One cannot break the law, when one is above it.
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 07:04
VIEWED: 4836
PAGE 4 of 5
He does need the sanction of the UN, these days, if he is going to avoid all the censure of the world at large. Unless the US is attacked, it is very difficult for any President to justify the insertion of American troops into another country. "Police action" is a euphemism used to placate an increasingly dissaproving American public. In reality, when a country uses the might of its DOD to kill people, take possesion of strategic locations, and enforce its views of liberty and democracy on another nation, its war. Lets let go of the semantics and call it what it is.
America needs to pay more attention to how it is perceived by other Nations.
Congress will not give its agreement to go to war unless it genuinely feels that the country is at risk. In the case of Japan attacking Pearl Harbour, this was pretty definate. In the case of the current "situation" it was lied to.
So,should a President be above the law? Absolutely not. Anyone that thinks they should be, needs to take another US Government class and some history lessons. Leaders that are "above the law" are dictators.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If they were checked, the Constitution could never be 'gotten around', and that would be horrble for some wanting to get their way with things...
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm afraid I still don't see what's horrible about laws being checked for Constitutionality before they are enacted.
Yang Chrisisall, protector of the E-Plebnista
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:ARE YOU CALLING PRESIDENT BUSH A DICTATOR?????
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Leaders that are "above the law" are dictators.
Would-be, I'd say Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have a feeling he THINKS he is. After all, he is THE DECIDER.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hmmmm...where have I heard that before?
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
After all, he is THE DECIDER.
Xanderisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have DECIDED that in my little world I am the "man". I think I will make up a T-shirt that says THE DECIDER! Wait a minute......nevermind
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m just not ready to abandon the democratic system just yet. For all of its flaws, I still think it averages better then all the rest. And redefining our system as an Oligarchy of an unelected judiciary is taking the power a little farther from the people then I want it. I'm not saying your way wouldn't work; I'm just saying I don't support it.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm afraid I still don't see what's horrible about laws being checked for Constitutionality before they are enacted.
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 AnthonyT:
I'm afraid I still don't see what's horrible about laws being checked for Constitutionality before they are enacted.
My problem with this is simple, the Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, and to the best of my knowledge there is no way to remove them. So what you have is a group of 7 people who rule absolutely, who cannot be impeached (I think), who can override any law by simply saying that it is unconstitutional. You might say that we could put in a system where Congress could push through laws anyway but that would defeat the whole purpose (since Congress could use the loophole to dump unconstitutional laws).
An additional problem is that if the balance of the Court was upset (i.e. if a Conservative president replaced a swing vote with a hardcore Conservative, which could never happen), then until someone on the Court died or left the majority group would be able to completely abolish the influence of the minority (regardless of what the actual division was in the country. Then if the process was reversed then hundreds of laws could be spontaneously reversed, causing chaos. All in all, not a good choice IMHO.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actualy, a supreme court judge can be removed by congress through a process similar to an impeachment of a president.
From:
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/SupremeCourtC
onfirmationFAQ.shtml#q3
What is the term length for Supreme Court Justices?
Once a Justice has been confirmed, he or she can serve on the Supreme Court for life “during good behavior.” Supreme Court Justices can only be removed through resignation or impeachment. The only Supreme Court Justice ever to have been impeached by the House of Representatives was Samuel P. Chase, in 1804. The Senate vote failed, and he remained on the Supreme Court until his death in 1811.
------------------------------------------
dc4bs
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On the Issue of the Supreme Court, they are appointed for life. So, if they don't commit any crimes they stay until they die or decide to leave.
On the issue of the President, I think that no one should be above the law, but there are certain times when, in the defense of the country, the President beaking the law could be justified
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME