Obama's Attempt to be the SCOTUS, could it have ramifications?

Yurt said:
you've lost it and obviously are incapable of sanely addressing a single point i made.....

enjoy yourself :good4u:
Click to expand...

Hopefully this help you understand your error.

Our federal government has three parts. They are the Executive, (President and about 5,000,000 workers) Legislative (Senate and House of Representatives) and Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts).

The President of the United States administers the Executive Branch of our government. He enforces the laws that the Legislative Branch (Congress) makes. The President is elected by United States citizens, 18 years of age and older, who vote in the presidential elections in their states. These votes are tallied by states and form the Electoral College system. States have the number of electoral votes which equal the number of senators and representatives they have. It is possible to have the most popular votes throughout the nation and NOT win the electoral vote of the Electoral College.

The Legislative part of our government is called Congress. Congress makes our laws. Congress is divided into 2 parts. One part is called the Senate. There are 100 Senators--2 from each of our states. Another part is called the House of Representatives. Representatives meet together to discuss ideas and decide if these ideas (bills) should become laws. There are 435 Representatives. The number of representatives each state gets is determined by its population. Some states have just 2 representatives. Others have as many as 40. Both senators and representatives are elected by the eligible voters in their states.

The Judicial part of our federal government includes the Supreme Court and 9 Justices. They are special judges who interpret laws according to the Constitution. These justices only hear cases that pertain to issues related to the Constitution. They are the highest court in our country. The federal judicial system also has lower courts located in each state to hear cases involving federal issues.
 
Yurt said:
huh? what is your point? seems like i'm missing it. oh crap, i used the word seem :palm:
Click to expand...

maybe you are, maybe I am. This is what i'm looking at.

yes. they can try. but you know as well as i, that all obama has to do, is bring the matter before scotus on this issue and he will win.
Click to expand...

and what i'm not understanding is how is Obama going to take his impeachment to scotus?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
maybe you are, maybe I am. This is what i'm looking at.



and what i'm not understanding is how is Obama going to take his impeachment to scotus?
Click to expand...

i believe his method is, to have someone else challenge the law. he can't take his impeachment proceedings to scotus. but, he can find someone to challenge his impeachment grounds, vis a vis, challenging DOMA in court. if such a challenge ends up in federal court, scotus could take it right at the gate and they should. scotus has original jurisdiction over this issue, thus, obama could easily bring this to scotus. and his impeachment would also be tied up with a scotus ruling.

that is why i agree nigel, this executive power should be rarely used. if future presidents abuse this, get ready for a showdown.
 
Yurt said:
i believe his method is, to have someone else challenge the law. he can't take his impeachment proceedings to scotus. but, he can find someone to challenge his impeachment grounds, vis a vis, challenging DOMA in court. if such a challenge ends up in federal court, scotus could take it right at the gate and they should. scotus has original jurisdiction over this issue, thus, obama could easily bring this to scotus. and his impeachment would also be tied up with a scotus ruling.

that is why i agree nigel, this executive power should be rarely used. if future presidents abuse this, get ready for a showdown.
Click to expand...
I just doubt that it will be as rarely used any longer. This opens the door, and it will be used by future Presidents.

Imagine, finding that limitations on assault rifles violates the 2nd and just not enforcing the bans... and that's just a starter.
 
Damocles said:
Do you think an administration should simply reject whatever law they wish?
Click to expand...

The precident has been set for many many years, the chief executive decides not only what laws to enforce but what laws to fight for and against with the supremem court.

The first example that comes to mind is the antitrust cases that were abandoned once Bush took over for Clinton, and the antitrust laws that were then abandoned.

Because its President Obama the right is all over this, but it illistrates that you are a poor student of history and the workings of the USA constitutional workings.
 
It is the job of the Solicitor General of the United States to follow orders of the the President as to these laws.
 
Damocles said:
I just doubt that it will be as rarely used any longer. This opens the door, and it will be used by future Presidents.

