Why you should be happy George W. Bush is our President

[Hal_Crawford 15]

WHAT? The other branches are free to ignore SCOTUS decision if it is not in keeping with the Constitution. Is that how checks and balances works? Gimme a break!

 

Hal

[TheScout 10]

Hal, you write:

 

"So you oppose:

No Child Left Behind?

Medicare (including prescription benefits instituted by Bush)?"

 

Yes I do.

 

"I'm guessing you also agree that the federal government can't overrule state legislatures on such issues as medical marijuana?"

 

Yes I would, its a state responsibility according to the Constitution.

 

"I suppose you would also oppose any federal law limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman?"

 

Yes I would, its a state responsibility according to the Constitution.

 

"I'm sure that if congress had passed that law that Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas would have voted it down."

 

I would have voted it down too, its not one of Congress' powers.

 

"Or do these strict constructionist constraints apply when the issues are liberal "good ideas" rather than conservative ones."

 

No they apply to all. I am a strict constructionist not a hypocrite. I oppose when "conservatives" do things agaist the Constitution as well. I consider myself and old school Republican like Robert Taft and Ron Paul. I don't really know where I came off as a hypocrite on this matter? I think I have always been a quite consistent support of states rights and a limited federal government on all matters. I think even Merlyn could vouch for that!

 

For example, as the SCOTUS brought back the death penalty after its hiatus in the 1970s, I support that decision as being within the bounds of the Constitution. Yet as a Catholic I personally dislike the death penalty and would like to see it abolished.

 

The last business day of the Bush administration has drawn to a close"

 

I do think thats a shame though. Though I don't like everything Bush has done, I think he is a sincere and honorable man who always did what he thought best for the republic. (I realize probably everyone still hates him and does not even think he is sincere or honorable and I realize that so you don't have to tell me.

 

[TheScout 10]

Hal, its not as absurd as you may think. LOL.

 

Without going into extensive historical detail . . . Andrew Jackson certainly thought that way. Read his Maysville Road Veto. As did Jefferson and Madison. Read the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. As did John C. Calhoun. Read the South Carolina Exposition and Protest.And many lesser early American statesmen.

 

Regardless of what the SCOTUS says, should the President execute a law he thinks is unconstitutional?

 

Regardless of what the SCOTUS says, should Congress pass a law they think are unconstitutional?

 

And what about the States, who actually wrote and ratified the Constitution? Like a party to any contract don't they have a right to ensure its terms are fullfilled.

 

There has to be a "check" on the appointed for life nine guys who sit on the SCOTUS, doesn't there?

 

 

[TheScout 10]

Hal, thinking more, you even answered your own question!

 

"The other branches are free to ignore SCOTUS decision if it is not in keeping with the Constitution."

'Of course they should not go along with something "NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CONSTITUTION."

 

Or should they go along with something not in keeping with the Constitution?

 

The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is ingulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them. Thomas Jefferson

 

[Hal_Crawford 15]

TheScout:

So the SCOTUS decided that some of FDR's programs were unconstitutional and then FDR decided that the SCOTUS was not limited to 9 members by the constitution so he attempted to appoint more justices (court packing). The SCOTUS said that was unconstitutional. Historically that was the end of it but you are saying that if FDR believed that he was right and SCOTUS was wrong then he should have continued to appoint more justices? No! The three branches cannot interpret the constitution independently. I realize that judicial review is not in the constitution but it has been accepted for over 150 years. Do you want to throw that away?

 

Question: If Obama (or any president) decided that he didn't agree with the Dale decision, could he decree that BSA cannot exclude gays? No! If congress feels that way they could pass a law. If the president disagrees with congress then he could veto it and if the SCOTUS disagrees they can rule it unconstitutional at which point congress can attempt to amend the constitution which might or might not work. That's how it works.

 

Hal

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

TheScout writes:

You are smart enough to know that the spending power is not unlimited. The federal government can not spend for purposes that are unconstitutional, whether a court says so or not.

 

What? Why not? If the government can ignore the court on what their powers are, why can't they also ignore what they can spend money on? You appear to be making a completely arbitrary distinction.

 

I agree that the other branches could "ignore" a SCOTUS decision if it is not in keeping with the Constitution.

 

And if congress considers a SCOTUS decision that says they may not raise and spend funds on X, they can ignore that too, right? Or can't they?

 

There are three branches to the federal government as well as the states. They all have the duty to interpret the Constitution in undertaking their roles.

 

But why can't congress interpret their role to raise and spend funds on something the SCOTUS says is unconstitutional? Can't they ignore that ruling too, and make their own interpretation? Where's the line?

[TheScout 10]

Hal:

 

"So the SCOTUS decided that some of FDR's programs were unconstitutional and then FDR decided that the SCOTUS was not limited to 9 members by the constitution so he attempted to appoint more justices (court packing). The SCOTUS said that was unconstitutional."

 

I htink your history is wrong on the Judicial Reorganization Bill of 1937. The SCOTUS did not rule it unconstitutional. It failed in the Senate. It is certainly within the Article III powers of Congress to design the SCOTUS. Since it was constitutional and the bill passed clearly FDR would have had the right to do so.

