Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 02 Mar '11 17:38
    Originally posted by sh76
    The executive should refuse to enforce any law that he, in good faith, believes is unconstitutional. If you want to call that cherry-picking, then so be it. If the Supreme Court specifically rules that something is constitutional, then the President is bound by that opinion since the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the US Constitution. If the Supreme Cour ...[text shortened]... tect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    - President's Oath of Office


    Originally posted by zeeblebot

    choosing not to defend a law is "making law", i thought that was reserved for the legislative and judicial branches.

    (never mind all that "regulation" clamato by the executive branch.)
  2. 02 Mar '11 17:40 / 1 edit
    the founding fathers wisely put in place checks and balances to limit the power of government.

    so where does the executive branch get off, generating tomes of regulations that were not instantiated by legislators?

    the legislative branch is shirking its duties and the executive is exceeding theirs.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    02 Mar '11 20:11
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    the founding fathers wisely put in place checks and balances to limit the power of government.

    so where does the executive branch get off, generating tomes of regulations that were not instantiated by legislators?

    the legislative branch is shirking its duties and the executive is exceeding theirs.
    Regulations are typically passed by administrative agencies, which are given their authority by enabling act, by which Congress delegates its authority to the agency.

    Although administrative agencies work under the President, their power comes from Congress.
  4. 02 Mar '11 20:57
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    the founding fathers wisely put in place checks and balances to limit the power of government.

    so where does the executive branch get off, generating tomes of regulations that were not instantiated by legislators?

    the legislative branch is shirking its duties and the executive is exceeding theirs.
    Generally if not always,there is wording in a bill,by which the legislature delegates and authorizes the executive branch to institute regulations that are needed to implement the provisions of the bill. Citizens are free to challenge, using the judicial branch, a regulation that they believe goes beyond the delegated authority. These are the checks and balances of which you speak.
  5. 06 Mar '11 03:54
    what i'm getting at is that if Congress would not delegate its authority, we would not need huge bureaucracies to handle such regulations.
  6. 06 Mar '11 03:54
    because there wouldn't be as many of them.
  7. 06 Mar '11 14:42 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    Originally posted by sh76
    The executive should refuse to enforce any law that he, in good faith, believes is unconstitutional. If you want to call that cherry-picking, then so be it. If the Supreme Court specifically rules that something is constitutional, then the President is bound by that opinion since the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the US C d judicial branches.

    (never mind all that "regulation" clamato by the executive branch.)
    Well the Supremes tried to stop FDR by declaring policies like social security unconstitutional. Then he created the court packing scheme and before you know it they passed it.

    In fact, did anyone tell FDR that his executive order to imprison Japanese Americans during WW2 unconstitutional? Nope.

    Personally, I think that the whole notion that anyone in government gives a crap about the Constitution is laughable. They simply do as they please and crush you if they get in your way. In fact, the judge that ruled Obamacare unconstitutional is now backing down a bit saying that they need not hold up the legislation that he recently declared unconstitutional. Its like saying, "Yea, its not constitutional but hey, go ahead with what your doing anyway." After all, he is just one man and probably knows what will happen to him if he continues his recent objections.

    The way that government is structured now is that the Executive branch rules in reigns over the other two with the Legislative branch coming in second. The Supremes just nod and smile and make sure that they don't get in the way of the other two branches. In fact, it is their job to often legislate from the bench what their masters desire for them to do.
  8. 06 Mar '11 14:57
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    what i'm getting at is that if Congress would not delegate its authority, we would not need huge bureaucracies to handle such regulations.
    So you are suggesting that Congressmen personally check e.g. restaurant food safety? And this would be more efficient?
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Mar '11 17:58
    Originally posted by whodey
    Well the Supremes tried to stop FDR by declaring policies like social security unconstitutional. Then he created the court packing scheme and before you know it they passed it.

    In fact, did anyone tell FDR that his executive order to imprison Japanese Americans during WW2 unconstitutional? Nope.

    Personally, I think that the whole notion that anyone in ...[text shortened]... , it is their job to often legislate from the bench what their masters desire for them to do.
    Oy vey.

    Whodey, you could use a little course in constitutional law and history.

    1) The court packing plan was dead long before the NLRB case that started approving the new deal legislation

    2) The Korematsu case (Japanese internment case) had nothing to do with commerce or federal power, but was about whether the internment was an equal protection violation.

