Posted on 05/03/2011 3:33:41 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
;-\
The Supreme Court doesn't have the franchise on reading the Constitution. Each branch of government is responsible for exercising its own power constitutionally. No branch can wait for another’s permission before doing its constitutional duty.
You obviously know nothing about the constitutional system and nothing about the law. Here's a brief primer. The President has to decide for himself what his constitutional duties are. If the President concludes that his duty conflicts with the War Powers Act he is bound by his oath to ignore the War Powers Act. Congress can impeach him or it can use the power of the purse to bring him into line. When the President flouts the War Powers Act and Congress doesn't respond that is a constitutional precedent every bit as authoritative as any Supreme Court opinion. It means the law is invalid. A series of such precedents settles the matter beyond the possibility of rational dispute and we have a series of such precedents.
Of course Presidents get authorization for the use of force. They would be foolish to undertake any serious military action without consolidating political support for it. They are very careful, however, never to suggest that they are required to seek authorization under the law. They frequently consult with Congress “in accord with” but not “pursuant to” the War Powers Act. That is precisely because they are unwilling to set any precedent that might contradict the history which establishes so clearly that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.
You are way, way out of your depth here. Read more, write less.
I think Palin may have been reaing up on John Quincy Adams in the last few months, Her imagery here is quite similar to his famous Independence Day Oration in 1821. Palin says “America is not looking for dragons to slay”,while Adams historic line is “America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” There are other similar passages . Like Adams or not, he provided the first truly coherent vision of America and its relation with the world. Palin could have done far worse in finding inspiration for hers.
Oh, I don't know - law school maybe. But hey, don't take my word for it, listen to what Sam Alito said about presumptively constitutional of acts of congress in his Supreme Court confirmation testimony.
"Acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional and I don’t think that saying that is just words.
I think that means something. Members of Congress take an oath to support the Constitution and I think that the presumption of constitutionality means a lot. And I think that judgments that are reached by the legislative branch in the form of findings of fact, for example, are entitled to great respect because of the structure of our government, the fact that the basic policy decisions are supposed to be made by the legislative branch and carried out by the executive branch, and also for the practical reason or the functional reason that Congress is in a better position to evaluate conditions in our country and conditions in our society and to make findings and to determine what’s appropriate to deal with the social and economic problems that we face. So I would certainly approach the question of determining whether an act of Congress is constitutional with a heavy presumption in favor of the constitutionality of what Congress has done. Now, ultimately, Marbury v. Madison decided the question that when a case or controversy comes before the Supreme Court, and the constitutionality of an act of Congress is challenged, it is the duty of the court to decide the question. Unless we were going to go back to 1819, then that’s the practice that the federal courts have to follow. But they should always do that with an appreciation of their limited role and the role that the legislature is supposed to play. "emphasis added
Where did Alito get such a "foreign" concept (at least to you)? Well, I'm guessing he has read a number of Supreme Court decisions, like this one written by Rhenquist, and this one, that said...
...The 1992 Cable Act, like all Acts of Congress, is presumptively constitutional. As such, it "should remain in effect pending a final decision on the merits by this Court...."
"You are way, way out of your depth here. Read more, write less."
Whatever my depth may or may not be, and whatever I read or don't read, you've pretty clearly established that whatever you write, although thoroughly entertaining (but not in the good way) should be ignored for merit - violently.
He is one of our scout dads. Great guy.
Pawlenty, Daniels, Christie even Huckabee and Bachmann. The "why" is simple - none of them are afraid of the media, to include the hostile media. Palin, OTOH, never goes anywhere to speak to anyone that isn't named Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity or her favorite, Greta Van Sustern. If you're afraid of a journalist, you're not qualified to run the country.
Marco Rubio hasn't been in the Senate for more than 6-months, and yet, he walked into Meet the Press on Sunday morning and OWNED David Gregory. He was clear, concise and compelling. Palin, on her best day, doesn't reach any of those measures.
When Palin appears on a program that isn't a Fox property, and does half as well as the freshman senator from FL, maybe she'll merit some consideration, but until then - no thanks.
Great!
Thanks
Sarah Palin couldn't even get her own candidate elected in her HOME state - her HOME state - and yet you think she's responsible for the shift in the House.
That's just delusional. Delusional.
It has been noted that her contract with Fox prevents her from interviewing with other networks.
There has never, in American history, been a more media-assassinated, ad-hominem laced character-assaulted individual than Sarah Palin. The she might, in turn, limit the opportunity that those media organs have to repeat their proven pattern of dissembling and assault upon her is not just her right, it is her due.
If that flimsily constructed, fallacious straw man of yours is alone that which you feel better-qualifies anyone else, then you have decisively made my point:
Not only in there no other candidate more qualified than Sarah Palin, there is no other candidate nearly as qualified as Governor Sarah Palin. She has endured with grace, class, a steel spine and truly leviathan strength the most viscious assaults on her person, her record, her positions and even her children, yet she shines through it all with an unshakeable resolve that one could only hope would be a crown worn by every person ever elected to lead this nation.
