- 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
- Yes Atlas, but Mangus denies with great consistency any authority for interpretation. He's literally hung his constitutional hat on that by all his past opinion posting. Using his illogic we can now officially disband the Judiciary Branch of governance(federal and state) as not needed and unnecessary,because Mangus is in sole charge of defining meaning in OUR Constitution. Does that work for you?EXAMPLE: He has defined the scope of Executive Branch power thusly:Now I don't know the obvious reading you have of that, but mine is the executive has whatever UNILATERAL power it sees fit to exercise. That is an unadulterated and obvious translation of his own comment. That is what I mean when I say his illogicpaints him in a corner every time.Another example follows immediately:Untrue! An almost melodious rendering of inanity. There is no Advise and Consent process for the issuance of XOs. So he's wrong again. What there is, is an unchecked opening for abuse that needs to be challenged. There is no direction ANYWHERE in our Constitution to give each succeeding President such selective abuse of power. Can you spell...P-a-t-r-i-o-t- A-c-t and H-o-m-e-l-a-n-d S-e-c-u-r-i-t-y?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Doctor NO!Again you do not read the post or you do not comprehend what was said and linked to sources . . Read the Articles here . .Then please read Article III and the XI amendment . . . I must have missed the part where the Courts are given any power over the States only over the Federal relationship with the States. There is no language giving the Supreme court the power over the Legislature or the Executive. The Executive has the power of the Sword and the Legislature has the power of Purse and the court has POWER over Neither.Again you misquote my post attempting to put word unspoken in my mouth . . Did not say a word about Executive Orders but will tell you that even Washington used them . . You continue to invent what fits into your INTERPRETATIVE DEMOCRACY but that does not prove a single premise now does it? I said the Executive can use his power of Executive discretion. [Just like the courts have said AG Holder now posses in Arizona.]So, you discression is still stinking up the Constitutional Republic - maybe stand down wind would improve the situation?
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Executive has the full Constitutional powers to make Executive management decisions - there is no new power Read the Constitution. The President proposes and the Congress disposes = then the Executive decides how the law will be staffed and the nature of the requirements to execute the desires of the law.So, IMO there is not a Constitutional issue here but an allowed management option of the Executive -
Article II
Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.[Note: superceded by Amendment XII]The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.[Note: modified by Amendment XXV]The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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.”Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Executive is to implement the directions of Congress. Some latitude is allowed for "management".Issuing EO's that usurp the legislation's intent (law) that was passed by Congress is not included in 'management discretion'.It is a lousy way to govern where the situation is that Congress is forced to sue or impeach the Executive in order to enforce the spirit and intent of passed legislation.Foments democracy, where the law is determined by a man, popularly elected by the citizens of a nation.No rationalization in this regard works for me, and many of the Founders saw the danger in it as well.
- Permalink Reply by on
- a guy on tv today praising Romney's speech said this about voters;'They have to be comfortable with somebody, at a basic level, to put them in the oval office and give them ultimate power over the lives of us all.'it's so ingrained right now it's sad
- Permalink Reply by on
- Exactly Teddy. Its why I found the RP "movement" so hypocritical - all their hopes and solutions placed on one man in one postiion, yet they claim to be "constitutional" - BS IMO.So easy to think that if they could just get the right man in there, he could restore the constitution by EO. I did not hear Romney say that he needs us to elect a Congress so he can accomplished the stated goals. All I will, this and that.Rip Van Republic snoozes. Functional democracy. Which king shall we elect, makes us "free"?Typical of the Reindeer Games season. Oh well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)