With Republicans like these, who needs Republicans?

Flopping Aces ^ | 05-23-11 | DrJohn

[Starman417]

It's no wonder we're so screwed.

Barack Obama has decided that he is the king of the United States and Republicans are in meek compliance. Obama unilaterally took us to war in Libya on a false premise. Libya was never an imminent threat. Obama invoked the War Powers Act in defense of his actions but now that the 60 days has passed Obama simply declared that he will simply not abide by the law.

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

“Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.”

Never mind that Obama has lied about virtually every aspect of the Libyan involvement right from the start, which is why you're an idiot to believe anything Barack Obama says.

There was a time when democrats thought this was a bad thing:

Hillary Clinton: “If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.”

Joe Biden:“I want to make it clear. And I made it clear to the President that if he takes this nation to war with Iran without Congressional approval. I will make it my business to impeach him. That’s a fact. That is a fact.”

And the Republicans?

Lindsey Graham whined recently about Fox News hindering Graham's efforts at amnesty.

“In today’s world, it’s very hard for bi-partisan agreements to be formed,” said Graham, “because those who don’t like what you’re trying to do are able to generate a lot of pushback early on, so this 24 hour news cycle makes it very, very difficult, but not impossible.

“Let’s talk about immigration. When Fox News is saying ‘amnesty’ 24 hours a day, it makes it harder for me to get people on my side,” he added. “When the left, through MSNBC, talks about the tax cuts being a sell-out and going back to Bush policies, it makes harder for our Democratic colleagues.

Graham is a RINO. He is a closet democrat who is stupid enough to support the Schumer amnesty program, and here's where Graham amply demonstrates just how much of a fool he is:

[Emperor Palpatine]

Yeah, but don't forget what happens at the END of that movie....





;-)

[StonyMan451]

As you state, "The oath taken by the president, and by all members of Congress, and by all members of the military is to the Constitution, not to the lesser laws that might be passed." It is precisely because this is true that I say the president and congress, and all members of the military must obey the law as it stands, until it is repealed or declared unconstitutional.

Article I Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Article I Section 7 on the Legislative Process and Presidential Veto.

Article I Section 8 on the Powers of Congress.

Article III Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish...."

Article III Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law...."

It is clear that the Constitution:

1. Gives Congress the power to make laws that are presumed to be constitutional.

2. Gives The Judicial branch (and only the Judicial branch) the power to decide on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

Therefore, Congress, the president, and the military all must presume laws to be constitutional, and are required by the constitution to obey laws passed by Congress and signed by the president that have not been declared unconstitutional by the Judicial branch.

By obeying a law that has not been declared unconstitutional by the Judiciary, we are defending the Constitution itself. To disobey a law on the authority of one's own opinion that it is unconstitutional violates the Constitution itself, since only the Judiciary may make that determination. Any other interpretation leads to chaos.

[StonyMan451]

If Congress passes, and the Supreme Court "blesses", a blatantly unConstitutional law, then the Administration (including the president and the military) are oath-bound not to obey it.

Agreed. However, there is strong disagreement between many very intelligent and patriotic people on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. This would seem to indicate that while it may in fact be unconstitutional, it is not "blatantly" so. It is precisely disputes like this that the Supreme Court must decide, not presidents or senators on their own authority. This is what "rule of law" means.

Just because it is "blatant" to you that this law is unconstitutional does not mean it is so.

[StonyMan451]

Article II Section 1: "...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."

Article II Section 3 (regarding the duties of the president): "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."

So the president does, in fact, take an oath to uphold both the Constitution and the lesser laws.

[Jim Noble]

I don't think that thinking about our situation as "Republicans vs. Democrats" is helpful, if it ever was.

There are several MAJOR divisions, such as globalists vs. patriots, protectionists vs. free traders, looters vs. producers, and believers vs. nonbelievers.

The two-party game tends to obscure, rather than sharpen, these major divisions.

It's hard to blame the game-players - nobody wants another Cold Harbor or Antietam - but the failure lf the political system to permit these conflicts to be debated and resolved actually makes war more, not less, likely IMO.

[Phlyer]

1. Gives Congress the power to make laws that are presumed to be constitutional.

2. Gives The Judicial branch (and only the Judicial branch) the power to decide on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

On the first, yes, but only in so far as "We, the People" concur. Getting "We, the People" to not concur is not easy, but the principle of jury nullification is recognized and confirmed by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, if "We, the People" decide that a law is not Constitutional - it isn't.

On the second - nope. That's what jury nullification is all about. The ultimate power rests with the People, not only with judges. We delegate a lot of authority, but not all of our authority.

And the same requirement for each of the citizens to assess the constitutionality of laws applies to all federal power-holders as well. If the military is told to enforce some blatantly unConstitutional law, their oath is *not* to obey that order.

[Phlyer]

So the president does, in fact, take an oath to uphold both the Constitution and the lesser laws.

Yes . . . insofar as the lesser laws are themselves consistent with the Constitution.

There is an established way to amend the Constitution - which is intended as a limit on Federal power. Saying that the federal government may unilaterally (meaning, without the consent of "We, the People") change the Constitution makes the document meaningless. I don't accept that assumption.

The analogy is that of "legal orders" as applied to members of the armed forces. They are to obey the orders of the officers placed over them, but that does not absolve them of the responsibility to make their own determination on whether the order was legal. "I was just following orders," is not a valid defense for illegal acts. Neither is, "Congress passed it and the Supreme Court hasn't gotten around to deciding, so I will perform it."

