OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 59
CNN
No surprise here.
It is all about Bush....
W and numerous other presidents have, along with Congress, routinely violated the Constitution.
However, the article's objection is that Bush will refuse to enforce laws that he believes to be unconstitutional. Whether or not the President must enforce a law he finds to be repugnant to the Constitution raises the question of who determines the constitutionality of a law. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed that all parties involved in the compact had a right to determine whether the actions of government or government officials were in accordance with the Constitution.
Since all parties to a contract have a right to interpret its meaning, so do all parties affected by constitutional law. According to their view, Congress, the president, the courts, state legislatures, and the people all have a right to interpret the Constitution and act accordingly. Of course, this does not mean that any one of those parties has the final say as to whether a law is constitutional or not (its been assumed that the Supreme Court has the final say), just that all parties must act according to their conscience and understanding of the Constitution.
Imagine if Congress passes a law saying that all the homes of Americans will be searched for Cuban cigars. The president vetos the law and Congress overrides his veto. If the president refuses to enforce this law would that be unconstitutional? Of course not, because the law would be unconstitutional because Congress does not have the authority to issue it. As such, the president is not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to enforce it. This does not mean the matter is settled, however.
Citizens do the same when they wish to challenge the constitutional authority of a law. They simply refuse to follow it under the assumption that the law has no authority over them, get arrested, and the matter is adjudicated.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to justify the president's actions (I don't know which laws he has attached this disclaimer to), I am merely trying to demonstrate that there is some historical precedent for the president being able to intepret the Constitution and act in congruence with that interpretation.
Guys, if you don't like him that much, and you really think that he has violated the laws of your land, you have the consent of the founding fathers to overthrow his administration.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
It is your DUTY. *Or you can vote in November.....ehehehehe :air_kiss:
No surprise here.
It is all about Bush....
W and numerous other presidents have, along with Congress, routinely violated the Constitution.
However, the article's objection is that Bush will refuse to enforce laws that he believes to be unconstitutional. Whether or not the President must enforce a law he finds to be repugnant to the Constitution raises the question of who determines the constitutionality of a law. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed that all parties involved in the compact had a right to determine whether the actions of government or government officials were in accordance with the Constitution.
Since all parties to a contract have a right to interpret its meaning, so do all parties affected by constitutional law. According to their view, Congress, the president, the courts, state legislatures, and the people all have a right to interpret the Constitution and act accordingly. Of course, this does not mean that any one of those parties has the final say as to whether a law is constitutional or not (its been assumed that the Supreme Court has the final say), just that all parties must act according to their conscience and understanding of the Constitution.
Imagine if Congress passes a law saying that all the homes of Americans will be searched for Cuban cigars. The president vetos the law and Congress overrides his veto. If the president refuses to enforce this law would that be unconstitutional? Of course not, because the law would be unconstitutional because Congress does not have the authority to issue it. As such, the president is not in violation of the Constitution by refusing to enforce it. This does not mean the matter is settled, however.
Citizens do the same when they wish to challenge the constitutional authority of a law. They simply refuse to follow it under the assumption that the law has no authority over them, get arrested, and the matter is adjudicated.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to justify the president's actions (I don't know which laws he has attached this disclaimer to), I am merely trying to demonstrate that there is some historical precedent for the president being able to intepret the Constitution and act in congruence with that interpretation.
Guys, if you don't like him that much, and you really think that he has violated the laws of your land, you have the consent of the founding fathers to overthrow his administration.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
It is your DUTY. *Or you can vote in November.....ehehehehe :air_kiss:
k:
