Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Interesting Article


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Interesting Article Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 9:27:47 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline 		http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-could-house-sue-president-refusing-carry-101605570--politics.html

Regardless of politics, this question is interesting, and the answer could make for quite a change in Federal Government functioning.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 9:30:22 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		It's not a change at all -- it's business as usual. Tie up the proceedings with bullshit.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 9:35:59 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
It's not a change at all -- it's business as usual. Tie up the proceedings with bullshit.


Right. So, if the Legislature could sue the President over EO's, there'd be no change at all. Gotcha.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 9:38:54 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		It isn't all that interesting. And they glossed over the issue that is at issue.

What the Supreme courts have said repeatedly and over the years, you don't like it? MAKE A FUCKIN LAW. And then we will see about its constitutionality (of which there aint gonna be much).



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 9:39:46 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Exactly so. It would just be the latest way to tie up proceedings.

And it doesn't matter whether they can. Even if they can't, exploring it and keeping it in the news is their goal.

If they *really* wanted, Congress could simply change the laws or even amend the Constitution.

The problem is, Republican presidents like executive orders too.



< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 6/24/2014 9:41:37 AM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 9:44:06 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

Yeah, bigtime.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 9:49:54 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Exactly so. It would just be the latest way to tie up proceedings.
And it doesn't matter whether they can. Even if they can't, exploring it and keeping it in the news is their goal.
If they *really* wanted, Congress could simply change the laws or even amend the Constitution.
The problem is, Republican presidents like executive orders too.


You read from a partisan pair of glasses. I'm not really all that surprised. But, you're right, the ramifications would spread beyond the current situation, into times where there is a Republican President and a Democrat-led Legislature (I'd have to imagine one chamber of Congress couldn't sue, requiring a unified front from the Legislative Branch).

Congress can amend the laws, but doesn't that require a Presidential signature (ignoring the veto-veto overrule procedure)? An EO has what check on it?




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 9:53:41 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

OF COURSE I read this with partisan glasses. It's about Congress and the President. There's nothing non-partisan about it in practice.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 9:55:05 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Congress can amend the laws, but doesn't that require a Presidential signature (ignoring the veto-veto overrule procedure)? An EO has what check on it?




First, no, let's not ignore the veto overrule, because it's relevant here, and the answer to your question. That's the check.

If Congress can't muster that level of support, then presumably it's not that serious a problem.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 9:58:27 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Exactly so. It would just be the latest way to tie up proceedings.
And it doesn't matter whether they can. Even if they can't, exploring it and keeping it in the news is their goal.
If they *really* wanted, Congress could simply change the laws or even amend the Constitution.
The problem is, Republican presidents like executive orders too.


You read from a partisan pair of glasses. I'm not really all that surprised. But, you're right, the ramifications would spread beyond the current situation, into times where there is a Republican President and a Democrat-led Legislature (I'd have to imagine one chamber of Congress couldn't sue, requiring a unified front from the Legislative Branch).

Congress can amend the laws, but doesn't that require a Presidential signature (ignoring the veto-veto overrule procedure)? An EO has what check on it?





A president can (and is tasked with making policy throughout his departments) one check is the one on why gitmo wasnt closed, the congress wouldnt fund it, and ties up a bunch of laws around it. That was an executive order that went nowhere.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 12:01:29 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It's not a change at all -- it's business as usual. Tie up the proceedings with bullshit.


Leftist mantra - We could really get things done if only Obama were a dictator.

No more "bullshit" as it were

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 12:02:57 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		rightist mantra: "EE-YUL!! EE-YUL!! EE-YUL!! Borrow, Borrow, Borrow; spend, spend, spend)"

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 6/24/2014 12:06:45 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 12:12:33 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
OF COURSE I read this with partisan glasses. It's about Congress and the President. There's nothing non-partisan about it in practice.


There certainly is something non-partisan about this issue. This isn't just about the current party affiliations of DC. This is a Constitutional question. This is a Federal Government under the US Constitution question. It doesn't matter who is in power.

Not much for "big picture" stuff, are you?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 12:22:25 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline 		They obviously cannot see beyond their noses, else they wouldn't take up most of the positions they do.

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 12:49:00 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
OF COURSE I read this with partisan glasses. It's about Congress and the President. There's nothing non-partisan about it in practice.


There certainly is something non-partisan about this issue. This isn't just about the current party affiliations of DC. This is a Constitutional question. This is a Federal Government under the US Constitution question. It doesn't matter who is in power.

Not much for "big picture" stuff, are you?


Actually, it's you who's fighting the big picture. You want to consider the legal issue narrowly, and that's fine. However, it's going to play out in big picture politics. I've already made the case for why that's the dominant influence here, as Congress doesn't *have* to sue--they can just change the rules.

