Skip to main content

View Diary: Alito lacks support (411 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

            •  I doubt that intent is best expressed (none)
              by floor statements or even committee reports that are not voted on and probably not even read and are drafted by the staff.
              •  Doesn't matter whether you doubt... (none)
                If the language is debatable then they will use contemporaneous statements to divine the intent of the legislators.

                "... 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 05:06:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Contamporaneous staff statements? (none)
                  Because that's what committee reports are.

                  And by the way, why doesn't the same logic apply to the Constitutional interpretation?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site