the decision of the court
Nothing is being "disregarded."

Quote:
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.

Quote:
To give a President a free hand to ignore the courts
Again, I'm not doing that.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:22 PM   #18
Otther
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?
Otther is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:24 PM   #19
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:26 PM   #20
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by CFLarsen
What question?
The question in the very first post. The one you have avoided in other threads.

Quote:
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:28 PM   #21
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:31 PM   #22
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
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.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:34 PM   #23
Otther
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 172
Quote:
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?
Otther is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:38 PM   #24
Rob Lister
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
Quote:
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.
Rob Lister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:38 PM   #25
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
The question in the very first post. The one you have avoided in other threads.
This one?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:40 PM   #26
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
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.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:44 PM   #27
CBL4
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
CBL4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:45 PM   #28
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
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.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:45 PM   #29
Rob Lister
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
...In each of those [branches] is the power to stop the enforcement of a law. ...the executive can simply not enforce it,...
This seems to directly contradict:

Quote:
...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?
Rob Lister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:46 PM   #30
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by CBL4
[b]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 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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:48 PM   #31
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
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?
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:49 PM   #32
Rob Lister
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
Quote:
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.
Rob Lister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:49 PM   #33
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Quote:
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?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 01:53 PM   #34
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by CFLarsen
Specific thread, please?
Here's one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...tid=1870589246

You only kept going on about:

Quote:
shanek,

Is it OK for a President to break the law?
And even after I said:

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 02:03 PM   #35
Rob Lister
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
Quote:
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.
Rob Lister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 02:05 PM   #36
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
Here's one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...tid=1870589246
I am terribly sorry, but where, exactly, did I refuse to answer the question?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 02:09 PM   #37
DanishDynamite
Penultimate Amazing
 
DanishDynamite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,752
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
Thomas Jefferson refused to enforce the alien and sedition act...
From this link:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek
Andrew Jackson dissolved the central bank, declaring it to be unconstitutional.
From this random link:
Quote:
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.
DanishDynamite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 02:09 PM   #38
Sushi
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."
Sushi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 02:11 PM   #39
Otther
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 172
Quote:
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.
Otther is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2004, 02:13 PM   #40
Rob Lister
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,504
Quote:
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.
Rob Lister is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:09 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.