if constitutions are meant to be ignored

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
then why should we be following our own?

the Obama admins obsession with honduras

Ever since Manuel Zelaya was removed from the Honduran presidency by that country's Supreme Court and Congress on June 28 for violations of the constitution, the Obama administration has insisted, without any legal basis, that the incident amounts to a "coup d'état" and must be reversed. President Obama has dealt harshly with Honduras, and Americans have been asked to trust their president's proclamations.

Now a report filed at the Library of Congress by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides what the administration has not offered, a serious legal review of the facts. "Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system," writes CRS senior foreign law specialist Norma C. Gutierrez in her report.

Do the facts matter? Fat chance. The administration is standing by its "coup" charge and 10 days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to sanction the country's independent judiciary. The U.S. won't say why, but its clear the court's sin is rejecting a U.S.-backed proposal to restore Mr. Zelaya to power.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Right we don't need the stinking govt building roads, dams, water systems, sewer systems, floodwalls, etc.
I don't think any of that is directly in the constitution either.
 
Tabasco said:
"if constitutions are meant to be ignored"...
Then Obama & Co. is doing a damn good job.
Click to expand...

sigh, yes just carrying on most of the precedents liad down before though. Not much new stuff yet.

Any signing statements saying not to enforce any laws yet?
 
uscitizen said:
Right we don't need the stinking govt building roads, dams, water systems, sewer systems, floodwalls, etc.
I don't think any of that is directly in the constitution either.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Tell all those bums in New Orleans that it was their fault and how dare they demand government help. Bush was right to ignore the problem. And those people who live in California, put your own fires out! damn cheek of some people!
 
Lowaicue said:
Exactly. Tell all those bums in New Orleans that it was their fault and how dare they demand government help. Bush was right to ignore the problem. And those people who live in California, put your own fires out! damn cheek of some people!
Click to expand...

We did put our fires out.
 
Tabasco said:
You are correct. However, I do believe Obama is taking it to the next level.



I'm not sure I understand your question...
Click to expand...

Has Obama done like Bush with signing statements yet?

Just curious, if he does like bush with them he will lose most of what few points he has left with me.
 
Lowaicue said:
Exactly. Tell all those bums in New Orleans that it was their fault and how dare they demand government help. Bush was right to ignore the problem. And those people who live in California, put your own fires out! damn cheek of some people!
Click to expand...

Man I was reading a really fracked up article about CA having millions of fed dollars to clear brush with and not using it.

Something about using non profits instead of the govt beaucracy.
 
uscitizen said:
When bush would sign a bill into law he would state that certain portions were not to be enforced, etc...

You were not aware of this?
Click to expand...

You're going to have to provide a specific example. The President doesn't have the power of line-item veto, so I'm slightly skeptical of your claim.
 
uscitizen said:
Perhaps not refusing to enforce laws but not far of in some cases.

here is a list of the Bush signing statements.
In all honestly this is the first time I had ever read any of them.

http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm
Click to expand...

In some cases it is an appropriate action. The executive branch has the sworn responsibility to uphold the Constitution; as such, it is within his power to refuse to enforce certain precepts which are deemed unconstitutional. However, because I haven't read any of Bush's signed statements, I'm not going to endorse any one of them. In all likelihood, many/most of them were unnecessary.
 
Tabasco said:
In some cases it is an appropriate action. The executive branch has the sworn responsibility to uphold the Constitution; as such, it is within his power to refuse to enforce certain precepts which are deemed unconstitutional. However, because I haven't read any of Bush's signed statements, I'm not going to endorse any one of them. In all likelihood, many/most of them were unnecessary.
Click to expand...

That is what the judicial branch/supremes are for not the executive branch.

The president does not modify laws or selectively enforce them under the powers granted him/her by the constitution.

If the president disagrees with the law he should veto it.
 
uscitizen said:
That is what the judicial branch/supremes are for not the executive branch.
Click to expand...

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)

The president does not modify laws or selectively enforce them under the powers granted him/her by the constitution.
Click to expand...

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."
 
Do you really think our founders wanted an unelected group of elitist judges deciding what is/isn't Constitutional, and nobody can do anything about it? How "democratic" is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top