- There is not a single EO being used in my example - get off the bad train / / try a new track read the post and then take issue with the facts at hand . . it is not about OPINION here - it is about facts and the Constitution. Not even the courts are being used to perform this miracle of options . . if the law enabling the agency is outside or AI, S8 the Executive can exercise the judgement that the actions are in violation of the oath of office . . UNCONSTITUTIONAL or outside the AI, S8 enumerated powers - so the Executive is bound to stop the usurped spending of the Taxpayers money / / Yes - I am correct IMO - if you disagree share the law or Article that disprove the thoughts.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I know you think you are correct.Not on a "bad" train Mangus. I stated a principle. Readers will judge for themselves and I simply have no obligation to prove anything to you.You are fully invested in the Presidential solution train and thats fine. I'm not buying what you are selling.IMO the whole thing is a necessary evil, to solve a short term problem (Obama). Nothing more and nothing less IMO.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Atlas = you are so fully vested in your OPINION that you can not see the tree of freedom . . . You speak of a principle and I speak of the Constitution, I will take the Constitution . . every time . .What you say about the required corrections to effect a permanent fix is 100 & CORRECT - my often posted agrees . . .
- Permalink Reply by on
- LOLOf course I am vested in my opinion. It has developed over a long period of time and I have just as much experience dealing with Constitution as you do friend.The difference, as far as I can tell is that I cut out all the superflous crap in regard to the Constitution, having disgrded it long ago as such. Just bend, and twist and stretch stuff - for lawyers. I went back to jeffersons idea that it is intended to be fairly understood by any citizen a long time ago.In fact, I find that many times, after all the "details" are posted, discussed, parsed, sliced and diced, with founders quotes and wiki-links galore, that the base principle remains unchanged.I just dont need the "excercise" anymore. LOL
- Permalink Reply by on
- Atlas,again you fail to address the real content of the posts - you just attempt to throw out a new red herring but my friend the fish smell is still there. The actual Constitution is the RULE - BY - LAW nature of our Republic - the use of OPINION is why the Courts have made our Constitution a living document and not fixed in time and place with the only the Article V way to make corrections called amendments which we have done 27 times.Do what ever makes Atlas happy for that is your right and I would fight a war to make sure you continue to have that RIGHT. Principles are good thing but they do not trump the Constitution.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The union changed significantly due to the Civil War. The last 100 years has produced a RINO - Republic In Name Only.The Courts have produced a functional democracy and the people went along with it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Mangus, I do not accept your diversionary tactic regarding XOs.You inserted this little thought to build your opinion upon> "if the law enabling the agency is outside or AI, S8".See. You did just as I predicted. You've contradicted yourself on the need for interpretation by saying that. "if..". It shows that IN FACT YOU DO RECOGNIZE THERE IS A NEED FOR INTERPRETATION.That has been my bone of contention with you all along. Your very consistent denial of that.And when in past posts of founder dicta I asked you to show me one example of where anyone was ever convicted in a court of law for violating "founder dicta"(opinion), you ignored my challenge to make a very important point.When I used the first of the enumerated powers of congress to tax and showed you that it requires INTERPRETATION, because it is stated in general terms, you again ignored that challenge to make a very important point.Since you refuse to concede to reason on interpertation and the essential need for it and love to two-step-sidestep that issue upon challenge I won't belabor this as the responses you'll make are all quite predictable. You keep in your walled-in space and I'll opine in the wider perspective of the great outdoors of intellectual observation where all can be clearly seen.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Doc,There are no limits put on the Executive as for management and execution of the Laws Congress creates. You are mixing apples and oranges. Congress passes a law and the Executive signs it into law.From here on it is on the Executive to form the necessary Governmental groups as directed by the Congress - the Congress paints with very wide brush strokes so that the Executive has flexibility to carry out the task of EFFECTIVE application of the law.Now not all laws on the books have been approved by the sitting Executive so gain he has wide latitude to pick Secretaries and senor management people. The Executive is then in charge subject only to the Congressional OVERSIGHT committees - however is it not the case that for Congress to make any corrections in any law they must pass a new law which can only go into effect if the Executive does not veto.Yes, the Executive has a lot of discretion under the Constitution but Congress always hold the TRUMP card. How would the Government operate if the Executive could not have wide powers to manage the will of the people? Congress is so slow and factious that there would be no government in your world.IMO, it is your world that unlocks the protections created and put into the RULE - BY - LAW Republican Constitutional nation of America. Let us shine a little light on the true intentions of the Founders - the smallest weakest possible Federal government and the STRONGEST STATE GOVERNMENTS - All can clearly read the document is is clear and concise only JUDICIAL REVIEW, CHANGING MEANINGS AND EXPANDING CLAUSES have created what is now for all intents and purposes a DEMOCRACY - Which is what every Founder - Framer - and Ratifier intended our government NOT TO BE.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Doc,here is another quote . from James Madison . .This Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them. – Virginia Resolution of 1798″ (December 1798)
- Permalink Reply by on
- Atlas, our esteemed colleague and friend Mangus would not agree. Stated for the record. You are correct imo and repeat my position in different words. The alternative suborns anarchy.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Your position as stated appears to be a Democracy and then on it's way to Anarchy for all Democracies have ended in war and anarchy leading to Communism or back to a Monarchy.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Mangus. Regarding your response.You've changed the subject. The original subject was constitutional interpretation. Is it valid or is it not IN YOUR OPINION? To highlight that very point I repeated my question to you twice in my post as I've done in past discussions. You've ducked for cover again in not responding, even after I defined what I believe is your rationale for your belief.To exacerbate things you come back with this:Again I challenge you. Show me where the founders described the government they wanted as the "smallest weakest posiible". Never happened. That is YOUR VERSION, your INTERPRETATION, of what they stated in assorted opinion. They, most of them wanted, unlike Hamilton/Adams, a government of LIMITED POWERS. Words Mean Things Mangus. Let's be true to those words. They TRUSTED that discretion of interpretation to future generations. That's obvious.In denial of that you confidently state that each and every interpretation of meaning of our Constitution is wrong and a usurpation of our Constitution. You repeated it here again and threw in your clever twist (that I already expounded upon in my prior response):WRONG! All cannot read it is clear and concise.You start off with a conclusion, an old trick, and then make comments that APPEAR TO support the conclusion.The comments, in actuality, are your way to try to create wiggle-room by assaulting any and all forms of interpretation as leading us into a pure democracy. Bullsh*t! That position is one of crying sour grapes, bec ause of how the liberal courts in the modern era have sided with the "living" Constitutional progressives AGAINST US. Against that which I describe as a respect for "original intent" of the founders.That's why you've again DUCKED my question. You know it will lead you to a dead end.----------If you won't answer that simple question I'm not going to repeat this charade we did some months back.Beyond that it's been, between you and I, a running debate on what "enumerated"(granted) congressional powers actually are and what "implied"(N&PC) congressionalpowers mean. The commnet about XOs was brought about simply as an indication of Executive Branch abuse of power. That abuse is my opinion. Some agree, some disagree, but the overriding consideration is it's an EXTRAORDINARY power, becaus eit requires no consent form Congress.
Friday, May 8, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment