if constitutions are meant to be ignored

[uscitizen]

That may be the way it is now, but that's not what the founding fathers intended. Jefferson had some good thoughts on the subject. He said, "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)



Incorrect. If a President refuses to enforce a law signed by a previous President, he is upholding the Constitution. Didn't you listen when Obama was being sworn in? He said, "I do solemnly swear 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."

Does the constitution give the president the right to modify or selectively enforce laws without the other branches of government being involved in the process?
If not then the president is not upholding the constitution by doing those actions.

 

[Cancel10]

Does the constitution give the president the right to modify or selectively enforce laws without the other branches of government being involved in the process?

As a matter of fact, yes, he can refuse to enforce laws (or parts of laws) that are unconstitutional. However, as Bush didn't give a flying fuck about the Constitution, I don't believe upholding the law of the land was his motive in issuing these signed statements.

If not then the president is not upholding the constitution by doing those actions.

LOL. So, in order to uphold the Constitution, he must enforce laws that are unconstitutional? Violating the Constitution to uphold it would be like fucking for virginity. It makes no sense.

 

[uscitizen]

As a matter of fact, yes, he can refuse to enforce laws (or parts of laws) that are unconstitutional. However, as Bush didn't give a flying fuck about the Constitution, I don't believe upholding the law of the land was his motive in issuing these signed statements.



LOL. So, in order to uphold the Constitution, he must enforce laws that are unconstitutional? Violating the Constitution to uphold it would be like fucking for virginity. It makes no sense.

If he thinks the unconstitutional his duty is to veto them.
If his veto is overridden his duty is to have the DOJ pursue them.

 

[Cancel10]

If he thinks the unconstitutional his duty is to veto them.

What if it was the act of a previous President?

Why the hell does he swear to uphold and protect the Constitution if that isn't even his job?

If his veto is overridden his duty is to have the DOJ pursue them.

Wow, you really are making this up as you go along.

 

[Taichiliberal]

then why should we be following our own?

the Obama admins obsession with honduras



so if facts, laws, constitutions, and the like aren't important, then why should we worry about ours? I say we don't. lets just call it null and void and start over.

Got no problem with calling out Obama and company as being dead wrong about this....but the majority of his critics are serious hypocrits...as they turned a blind eye and/or vigorously defended all the violations of the the actual law and spirit of the Constitution by the Shrub and company.

Interesting.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

then why should we be following our own?

the Obama admins obsession with honduras



so if facts, laws, constitutions, and the like aren't important, then why should we worry about ours? I say we don't. lets just call it null and void and start over.

The supreme court had no constitutional basis for removing him from office. If our president violates the constitution, the case is brought to the supreme court, where it's made clear that he's supposed to stop. If he doesn't, then the legislature has the ability to impeach him.

If the supreme court had declared something unconstitutional and then decided that the only remedy was to kidnap the president, fly him to Mexico, and install the chief justice as president, I'm pretty sure it would be a serious violation of the constitution.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

as such, it is within his power to refuse to enforce certain precepts which are deemed unconstitutional.

Usually the refusal to carry out actions were because of political, not constitutional reasons.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

LOL. So, in order to uphold the Constitution, he must enforce laws that are unconstitutional? Violating the Constitution to uphold it would be like fucking for virginity. It makes no sense.

The president is required to enforce laws. If you give the president the power to refuse to enforce laws because of constitutional reasons, 99.99999% of the time it will be because of political reasons, with a ridiculous interpretation of the constitution to back it up. Most importantly, the case will never get to the supreme court, where they could decide whether or not it was constitutional for the president to ignore his constitutional duties in carrying out legislation. Which is, of course, what president Bush is hoping for.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You didn't think the Constitution was all that important when Bush reigned, did you?

It must be awfully embarrassing for your parents when you spout such idiocy.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Does the constitution give the president the right to modify or selectively enforce laws without the other branches of government being involved in the process?
If not then the president is not upholding the constitution by doing those actions.

modify? no. selectively enforce? absolutely, either by directing DOJ to not prosecute certain violations or giving pardons for convictions based on unconstitutional acts.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Got no problem with calling out Obama and company as being dead wrong about this....but the majority of his critics are serious hypocrits...as they turned a blind eye and/or vigorously defended all the violations of the the actual law and spirit of the Constitution by the Shrub and company.

Interesting.

i have no problem calling out any politician for unconstitutional acts, no matter the party they are a member of.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The supreme court had no constitutional basis for removing him from office. If our president violates the constitution, the case is brought to the supreme court, where it's made clear that he's supposed to stop. If he doesn't, then the legislature has the ability to impeach him.

If the supreme court had declared something unconstitutional and then decided that the only remedy was to kidnap the president, fly him to Mexico, and install the chief justice as president, I'm pretty sure it would be a serious violation of the constitution.

the honduran constitution is not the same as the US constitution.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

the honduran constitution is not the same as the US constitution.

Yeah. It didn't have a provision to remove the president. Therefore, it's unconstitutional to remove the president. That is all.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yeah. It didn't have a provision to remove the president. Therefore, it's unconstitutional to remove the president. That is all.

it has no provision? whatsoever? then the congress and the courts acted the way they needed to in order to remove a president violating that constitution. or is it your contention that they would be forced in to accepting zelayas violations and thats that?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

it has no provision? whatsoever? then the congress and the courts acted the way they needed to in order to remove a president violating that constitution. or is it your contention that they would be forced in to accepting zelayas violations and thats that?

They should have amended the constitution. What they did in inventing a method because there was none obviously qualifies as a coup and was unconstitutional.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

They should have amended the constitution. What they did in inventing a method because there was none obviously qualifies as a coup and was unconstitutional.

and our courts would NEVER invent something out of thin air because there wasn't a solution in our constitution.

honduras did what they needed to in order to remove a president bent on subverting their constitution. Now that they've seen it can happen to them, i'm sure they'll be amending it to provide that solution.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

and our courts would NEVER invent something out of thin air because there wasn't a solution in our constitution.

honduras did what they needed to in order to remove a president bent on subverting their constitution. Now that they've seen it can happen to them, i'm sure they'll be amending it to provide that solution.

They removed him primarily because of political reasons. It was a coup, it was unconstitutional. You can say you like unconstitutional coup's, but you can't claim that this had anything to do with the constitution.

Preferably the people involved should be beheaded.

 

[uscitizen]

Off with their heads!

Said in in petulant brit manner.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

They removed him primarily because of political reasons. It was a coup, it was unconstitutional. You can say you like unconstitutional coup's, but you can't claim that this had anything to do with the constitution.

I absolutely can claim that because it's the absolute truth. If he was removed for political reasons, then why did members of his own party vote to remove him? and it most certainly was not a coup, no matter how loudly you yell the lie from the rooftops.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I absolutely can claim that because it's the absolute truth. If he was removed for political reasons,

Because they opposed his politics?

then why did members of his own party vote to remove him?

They have no right to vote to remove him.

and it most certainly was not a coup, no matter how loudly you yell the lie from the rooftops.

Illegally using miltiary force to remove one government and replace it by another is a coup. This was an illegal, unconstitutional coup, perpetuated on political reasons but using the constitution as a shroud (and violating the constitution to pursue these shrouded political goals).