Skip to main content

View Diary: Alito lacks support (411 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why do you come here? (none)
    You haven't been troll rated out of existence yet, despite the fact that you're a Republican coming to a Democratic site and posting pithy one line comments void of any value.  It isn't like you are really trying to debate or get across a point.  If you want to come here and engage with Democrats then why don't you put in a little effort?  Given your spelling mistakes, is it just because you have problems typing?

    "... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

    by manyoso on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:06:46 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Actually I am (none)
      trying to debate the proper meaning of teh constitution.  It is people like you who post pith one like comments to the effect that "you are an idiot."
      •  OK , so where in the constitution (none)
        does it say that the president can interpret the law however he wants, ignore the ones he doesn't like, and wriggle out from under the ones he breaks.

        Talk about judicial activism!

      •  Well you are not doing a good job of it. (none)
        What do you expect people to reply to you pithy one line comments accusing a detailed and well thought out critique of 'not understanding polemics'

        If you want to debate the proper meaning of the constitution, please point out any strict constructionist rationale (I assume you'd have sympathy for this) not adhering to Article I, Section 1. of the constitution.  If you are not familiar with it, why don't you scroll down, have a look, and then try using your brain to come up with something other than a knee jerk one line pithy response?  Mmm'K?

        "... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

        by manyoso on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:30:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Executive does get to interpret (none)
          the laws.  See my post below.

          I do not approve of teh Executive ignoring lawas or not following them.  the Executive is just as bound as everyone else, whether he likes it or not.  Although I must point out that there were  instances where the Executive did refuse to follow a duly enacted statute.  For insatnce teh War Powers Act has been ignored on many occasions.  Also, the Executive ignored the law taht sought to abrogate Miranda, and refused to defend it.  (See Dickerson v. US).

          •  Interpreting laws (none)
            I agree that the executive interprets laws as a matter of routine day to day business.  So what?  They do this in order to comply with the law.  When the executives interpretation is called into question the judiciary settles the matter by adjusting the executives interpretation to fit the legislatures understanding of the law.

            There is no special constitutional power vested in the executive requiring it to interpret the laws.  Individual members of congress and individual members of the judiciary and, yes, ordinary American citizens interpret the law every live long day.  So what?  We do this in order to comply with the law to the best of our senses.  The constitution does not afford our interpretations any more deference than the executives or vice versa.

            It is the legislature's sole perogative, vested by the constitution, to create law.  Period.  What the President thinks about the law he is signing as he puts pen to paper is immaterial.

            "... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

            by manyoso on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:55:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree (none)
              that what the President thinks is immaterial.  But by the same token, what some committee chairman thinks when he votes for the law is also immaterial.  What matters is what the law actually says.  I said it elsewhere that Presidential signing statements are bunk, but no more or no less so than "legislative history" in the form of committee reports or floor statements.
              •  Where the language is not specific... (none)
                Hundreds of years of jurisprudence says that the court's should look to the intent of the people that drafted the legislation.  Are you seriously arguing otherwise?

                "... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

                by manyoso on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 03:54:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Can W pick and choose which laws to uphold? (none)
        Regarding Presidential duties and powers, Article II, Section 3, says "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". To my citizen's mind it says "the Laws", which means not "some Laws" or "those laws which he likes". To me it means the President has a constitutional obligation to obey, enforce, and follow all the laws passed by Congress, even those with which he disagrees. If Congress decides at some point that the President has violated his constitutional oath by not faithfully adhering to this constitutional requirement, could that not be included in a possible article of impeachment.  Or does ignoring his obligation to follow those parts of the Constitution that he does not like or that limit his power not constitute "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". Also at what point can "faithfully executed" morph into "faithlessly executed", and "Care" become "No Care".  No one is above the law, including and especially the President of the United States.  As has been said before, he is President, not King.

        Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Richard Feynman

        by dewtx on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 02:36:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Just this side of troll (TM) (none)

      despot : 1. A master; an absolute or irresponsible ruler or sovereign. 2. One who rules regardless of a constitution or laws; a tyrant.

      by wrights on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:11:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site