Note: This is a very important responsibilty and authority Just as a member of the armed forces would be held to account if he used this rationale as a reason for disobeying an order, so the president would and should be held to account for using his interpretation of the Constitution as a reason for not enforcing or complying with a law. So be it. That's the way the system is supposed to work. The federal government is not supposed to be able to pass any law it wants and 'presume' that it is Constitutional. They must always meet the burden of proof of Constituational authority - because, despite their urgent desire to bury it - the 10th Amendment is still part of the very Consitution they seek to negate.

Another note: Yes, I know that's not the way it works in 'real life.' That's the problem, not an excuse.

[StonyMan451]

I'll concede your point on jury nullification, but it's not relevant to the case at hand. There is no trial, and no jury. If Obama is impeached over this, then jury nullification can take place in the Senate, and they can acquit him if they believe the law is unconstitutional. But as a Free Republic, "we the people" exercise our rights, and challenge existing laws by 1) defending or challenging them in court, 2) voting in elections, 3) voicing our thoughts to our elected representatives, and 4) disobeying BLATANTLY unconstitutional laws. I contend that the fact that there is so much disagreement about the War Powers Act is evidence that it is not blatantly unconstitutional, however strong our personal opinion might be that it is. This recognition must part of the personal assessment each of us must make about the constitutionality of a law. Many good and patriotic people believe that the law, even if it is ill-advised, is NOT unconstitutional.

If this were a case of a law that says I must worship the president as God, then I would agree that that is blatantly unconstitutional. I don't know where the line defining "blatant" is, but the fact that many good, intelligent, well-informed, and patriotic people accept a law as being constitutional should at least give us pause to consider the possibility that perhaps our opinion that it is blatantly unconstitutional is not as obvious as we would like to think.

Keep in mind that we're talking about the constitutionality of the law, not whether or not it's a good idea. That's a separate question, and in my opinion, there is no room for disobeying a law just because we don't like it.

[Phlyer]

Just because it is "blatant" to you that this law is unconstitutional does not mean it is so.

Actually, I didn't say anything about the War Powers Act specfically. My comment was on the more general comment that the president was required to follow laws passed by Congress regardless of whether he felt they were Constitutional. I don't agree. His responsibility to the Constitution comes first.

What is 'blatant?' The answer is one that the president (in this example) feels is so egregiously unConstitutional that he is willing to face impeachement and trial over it. That's not a trivial decision, but saying that the decision will be in favor of the law passed by Congress in an extremely high percentage of cases does not make his responsibility any less - only easier to meet since the decision in that vast majorty of cases will be obvious.

The rule of law is not just what the judges say it is. That seems to be our fundamental disagreement. It is not "We, the lawyers and judges" who authorized the supreme law of the land, but "We, the People." All else follows from that law, if the 'rule of law' is to have any meaning. The 'rule of law' in this case provides for the remedy that if 'the president or senators' (to use the subset you identified) decide on their own responsibility to do or not do something, they are subject to impeachment or defeat in election. Accepting that risk is part of how they meet their responsibility.

Just for the record, I think the War Powers Act is unConstitutional in that there is a defined method for the US to authorize use of military force on other nations or people. Until the Constitution is amended in accordance with the procedures within it, a simple law passed by Congress cannot supersede what is says.

I may even agree with what the War Powers Act was attempting to do - but that doesn't mean it was done in a Constitutionally compliant manner.

[Phlyer]

We're overlapping in our comments, and actually converging.

4) disobeying BLATANTLY unconstitutional laws.

Fine. The definition of 'blatant' is one that someone of "We, the People" feels strongly enough about that they are willing to accept the consequences of noncompliance - even to the point of pledging "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

If they're right - meaning, if "We, the People" agree - then they are hailed as heroes. If they are wrong, they go to jail.

But the potential consequences don't relieve us of our responsibility to make that assessment for ourselves - they just make the decision harder or easier. Thank God that - so far, in my life - I haven't had to face a decision that might require me to go to jail for my interpretation of the Constitution. Most of us never do. But the president has signed up for a higher authority and a higher responsbility than the rest of us. It is his job to place his job on the line, if that's what it takes to preseve and protect the Constitution.

He also has the authority and the opportunity to take his case to "We, the People." If the president were to lay out a clear rationale for why the War Powers Act (or any other, but this is the one under discussion) were unConstitutional, I think he could make that case compelling. But since I don't have any real authority (aside from the votes I case for representatives), my opinion is not very important.

[screaminsunshine]

We will take em out. 2 more elections.

[StonyMan451]

We're overlapping in our comments, and actually converging.

I think we have pretty much converged. I like your definition of "blatant".

It is his job to place his job on the line, if that's what it takes to preseve and protect the Constitution.

Agreed. In this, case, remember, Obama specifically appealed to the War Powers Act as justification for initiating military action in Libya, so he can't defend himself now by claiming he doesn't have to abide by it. Also, he defended it while he was a senator.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but in my reading of the document, the War Powers Act is not BLATANTLY unconstitutional. So for my part, if I were a Representative I would have to vote to impeach him, and if I were a Senator, I would have to vote to convict.

I don't see how anyone, by any reading of the War Powers Act, can say he has complied with it, either in its requirements for initiating military action against Libya, or in its requirement to get congressional approval within 60 days. Because the law is presumptively constitutional (in my opinion), this is clearly a "high crime or misdemeanor" of sufficient gravity to warrant removal from office.