One cannot break the law, when one is above it.
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 07:04
VIEWED: 4836
PAGE 3 of 5
Quote:That’s why I posted what I did on Marbury v Madison. Before people decide that this would be a good alternative, I want people to think about what it means for the Supreme Court to rule legislation as unconstitutional. Judges do make their own laws. It’s call Judicial Legislation. And if you gave the Supreme Court that much power, it wouldn’t be long before they were calling the shots.
Originally posted by citizen:
Not sure I see it actually. By having some say in whether laws are passed or not doesn't mean they get to decide exactly how they are enforced at all levels, nor do they make up they're own laws (well I don't think they do, do they?).
Quote:Yes the president does have veto power. That’s what makes the Executive Office equal to the Legislature. The Constitution does not give the power of veto to the Supreme Court, and the ability to veto a law after it is enacted is even more powerful then the Executive Branch.
Originally posted by citizen:
In fact the way I understand the US Government the exectutive branch is a higer candidate. It's my understanding that they aren't elected, they're appointed by the President, and they make the decisions (yeah I know the elected president has the final say).
Maybe Hero will chime in here. I’m sure he can explain this stuff much better then I can.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yes the president does have veto power. That’s what makes the Executive Office equal to the Legislature. The Constitution does not give the power of veto to the Supreme Court, and the ability to veto a law after it is enacted is even more powerful then the Executive Branch.
Maybe Hero will chime in here. I’m sure he can explain this stuff much better then I can.
That's not what I meant by Veto. I meant a limited power to push a bill through, like the parliment act over here.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t know about that. I’d have to look into it. I don’t think so, but I could be wrong. The only thing I can think of is that if there is a 50-50 split in the Senate then the VP becomes tie breaker. But I can’t think of any situation in which the Executive office could impose legislation.
Originally posted by citizen:
That's not what I meant by Veto. I meant a limited power to push a bill through, like the parliment act over here.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t know about that. I’d have to look into it. I don’t think so, but I could be wrong. The only thing I can think of is that if there is a 50-50 split in the Senate then the VP becomes tie breaker. But I can’t think of any situation in which the Executive office could impose legislation.
It was in the theoretical case where the Judicery had a say in the law. Having a limited abillity to push through legislation based on a majority of the branchs would seem to make sense.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Who here thinks the President- any President- is above the law?
Depends on the law.
If the President is driving his car through my City and is speeding or drunk, then he will be prosecuted like anyone else (especially PirateNews). If the City decides to pass a special income tax on federal employees...like the President, then he would not have to pay. If the President moved to my City then he would have to pay property taxes and obey zoning laws. If the City passed a law making it crime for the President to make a treaty with Madagascar, then he would not have to obey. If the President negligently discharged a firearm into a friends face giving him minor injuries, he would be charged with a local misdemeanor...if he intentionally discharged a firearm into a foriegn invader on City property and in violation of specific City laws, then he would not be subject to prosecution.
Laws are complicated. What you really want to be talking about is jurisdiction. If there is no jurisdiction, then the President does not have to obey. Same way I don't have to obey Pennsylvania's DUI laws (unless I'm in PA at the time).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What if he is hunting drunk, and discharges his weapon in an unsafe manner injuring a fellow hunter? How to prosecute him when he has himself wisked away by men in black to a protected location to sober up? Your pitiful and weak laws can only be enforced on the pitiful and weak (economically) citizens.
Originally posted by Hero:
If the President is driving his car through my City and is speeding or drunk, then he will be prosecuted like anyone else
Response?
Ha! I thought not, I found the crack in your belief system!
Chrisisall, pulling the chain on Hero's argument
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
What if he is hunting drunk, and discharges his weapon in an unsafe manner injuring a fellow hunter? How to prosecute him when he has himself wisked away by men in black to a protected location to sober up?
That would never happen. If it did and I could prove it, I'd charge the agents with Obstruction.
Your talking about the VP's situation. There is no evidence he was drunk and no evidence that anyone covered anything up. There was also a plausable explanation supported by all the witnesses and the victim. Given those circumstances there was nothing to charge Cheney with. Sure, you can question the motives of those involved to lie and cover up, but there is simply no evidence to the contrary. Last night someone was murdered in Cleveland. Did you do it? There is no evidence, no witnesses, and you have an alibi. Guilty. Where'd I hide that needle...
Prosecutors are not supposed to charge people with crimes when there is no evidence. Thats an Ohio rule...its different in other places (Russia, Iran, North Carolina, etc).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:OF COURSE THERE ISN'T!!! THAT'S MY POINT!!!!
Originally posted by Hero:
Your talking about the VP's situation. There is no evidence he was drunk and no evidence that anyone covered anything up.
Last time I accidently shot someone, I had to go downtown right away, breathalyzer, ID, permits, the works.
But I couldn't play the affluent celebrity/politician card.
Side note: Kermit only suffered a flesh wound....
Bad Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm afraid I still don't see what's horrible about laws being checked for Constitutionality before they are enacted.
A lot of folks can't afford to challenge Unconstitutional laws, and sometimes the Supreme Court can decide not to hear a case, so a law will never be checked for Constitutionality.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Good question.
4) Legal immunity for 'crimes' committed against foreign nations/people while in office. This will keep him from facing thousands of murder charges if he decides to mobilize troops somewhere in the world to accomplish X goal. It's assumed a President will inevitably mobilize troops and attack somebody sometime, and while this could constitute murder in a strict legal sense, we expect our President to have that power and exercise it from time to time. If we don't like how he uses his executive powers, he should be impeached and tossed out of office. I do not think that he should have the same immunity for crimes committed on US soil, though. I can think of few good reasons for him to mobilize troops to take out Topeka Kansas. If it's a policing operation, the troops should follow police procedure, and not just gun down or bomb the general population.
Anyhow, that's my opinion on how much the President should be legally liable.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
If the President declares War, then he is not liable. If the President invades a country without the agreement of the UN? Well then isn't he violating the law? Isn't he the responsible for any attrocities?
Why should a President be above the law of the land he governs for the people BY the people?
Whatever happened to that quaint little notion - THE BUCK STOPS HERE?
Well, the President of the US doesn't need the agreement of the UN to declare War. He needs the agreement of Congress.
And the President doesn't need the agreement of Congress to move troops. I think that's how a lot of our police actions take place.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME