Are we Heading towards a Constitutional Crisis

Post Reply New Topic

It's cute how you respond even when it's obvious you have no f*****g clue what the question was.

For the record, signing statements are a statement the President releases on signing a bill into law, declaring his intent not to enforce certain provisions of it, challenging its constitutionality, or simply reinterpreting the law in a different way than Congress intended when they wrote the law. The practice of using signing statements was promoted by right-wing activist judge Sam Alito (before he became a judge) as a way to "increase the power of the Executive to shape the law." Reagan and the G.H.W Bush issued a number of signing statements (as did Clinton) but it was under G.W. Bush that signing statements really took off. There were, in total, something over 1100 laws that Bush signed into law and then declared he would refuse to enforce. The American Bar Association convened a bipartisan task force in 2006 which roundly condemned signing statements as a threat to the separation of powers and our constitutional system.


I never claimed that. Kindly learn how to read. Those treaties are binding as the supreme law of the land, and they were violated. Further, serious Constitutional questions have been raised over the manner in which Congress authorized the war, since they did not exercise their power to declare war but merely abdicated that power to the executive.


Oh, that. You mean US military aircraft were illegally flying into a sovereign nation's airspace in order to attempt to provoke a conflict? That's an old tactic, and it is definitely not grounds for the US to call itself the victim of aggression or an act of war. Imagine if China was flying fighter jets in the air over Washington. You can bet we'd have anti-aircraft-artillery fire aimed at them too.

It is for the president to decide, however, the instructions that are given to its lawyers. The United States is free to decide what argument it shall make before the Court, including a submission that a plaintiff's argument of unconstitutionality is substantially correct.

Neither the court nor Congress can compel the argument that the United States shall make before the Courts.

Then why is he still trying to impliment Obamacare even after a Judge has ruled it Unconstitutional?

He's picking and choosing which laws to follow.

The Reagan Administration announced that it would not enforce labour laws and this helped destroy the middle class. I doubt that Gingrich considered this to be an impeachable offence.

Specifics plz.


Also, the Publics Unions and Democrats basically run a money laundering racket.

Money from the politicians passing legislation/contracts goes to public employees which then goes to Big Labor and then to the Democrats' campaign coffers.

Inuyasha, any thoughts on Bush's signing statements? You are conspicuously ignoring that post.

'The Supreme Court has made its decision; now let them enforce it.'
-President Andrew Jackson

The constitution is just a piece of paper that was written by a bunch of rich, white men, a lot of whom owned slaves. They all bitched about taxes from the king, but the first thing they did was heavily tax farmers when they got into power. Look up the Whiskey Rebellion. There were some great men in the bunch, like Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin, who really did believe in democracy. I'm iffy about Jefferson, though, because he had sex with a 15 year old slave girl.

Anyway, its really the people that enforce the constitution, not the parchment its printed on or the framers. The only reason why the power doesn't try to step on the bill of rights is they know people will react. People actively believe in it and pose a threat to the elite in this country who have to calculate around it to get what they want done. If they thought they could successfully suppress free speech, they'd do it because its easier to manage the population in that situation.

It really comes down to our history as to why the Bill of Rights is revered. It was a bunch nice ideals on it till people in the civil rights movement, the anti-war movements, suffrage, abolition, etc made it a reality. It would have been just like the Chinese and Soviet constitutions, which all granted things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion in writing but was never observed in practice.

Noam Chomsky (yes, him) gave a nice lecture where he described how Reagan announced that labour law would not be enforced (through his minions) and people were being sacked for wanting to be in a union despite this being illegal and nothing was ever done to punish the guilty parties as demanded by the laws. The workplace accident rate skyrocketed under Reagan (nearly doubled) and the unionisation rate crashed. So Reagan is killer too by deliberately causing more industrial accidents.

New Englanders had just as much to do with the Constitution as the Southron Slavers. Also Ben Franklin was no ardent supporter of slavery either. He disliked slavery by he loved independence more than he dislike slavery as did many from New York and New England.

Your wholesale slander of the Constitutional Convention is based on a poor grasp of American history.

ruveyn

+1

The three-fifths vote rather than whole vote per slave count was done in *hopes* of keeping the south's votes down to where abolition could happen. I think Nathan might be spending too much time in college.

It was also cause the Northern States refused to let the South count them as a person for the electoral college and house representation on one hand and consider them to be property and not people on the other hand.

This is the issue where several States threatened to quit over, the 3/5ths compromise did not settle the issue, which the abolitionists hoped could be solved at a later date when people with cooler heads would prevail.



I'm ignoring it because you haven't exactly been specific.

BS, you're ignoring it because you have no response. There were over 1100 laws that Bush signed and yet stated he would refuse to enforce. The American Bar Association condemned that. Why is it OK when Bush refuses to enforce laws that he himself signed but not OK when Obama declines to fight to preserve someone else's law in court?

Then you should have no problem giving me an example.

Newt Gingrich is just another vile fat idiot who wants to run for president.

Least he knows what a balanced budget is and how to balance a checkbook which is an improvement over the individual currently in the White House.