Your inability to appreciate these uniquely qualifying assets which she alone possesses does indeed disqualify one individual from a deserving place in this discussion, but that individual is not Governor Palin. Sir.
;-\
All of your authorities deal with the proper exercise of the judicial function. They have nothing whatever to do with the scope of executive authority which is what we are talking about.
Of course judges shouldn't strike down statutes lightly or ignore the congressional judgment of constitutional validity that is implied every time a statute passes. That has nothing to do with the bizarre and ignorant idea that a President is bound to obey any congressional pronouncement unless and until the Supreme Court tells him he needn't.
There is no shadow of an argument for that proposition. There is no precedent, judicial or otherwise for it. It is at odds with the separation of powers. It is, in sum a lunatic, tin-foil helmet paranoid fantasy masquerading as a legal argument. If you do have a law degree you should be profoundly ashamed, and your teachers should be more so.
There has never, in American history, been a more media-assassinated, ad-hominem laced character-assaulted individual than Sarah Palin. The she might, in turn, limit the opportunity that those media organs have to repeat their proven pattern of dissembling and assault upon her is not just her right, it is her due.
If that flimsily constructed, fallacious straw man of yours is alone that which you feel better-qualifies anyone else, then you have decisively made my point:
Not only in there no other candidate more qualified than Sarah Palin, there is no other candidate nearly as qualified as Governor Sarah Palin. She has endured with grace, class, a steel spine and truly leviathan strength the most viscious assaults on her person, her record, her positions and even her children, yet she shines through it all with an unshakeable resolve that one could only hope would be a crown worn by every person ever elected to lead this nation.
Your inability to appreciate these uniquely qualifying assets which she alone possesses does indeed disqualify one individual from a deserving place in this discussion, but that individual is not Governor Palin. Sir.
;-\
Bull-O-Nee. Really, that is so incredibly stupid, it's insulting.
Two weeks ago, you couldn't turn on the TV without seeing Huckabee all over it, even on The View - same FNC contract - hell, he even has his own FNC show. Gingrich, the entire time he was with FNC as a contributor - EXACTLY like Palin - was on MTP & the Today Show, This Week, CBS and even CNN. Bill O'Reilly is on the Tonight Show, the Today Show, The Letterman Show ALL THE TIME - I'm pretty sure he has a FNC contgract.
Palin may need to get permission to appear on other networks, just like I'm sure Huckabee, and anyone else who cashes a FNC paycheck and like Gingrich & Santorum used to need to do, but it's WHOLLY UNBELIEVABLE to suggest that permission wouldn't be granted - not when it's CLEARLY granted for other FOX anchors and contributors ALL THE TIME.
There you go again, Chief. You make the most absurd statement possible, and then call those to whom you refer "absurd." That is a tactic straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals." Not to mention a mental faculty (read "lack thereof") straight out of Ken Kesey's "One Flew Over A Cuckoo's Nest."
No wonder you don't admire Palin. You're a barking-mad lunatic.
8^D
Since you ask — I’m admitted to practice in three states. I graduated from Harvard Law School. I was a Law Review editor. I’ve been a law professor and a DOJ attorney as well as a private practitioner. I’ve taught Constitutional Law and Federal Courts in two (accredited) American law schools. I contributed to a major Federal Courts casebook.
But my credentials are beside the point. The important thing is that I know what I’m talking about and Old Deck Hand doesn’t. He’s incoherent and therefore self-refuting.
Thanks for the response. Background is one thing, humility is another completely different virtue. We have a choice to mentor those with a lesser understanding and treat them with respect, or we can beat them over the head with our knowledge or use that as a means to place ourselves above them in a position of superiority.
Which is it in your case?
I see. So, the Judiciary and I would presume the Legislature are bound by constitutional and statutory law, but the Executive isn't, or something - at least when it comes to making war. What a novel approach. John Yoo would be so proud, as would Barack Obama circa 2011. He has made it a habit, much like Bush, to issue post-legislative statements that he isn't bound by the Act of Congress he just signed into law because he's special, or whatnot.
Are you sure you don't work in Obama's White House? Really, you'd fit right in.
If you're through "educating me" about the primacy of Executive power, you might want to read what Hamilton had to say in Federalist 69 with respect to this issue of Presidential war-making power, where he in part says...
“In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.”
Not enough? How about what Madison said in a letter to Jefferson the matter...
"The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."
Hey, I've been pretty kind to you and have indulged your self-righteous indignation in this matter - BUT - if you're going to slight me in a post to someone else, you DAMN SURE had better have the common decency to PING me to those comments.
Capisce douche-bag?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.