The Right Scoop
The problem is both the Shitehouse and most of Congress are controlled by "jews" who're waging these wars to install Fed-like banking mafias as the governments in all the Middle Eastern countries who don't have one. It's not complicated. Then they'll fold all these economies - including America's - into one. Enter global dictatorship.
The problem is both the Shitehouse and most of Congress are controlled by "jews" who're waging these wars to install Fed-like banking mafias as the governments in all the Middle Eastern countries who don't have one. It's not complicated. Then they'll fold all these economies - including America's - into one. Enter global dictatorship.
Levin's so full of shit. G Wimp Bush's personal Iraq War was never officially declared. That's the purpose of the War Powers Act. http://deanberryministries.us
I believe in all of the above however none of these actually can declare a law "unconstitutional"
Jury nullification is only available in a jury trial and is primarily used to override a Judge's instructions as to the law. There is no jury at SCOTUS and a pattern of nullification can prompt Congress to act on a law but there is no certitude of that.
The vote is only likely on a law if it can be placed on a ballot or if it could place enough Representatives in Congress that would call for either a Constitutional Convention or offer up an amendment to the Constitution.
A Constitutional Convention requires either 34 of 50 States calling for one or 2/3s of both houses of Congress and of all the times it has been brought up the closest we have ever come was in 1969 and again in the 1980's. I would also point out that there has not been a convention since 1787.
In the end this is the primary function of SCOTUS to be the arbiter of the Constitutionality of laws brought before it. I never said it was easy to go the route of SCOTUS however it is easier than all other options.
I believe in all of the above however none of these actually can declare a law "unconstitutional"
Jury nullification is only available in a jury trial and is primarily used to override a Judge's instructions as to the law. There is no jury at SCOTUS and a pattern of nullification can prompt Congress to act on a law but there is no certitude of that.
The vote is only likely on a law if it can be placed on a ballot or if it could place enough Representatives in Congress that would call for either a Constitutional Convention or offer up an amendment to the Constitution.
A Constitutional Convention requires either 34 of 50 States calling for one or 2/3s of both houses of Congress and of all the times it has been brought up the closest we have ever come was in 1969 and again in the 1980's. I would also point out that there has not been a convention since 1787.
In the end this is the primary function of SCOTUS to be the arbiter of the Constitutionality of laws brought before it. I never said it was easy to go the route of SCOTUS however it is easier than all other options.
And when the UN decides that the United States doesn't like Muslims and sends UN troops into our borders, the US soldiers will have to comply, right Obama?
Repent! Repent! The end is near!
When all else fails, we still have the fallback position expressed in the Declaration, "it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it", most here are familiar enough with the rest of this passage that just the crux will do.
Why do the Medicore One admits he hates Obama, it damaged his clear thinking?
The false diversion of President Obama not complying with the War Powers Resolution
It has been noted that Friday, May 20, 2011, marked 60 days since the initiation of U.S. hostilities against Libya.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 prohibits U.S. armed forces from continuing hostilities for more than 60 days, with a 30 day withdrawal period, unless there is statutory Congressional authorization, or a formal constitutional Congressional declaration of war.
However, the War Powers Resolution and its timetable are a completely false diversion in this case.
The only situation in which an offensive military operation without prior Congressional authorization is valid under the Resolution is, “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.“
Since the United States wasn’t attacked by Libya, the War Powers Resolution doesn’t apply, and, therefore, the imposition of a no-fly zone (an act of war) was unlawful to begin with, and the talk of the 30-day withdrawal deadline is a red herring.
Look, I personally don't believe the War Powers Act is constitutional, but in a civil society we have all decided that we can't each, on our own, decide which laws we can follow and which we won't. For instance, I also don't like our income tax system, but that doesn't mean I can just skip out on paying taxes.
It doesn't matter what the President or I feel. Fact is, the War Powers Act is law and as long as that remains so he has no choice but to follow it. Anything else is quite simply criminal.
Look, I personally don't believe the War Powers Act is constitutional, but in a civil society we have all decided that we can't each, on our own, decide which laws we can follow and which we won't. For instance, I also don't like our income tax system, but that doesn't mean I can just skip out on paying taxes.
