One cannot break the law, when one is above it.
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 07:04
VIEWED: 4836
PAGE 2 of 5
Quote:No. It wouldn’t. That would make us an Oligarchy, wouldn’t it? Which aren’t typically considered very liberal governments.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It would be nice if all new laws that Congress passed had to be vetted by the Supreme Court before they could be 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
I'm not sure what an Oligarchy is...
But I do know that I want my laws checked for Constitutionality BEFORE they circulate for years.
--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 Geezer:
...The Judiciary at the highest level (Supreme Court) could declare this legislation Unconstitutional, and that would end the matter, unless a Constitutional Amendment was passed.
Checks and balances. Gotta love it.
Yup, and if we could get the Federal system working the way it's supposed to, ie real states rights, that balance might actually work.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:An Oligarchy is a government by a small council of aristocrats, unelected aristocrats, even. Not something I would support.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm not sure what an Oligarchy is...
But I do know that I want my laws checked for Constitutionality BEFORE they circulate for years.
Also an interesting point is that your argument is, ironically, unconstitutional. Look up the landmark case Marbury v. Madison.
Contrary to popular theory and what we tell children in high school government classes, the Constitution does not define our system of government with three equal branches. It defines two equal branches, the Legislature and the Executive Office. The Judiciary is not defined in the Constitution as being equal in power to the other two branches, and was only intended by the Founding Fathers to arbiter disputes not to overturn democratic legislation.
In the case of Marbury v. Madison, in 1803 the Supreme Court usurped power equal to the other two branches when they rule that they could overrule the Legislature. The Founding Fathers never intended the Judiciary to vet democratic rule. The court seized that power. It is not given to them in the Constitution.
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
1. I don't know how other political offices are run in other countries, It's not my business to know. however I believe that no U.S. president should be above the law. Nixon wasn't, Clinton wasn't, So why should Bush Jr. be any different!
2.I do! For the reasons stated above as well as the one I'm about to state. The United States' laws where put into place so that NO ONE got special treatment not the middle class citizens, not the Celebrities, not even the President!
3. I do not believe there is a blurring, I see things in black and white according to the constitutional laws set up when the U.S. constitution was written. I don't believe they can be toyed with and re-written just because some one(Democrat OR Republican) wants more power to do what in my mind is against the constitution. I'm refering mostly to Bush's proposed warrentless wire tapping program.
Quote:
Quote from msnbc.com
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a conservative Republican, called that argument "very dangerous in terms of its application to the future. When I voted for it, I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche."
Here's the link if anyone wants to flame me: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11300384/site/newsweek/
JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No one should stand above the law. If people can be placed outside the lawsystem, why then bother to have one.
You can’t stop the Signal.
Keep spreading the word about Firefly!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
An Oligarchy is a government by a small council of aristocrats, unelected aristocrats, even.
Not quite. Your thinking of an aristocracy.
The clue to what an Oligarchy is in the name, which in ancient Greek breaks down like this:
"few" (oligo) and "rule" (arkhos).
It's rule by the few. Yes an aristocracy is a -FORM- of Oligarchy, but it's not the whole story. An Oligarchy can be 'run' by any small group. Say you had a democratically elected government, but in the end corporations CEO's called the shots, but 'behind' the scenes that would be an Oligarchy.
Basically in an Oligarchy any small group can be 'in charge' and they don't necessarily have to be visible, they can also be the 'power behind the throne'.
I.e. PirateNews thinks we’re all living in an Oligarchy, the throne are our democratically elected governments, but the power behind that throne is the minority British-Commie-Nazi-Alien-Jews.
And as chief operative in charge of puppy mutilation for the British-Commie-Nazi-Alien-Jews I can confidently say:
“We don’t exist”
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:Well, that’s exactly what AnthonyT is talking about, isn’t it? He’s saying that he thinks the Supreme Court (a small group) should vet Legislated law, which fits your definition: a small group of people calling the shots behind the scenes.
Originally posted by citizen:
It's rule by the few. Yes an aristocracy is a -FORM- of Oligarchy, but it's not the whole story. An Oligarchy can be 'run' by any small group. Say you had a democratically elected government, but in the end corporations CEO's called the shots, but 'behind' the scenes that would be an Oligarchy.
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:
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?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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?).
You'd want a few extra checks in for it to make sense, perhaps a limited veto to push some legislation through under certain limited circumstances.
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).
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