Get past the "I'm going to oppose it because you posted it" bullshit. You want to discuss this -- I'm being real here.

You want it to be about posting style, then you're not much for the big picture stuff, are you?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 12:50:09 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
OF COURSE I read this with partisan glasses. It's about Congress and the President. There's nothing non-partisan about it in practice.


There certainly is something non-partisan about this issue. This isn't just about the current party affiliations of DC. This is a Constitutional question. This is a Federal Government under the US Constitution question. It doesn't matter who is in power.

Not much for "big picture" stuff, are you?




There is nothing constitutional about this. There was nothing constitutional about it in the 5000+ Executive orders that occurred prior to this. There is nothing constitutional about the next 350 or whatever.




_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 12:51:44 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

They obviously cannot see beyond their noses, else they wouldn't take up most of the positions they do.


If your nose was out of the Minneapolis Airport Bathroom toilets, your vision might improve considerably.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 1:02:41 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline 		I'm curious, are conservatives going to hold former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney and all the others in that administration. Not to mention future Republican administrations (hopefully none for a few generation). To the same level of responsibility and accountability as they desire with President Obama?

Of course not....

A discussion rests on the agreed idea, that the law has to apply evenly. Which means we'd have to hand the entire Bush Administration over to the UN for war crimes against humanity. And then internally, remove those groups and organizations that help support him and his group from gaining access to the White House in two instances. A US President has to be given some latitude to operate.

And right now, the gridlock is not coming from the White House, but he US House of Representatives. Those are the folks that can not understand the word 'compromise' nor the concept of 'deal making'. To the House, its "Our way, or Hell on Earth!". So 'yes', gridlock in Congress, not the White House is the problem. To bad we have to many 'low information voters' who will not vote out the useless Republicans. And what have those Tea Partiers in Congress actually done for the American people? NOTHING!

So lets dispense with the bullshit before this discussion gets rolling?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 4:33:47 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
So lets dispense with the bullshit before this discussion gets rolling?


Deal.

quote:

I'm curious, are conservatives going to hold former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney and all the others in that administration. Not to mention future Republican administrations (hopefully none for a few generation). To the same level of responsibility and accountability as they desire with President Obama?
Of course not....


Bullshit.


quote:

A discussion rests on the agreed idea, that the law has to apply evenly. Which means we'd have to hand the entire Bush Administration over to the UN for war crimes against humanity. And then internally, remove those groups and organizations that help support him and his group from gaining access to the White House in two instances.


Bullshit.

quote:

A US President has to be given some latitude to operate.


You are correct. But, what is the definition of "some?" That's where this House is with regards to this President. How much latitude is to be given?

quote:

And right now, the gridlock is not coming from the White House, but he US House of Representatives.


Not surprisingly enough, those people were elected to represent their constituents, and didn't run on going along with the President and the Democrats. So...

quote:

Those are the folks that can not understand the word 'compromise' nor the concept of 'deal making'. To the House, its "Our way, or Hell on Earth!". So 'yes', gridlock in Congress, not the White House is the problem. To bad we have to many 'low information voters' who will not vote out the useless Republicans. And what have those Tea Partiers in Congress actually done for the American people? NOTHING!


Bullshit.

When we cut through the bullshit, you end up not really saying much at all.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Interesting Article - 6/24/2014 4:54:49 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
OF COURSE I read this with partisan glasses. It's about Congress and the President. There's nothing non-partisan about it in practice.

There certainly is something non-partisan about this issue. This isn't just about the current party affiliations of DC. This is a Constitutional question. This is a Federal Government under the US Constitution question. It doesn't matter who is in power.
Not much for "big picture" stuff, are you?

Actually, it's you who's fighting the big picture. You want to consider the legal issue narrowly, and that's fine. However, it's going to play out in big picture politics. I've already made the case for why that's the dominant influence here, as Congress doesn't *have* to sue--they can just change the rules.


I'm not sure they can just change the rules, though. Amending the Constitution is pretty fucking difficult (as it should be). And, getting 2/3 majority of both chambers is pretty fucking difficult, too.

quote:

Get past the "I'm going to oppose it because you posted it" bullshit. You want to discuss this -- I'm being real here.
You want it to be about posting style, then you're not much for the big picture stuff, are you?


You're the one opposing it because I posted it. I posted it to generate actual discussion about the Constitutionality of Presidential actions (not just EO's), the options of Congress to Presidential actions it opposes, the ability of one or both chambers of Congress to sue the Executive Branch, and how that might impact the balance of power in the future.

You want to make it about this House and this President. That's not big picture. That's little picture. I'd like to discuss how that would impact the Federal Government in the future. That's big picture.

FWIW, I do think the Legislative Branch (aka both chambers of Congress unified) should have the power to request judicial review, but not the ability to sue.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Interesting Article Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094