    In fact, the judge that ruled Obamacare unconstitutional is now backing down a bit saying that they need not hold up the legislation that he recently declared unconstitutional. Its like saying, "Yea, its not constitutional but hey, go ahead with what your doing anyway."


    He's not backing down at all. The procedural maneuvering about whether the law can be enforced pending appeal is standard maneuvering in this type of case. Every case before a lower court federal judge can be appealed and this is no exception. Judge Vinson understands that he is not the final arbiter of the constitutionality of this act and he is acting accordingly.

    After all, he is just one man and probably knows what will happen to him if he continues his recent objections.


    I give up. What will happen to him?

    The way that government is structured now is that the Executive branch rules in reigns over the other two with the Legislative branch coming in second. The Supremes just nod and smile and make sure that they don't get in the way of the other two branches. In fact, it is their job to often legislate from the bench what their masters desire for them to do.


    First of all, the Supreme Court has struck down some major legislation, including a central component of McCain-Feingold in the Citizens United case, etc. They are hardly just nodding to the other branches. Second, why would Congress want the Supreme Court to "legislate from the bench"? If Congress wants a law passed, they can simply legislate from the Capitol. To the extent that the Court ever does "legislate from the bench" it crosses the other branches.
  10. 06 Mar '11 19:20
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    So you are suggesting that Congressmen personally check e.g. restaurant food safety? And this would be more efficient?
    did i say that?

    if you've only got 600 people generating regulations, you won't have as many regulations.

    the regulations generated in the 50's, say, shouldn't need more than tweaking after that. anything else is churning the account.
  11. 06 Mar '11 19:25
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    did i say that?

    if you've only got 600 people generating regulations, you won't have as many regulations.

    the regulations generated in the 50's, say, shouldn't need more than tweaking after that. anything else is churning the account.
    Things have changed since the 50s. There are e.g. different kinds of food additives, so you need to update regulations. You need a regulatory authority for that.

    Even in the 80s it was obvious Reaganomics and "letting the markets regulate themselves" had failed, why are you desperately hanging on to this old myth?
  12. 06 Mar '11 20:58
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Things have changed since the 50s. There are e.g. different kinds of food additives, so you need to update regulations. You need a regulatory authority for that.

    Even in the 80s it was obvious Reaganomics and "letting the markets regulate themselves" had failed, why are you desperately hanging on to this old myth?
    tomes of regulations are to the rich opportunities for loopholes, not restrictions.

    we need a flat tax!

    and i think we need two new branches of government.

    one for pruning. pruning programs, pruning people ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_and_motion_study ), etc. auditing in the negative direction.

    one for scheduling. this year, Congress can spend X hours in committee on addressing topic Y. for the next six years, no need to revisit this topic.

    and re your particular item, that sounds like the type of thing industry should be funding through license fees. a la FDA. once the process has been put in place, do we need to rehash it every term for the next 40 years?
  13. 06 Mar '11 22:33
    Originally posted by sh76
    [b]Oy vey.

    Whodey, you could use a little course in constitutional law and history.

    1) The court packing plan was dead long before the NLRB case that started approving the new deal legislation
    Yes I know, but nevertheless they changed their minds after the incident. We can guess as to why but I think they were basically intimitated and caved.
  14. 06 Mar '11 22:34
    Originally posted by sh76
    [2) The Korematsu case (Japanese internment case) had nothing to do with commerce or federal power, but was about whether the internment was an equal protection violation.
    FDR gave an executive order to send them to internment, a questionable Constitutional use of executive power.
  15. 06 Mar '11 22:38
    Originally posted by sh76
    He's not backing down at all. The procedural maneuvering about whether the law can be enforced pending appeal is standard maneuvering in this type of case. Every case before a lower court federal judge can be appealed and this is no exception. Judge Vinson understands that he is not the final arbiter of the constitutionality of this act and he is acting accordingl ...[text shortened]... happen to him if he continues his recent objections.[/quote]

    I give up. What will happen to him?
    But he had the option to stop the law from going into motion did he not? It seems to me that doing so would have been the best way to have a speedy appeal. As it stands now they can drag their feet as long as they like. In fact, who cares if its ever appealed?

    As far as what will happen to him, there are more than one way to harm of ruin careers. For example, have you ever known someone who was blackballed by their employer? It happens all the time.