Imagine, finding that limitations on assault rifles violates the 2nd and just not enforcing the bans... and that's just a starter.
Click to expand...

And then another group or Congress would fund the defense of the 2nd.
 
Jarod said:
The precident has been set for many many years, the chief executive decides not only what laws to enforce but what laws to fight for and against with the supremem court.

The first example that comes to mind is the antitrust cases that were abandoned once Bush took over for Clinton, and the antitrust laws that were then abandoned.

Because its President Obama the right is all over this, but it illistrates that you are a poor student of history and the workings of the USA constitutional workings.
Click to expand...
Which didn't answer my question.
 
Damocles said:
Which didn't answer my question.
Click to expand...

The answer is clear from my post. The procedure will not change, presidents will still have the power to defend and not defend the constitutanality of laws, as they have done for over 200 years.

And the media would pay about the same attention they have for over 200 years. They barely reported it when Bush did it with Antitrust laws.

The media is fikle... If the issue is one that sells widgets better than other stories happening at the time, they will cover it well. If not they will not. Its all about what sells.
 
Jarod said:
The answer is clear from my post. The procedure will not change, presidents will still have the power to defend and not defend the constitutanality of laws, as they have done for over 200 years.

And the media would pay about the same attention they have for over 200 years. They barely reported it when Bush did it with Antitrust laws.

The media is fikle... If the issue is one that sells widgets better than other stories happening at the time, they will cover it well. If not they will not. Its all about what sells.
Click to expand...
Which still doesn't answer my question.

"There is a status quo."

Does not answer the question of whether it should stand.
 
Damocles said:
Which still doesn't answer my question.

"There is a status quo."

Does not answer the question of whether it should stand.
Click to expand...

Should what stand ?

And the title of this thread is silly, he is not attempting to be the SCOTUS, he is exersixing and not exersizing his power where he sees fit. The SCOTUS decides cases brought to them, they dont bring them.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
how would that work constitutionally. congress isn't prescribed the power to execute the laws of the nation.
Click to expand...
Congress can't fund, but private groups can defend the laws if they wish. Congress can't just make money and pay people without passing it and getting it signed by the POTUS they are trying to go around.
 
Jarod said:
Should what stand ?

And the title of this thread is silly, he is not attempting to be the SCOTUS, he is exersixing and not exersizing his power where he sees fit. The SCOTUS decides cases brought to them, they dont bring them.
Click to expand...
Read the whole thread, catch up, then talk. Repeating crap over and over in the same thread is for Damn Yankee in that stupid Winterborn thread, not for here.
 
Damocles said:
Congress can't fund, but private groups can defend the laws if they wish. Congress can't just make money and pay people without passing it and getting it signed by the POTUS they are trying to go around.
Click to expand...

how does a private group defend laws? can a private group represent the united states in court?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
how does a private group defend laws? can a private group represent the united states in court?
Click to expand...
They would have to show that they have standing. First you cannot sue just "the United States" you have to sue more specifically. Say if I were of a non-profit ACLU type organization that was against guns. If I could prove standing I could defend the law that I believe is protecting me.
 
Damocles said:
They would have to show that they have standing. First you cannot sue just "the United States" you have to sue more specifically. Say if I were of a non-profit ACLU type organization that was against guns. If I could prove standing I could defend the law that I believe is protecting me.
Click to expand...

so the brady campaign would sue who, and as who, if some gun law wasn't being enforced because the president chose not to?
 
Damocles said:
Which changes zero about my question.
Click to expand...

i think that the president via the powers granted by the constitution has the power to decide what the justice department does and does not prosecute (as long as he is not doing do for private purposes, i.e., preventing prosecution of misdeeds perpetrated by himself or at his behest)

since congress has the power to present its side to scotus, the balance of power still obtains

i am not saying that i agree in general but in specific as the discrimination against gays is becoming moot and the law will likely be overturned on that basis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top