It doesn't matter what the President or I feel. Fact is, the War Powers Act is law and as long as that remains so he has no choice but to follow it. Anything else is quite simply criminal.
Obama: Libya? ahh, Samantha Powers gave me the idea long ago, how to do it, override Congress...just like with the Palestinians...don't worry, America...we're just fundamentally transforming it as we go. Meanwhile, check out that economy...did we not save your ass or what?? (fistbump)
No, calling him a fool implies that he has no idea what he's doing to the country, and I believe he knows EXACTLY what sort of damage he's done and is doing...
It is beyond the scope of the President's Constitutionally granted powers to decide whether a law is Constitutional or not. As with past Presidents, he can "feel" any way he likes about a law, unlike past Presidents who understood the Constitution and complied with the law. The Constitution grants the authority to only one branch of government to decide the constitutionality of a law, the Supreme Court,but even they cannot just arbitrarily decide this, it has to be brought before the court. The SCOTUS? Who is that? You remember them don't you Barry? The folks in the black Robes you publicly "dissed" during your SOTU address. Yep, that's them. Katy, bar the door, here comes that Constitutional crisis, brought to you courtesy of one man's arrogance.
"It is beyond the scope of the President's Constitutionally granted powers to decide whether a law is Constitutional or not."
The Supreme Court seems to disagree with you. In the case United States v Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974):
"In the performance of assigned constitutional duties, each branch of the Government must initially interpret the Constitution, and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due great respect from the others."
If the President determines that an act of Congress violates the Constitution, he is bound by his oath to not enforce it, as he would be acting in violation of the Constitution to enforce an unconstitutional law. Antonin Scalia said as much in his concurrence in the case Freytag v. Commissioner of IRS, 501 US 868 (1991), that the President has the ability "even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional."
Now if Congress disagrees with the President's assessment, they can go to the Court to compel the President to enforce the law. The President will enforce any general act of Congress unless it is obviously unconstitutional, but the President is still bound by oath to not enforce any law they evaluate as unconstitutional. In other words, just because Congress passes it doesn't mean the President must enforce it.
"In the performance of assigned constitutional duties, each branch of the Government must initially interpret the Constitution, and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due great respect from the others."
"Assigned" being the key word here, it is not a matter of enforcement, it is a matter of obeying the law.The Constitutional duties of the President are in executing the laws of the country, hence the title Executive. The War Powers Act has yet to be found unconstitutional therefore Scalia's opinion is irrelevant. As it has yet to be challenged in the SCOTUS (not like there hasn't been plenty of opportunity) the law stands, if he chooses to continue to ignore the law he still stands in violation of the law by not first gaining congressional approval to commit the Armed Forces to action.
Is the Constitution a law as well? Is the President required to execute every act of Congress, even ones that are obviously and blatantly unconstitutional?
Let us establish a hypothetical scenario: Congress has enacted a law, even overriding the President's veto to enact it, that forbids the building of churches and other religious buildings or structures across the United States. Obviously such a law would be in violation of the First Amendment, among probably other provisions of the Constitution. Now, is the President required under the Constitution to execute such a law? Why or why not?
Chief Judge Frank Eaterbrook of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals:
For the President must take care that the laws are executed. Is the Constitution a law? If so, then the President must execute it too. In any contest between statute and Constitution, the Constitution wins.
Is the Constitution a law as well? Is the President required to execute every act of Congress, even ones that are obviously and blatantly unconstitutional?
Let us establish a hypothetical scenario: Congress has enacted a law, even overriding the President's veto to enact it, that forbids the building of churches and other religious buildings or structures across the United States. Obviously such a law would be in violation of the First Amendment, among probably other provisions of the Constitution. Now, is the President required under the Constitution to execute such a law? Why or why not?
Chief Judge Frank Eaterbrook of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals:
For the President must take care that the laws are executed. Is the Constitution a law? If so, then the President must execute it too. In any contest between statute and Constitution, the Constitution wins.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.