 

I have never really came out against judicial review. But I do not think that this precludes the executive or legislative branch to also "review" the Constitution. Again, why should one of these branches follow through with something they think is unconstitutional just because the SCOTUS says so - since this isn't their right in the Constitution. Hopefully we don't elect straw men to office. As I pointed out. Many esteemed early statesmen felt this way.

 

 

Merlyn, you write,

 

"What? Why not? If the government can ignore the court on what their powers are, why can't they also ignore what they can spend money on? You appear to be making a completely arbitrary distinction."

 

Well they can of course. But if they ignore the Constitution on "what they can spend money on" - they are violating the Constitution. The Constitution does not give the SCOTUS the final say on the Constitution, so by ignoring a faulty ruling, the are not violating the Constitution.

 

 

"And if congress considers a SCOTUS decision that says they may not raise and spend funds on X, they can ignore that too, right? Or can't they?"

 

Yes . . . if the SCOTUS's ruling is not consistent with the Constitution.

 

 

But why can't congress interpret their role to raise and spend funds on something the SCOTUS says is unconstitutional? Can't they ignore that ruling too, and make their own interpretation? Where's the line?

 

"Where's the line?"

 

The Constitution!

 

I've been saying this for a long time. I don't make this up. Its only a couple of pages long. Everyone should read it!

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

TheScout writes:

"What? Why not? If the government can ignore the court on what their powers are, why can't they also ignore what they can spend money on? You appear to be making a completely arbitrary distinction."

 

Well they can of course. But if they ignore the Constitution on "what they can spend money on" - they are violating the Constitution.

 

But if congress insists the constitution says they CAN spend money on it, it's OK, right?

 

The Constitution does not give the SCOTUS the final say on the Constitution, so by ignoring a faulty ruling, the are not violating the Constitution.

 

And if congress considers a court ruling that says "congress can't spend money on X" as faulty, they can ignore and continue to spend money on it, right?

 

"And if congress considers a SCOTUS decision that says they may not raise and spend funds on X, they can ignore that too, right? Or can't they?"

 

Yes . . . if the SCOTUS's ruling is not consistent with the Constitution.

 

Uh, how do you determine that last bit? Does congress have to ask you, personally?

 

I've already posited a situation where congress says X is constitutional and SCOTUS says it isn't, so now where do you turn to determine what is consistent with the constitution?

 

"Where's the line?"

 

The Constitution!

 

So far, people just in this newsgroup disagree on whether education and health are covered. So where's the line?

 

I've been saying this for a long time. I don't make this up. Its only a couple of pages long. Everyone should read it!

 

I have. Do you realize George Washington wasn't eligible to be president?

 

 

[Hal_Crawford 15]

Merlyn:

GW not eligible to be prez? How so?

Hal

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

It's pretty funny Hal, here:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/takingtextandstructurereallyseriously.pdf

 

Lots of other bizarre things, too.

 

If you can't read the PDF, the short form is:

 

Article II, section 1: The constitutional text explicitly restricts eligibility to those persons who were "natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."

 

Article VII in turn provides that "[t]he Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution."

 

Washington was from Virginia, which was the 10th to ratify. He was not a citizen of the US when the constitution was adopted, he was a citizen of Virginia, which was not part of the US "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."

[Hal_Crawford 15]

Merlyn:

Interesting point. But why stop at Washington? Jefferson, Madison and Monroe are thumbed out by this logic. Did I miss any? In fact, Ohio has now taken the title for the birthplace of presidents (not necessarily good ones but the largest number).

 

Thank God (yes I do believe in Him) that I don't agree with Scalia's strict constructionism or I'd have to get rid of all the dollar bills, quarters and nickels in my pocket. Oops, that's a different thread.

 

Hal

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Oh, them and more. The article says Zachary Taylor is the last legitimate US president.

[Hal_Crawford 15]

Interesting but more kool-aid than I am willing to drink. I'd love to see how you interpret merit badge requirements or the G2SS.

 

Hal

[le Voyageur 72]

Merlin....Washington was from Virginia, which was the 10th to ratify. He was not a citizen of the US when the constitution was adopted, he was a citizen of Virginia, which was not part of the US "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.

 

Interesting observation - meaning the first legitmate President per the Constitution would of been John Tyler, the 10th President, born 1790, about 4 years after the signing of the 1786 Treaty of Paris......

 

[Beavah 205]

Interesting but more kool-aid than I am willing to drink. I'd love to see how you interpret merit badge requirements or the G2SS.

 

Yah, and dat's the point, eh? You will never find any document anywhere where the text, of itself, is both unambiguous and just when applied to every circumstance. That's why we have people in the mix, eh? To interpret, and apply, and nullify where necessary.

 

The genius of the founding fathers was not the document per se. It was establishing the social conventions which require deliberation, involvement of competing interests, and delay of time. Those social conventions are vital, eh?

 

They're also why the Nixon/Cheney/GWB notions of the "unitary executive" and their actions in many areas were so manifestly dangerous and anti-American. While making a (strained) argument based on the text and some modern practical practice, they did serious violence to the social conventions, deliberation, etc. that are the core of American constitutionality.

 

The law, in its text and adjudication, is a reasonable means for resolving individual disputes, eh? The law, however, is not sufficient for establishing the foundations of a society. Those must be based on social convention and values. We undermine those at our peril.

 

Beavah