If you were President what would you do?

[INDEPENDENT 18]

Also let's assume that you have your party controlling all branches of government. I'm interested to see what people from different parties would do. State your party and what you would do. I'll go first.

Political Party -Constitution Party

1) I would abolish the department of homeland security, education, health and human services, commerce, energy, housing and urban development, and a few others.

2) Repeal NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA. I would immediately withdraw from the United Nations, WTO, IMF, World Bank and NATO.

3) Fine businesses that hire illegals. Enforce our immigration laws. This would fix the drain on our medical care, schools, prisons, law enforcement, food stamp programs etc. If we house illegals I would make their country of origin pay us the money to hold them plus a tad bit of interest or make them house them.

4) Use prisoners as slave labor: working in agriculture, fields, chain gangs, mining, and give some who qualify the option to serve in the United States military.

5) Abolish the IRS and move to a fair tax system.

6) Cut a bunch of programs that are buried in the government bureaucracy. My colleague and I (Thinman) were discussing the waste in food stamps. Definitely dramatically cut that down and reform it. I would be very strict with who applies.

7) Change our 1965 immigration act back to the way it was before. That is to favor European countries and political refugees. I would cease all immigration from the Middle East. Instead of taking a million people each year I would move it down to around 200 thousand each year for 10 years so we can assimilate.

8) Cease all foreign aid. I’m sick and tired of pouring billions of dollars each year on Africa. The continent is a dump and never gets any better. I would refuse to give them anymore money unless they let us take care of the underlying issue to feed their people. That is only set up an agriculture industry for them to feed their people and fix the problem. If they don’t agree tough luck and stop bothering us. We will not continue to pour money on the problem. Collect all debt owed to us.

9) Repeal a lot of gun legislation.

10) Adoption of a law clarifying that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not give automatic U.S. citizenship to a child born on U.S. soil to illegal alien parents.

11) Make English the US official language. Take off all foreign languages on ballots and end all affirmative action programs.

12) All budget surpluses from cutting government will go directly to paying down the debt. I would try to make a national campaign to pay off the debt and raise money. Like Clinton does for his globalist agenda.

13) Restore God in public. Appoint very conservative justices to uphold our religious heritage. Keep 10 commandments in courthouses, God on money and in pledge. I would have a Robert Bork type justice.

14) Military – I would build a strong military and follow the Reagan doctrine. I would overturn the don’t ask don’t tell policy.

15) Judicial Activism – I would make a law so congress can overturn a bad decision by the courts.

16) Panama Canal – End the treaty that gave it away and get it back.

17) Political Parties- I would cut the bureaucracy and regulation for 3rd parties to be a legitimate choice. Also install something like IRV.

18) Social security – There is obviously major fraud in it. I would find the fuggers screwing us and make them pay back everything they took plus interest.

19) Put a gas tax to pay for our roads.

20) Favor states rights. Offer tax cuts, incentives, for business to stay home and move back. Shield them from stupid lawsuits. If a liberal lawyer comes and threatens to sue I would have the business call up a department and give them the lawyers name and how much he threatened to sue for. I would make the lawer pay what he threatened to sue for. Pass a law to attack these vermon.

[JerseyArt]

JUst so you know Congress and the President are already empowered to overrule the Supreme Court.

The USSC does not have final veto authority over what is or isn't Constitutional. They are co equal branches each obligated tro enforce and protect the Constitution of the US.

They just find it politically inconvenient to do so, especially since the public has been indoctrinated with the false belief that the courts were intended to have final say on matters of Constitutionality.

In truth the courts are the least representative body and were always intended to be the weakest of the three branches as a result.

[runjumpthrow]

JUst so you know Congress and the President are already empowered to overrule the Supreme Court.

The USSC does not have final veto authority over what is or isn't Constitutional. They are co equal branches each obligated tro enforce and protect the Constitution of the US.

They just find it politically inconvenient to do so, especially since the public has been indoctrinated with the false belief that the courts were intended to have final say on matters of Constitutionality.

In truth the courts are the least representative body and were always intended to be the weakest of the three branches as a result.

How are Congress and the President empowered to overrule the Supreme Court? If anything, it is the other way around!

SCOTUS does have final authority over the constitutionality of laws. That concept (known as judicial review) was firmly established by the Marshall Court in the 1804 Marbury v. Madison decision.

I DO agree with your last point, however, The framers of the Constitution never really intended the SC to be on a level playing field with the other branches, especially Congress.

[JerseyArt]

How are Congress and the President empowered to overrule the Supreme Court? If anything, it is the other way around!

SCOTUS does have final authority over the constitutionality of laws. That concept (known as judicial review) was firmly established by the Marshall Court in the 1804 Marbury v. Madison decision.

I DO agree with your last point, however, The framers of the Constitution never really intended the SC to be on a level playing field with the other branches, especially Congress.

Marbury v Madison is often misunderstood by people.

What essentially happened is that the USSC realizing that any decision they made if ruled against the President would simply be ignored by the Executive Branch. The President at that time understood the Constitution, and the framers intent, and there didn't exist the expectation that exists now with respect to treating USSC decsions as sancrosanct.

So what the Court ruled was that they had the right to decide, but the law established by Congress (which gave the teeth of enforcement) was itself Unconstitutional. Since they didnt actually offer a remedy (something for the President to ignore) there was no basis upon which to exert executive privelege. By not ordering the President to put Marbury on the court, there was no order for action that the President need ignore. They then preceeded not to test that theory for the next 50 years knowing the consequences.

No different than one kid telling another kid I could beat you at basketball if I wanted to, but avoiding ever actually getting on the BB court with the other kid.

[runjumpthrow]

Marbury v Madison is often misunderstood by people.

What essentially happened is that the USSC realizing that any decision they made if ruled against the President would simply be ignored by the Executive Branch. The President at that time understood the Constitution, and the framers intent, and there didn't exist the expectation that exists now with respect to treating USSC decsions as sancrosanct.

So what the Court ruled was that they had the right to decide, but the law established by Congress (which gave the teeth of enforcement) was itself Unconstitutional. Since they didnt actually offer a remedy (something for the President to ignore) there was no basis upon which to exert executive privelege. By not ordering the President to put Marbury on the court, there was no order for action that the President need ignore. They then preceeded not to test that theory for the next 50 years knowing the consequences.

No different than one kid telling another kid I could beat you at basketball if I wanted to, but avoiding ever actually getting on the BB court with the other kid.

Well, okay, that may be true, but the FACT of the matter is that SCOTUS does declare laws to be unconstitutional and, more times than not, Congress and the President defer to the Court's decision.

So, what that means is that there is a difference between what SHOULD be and what really is.

How many times in history has an American President ignored SCOTUS when a presidential act or law was declared unconstitutional?

Very few. In fact, I can only think of two times off the top of my head.

Andrew Jackson ignoring John Marshall's order to stop the removal of the Cherokee and Abe Lincoln's refusal to release people who had been jailed without the right of habeas corpus after Roger taney told him to are the only two times that I can think of in which an American President openly and clearly defied the Supreme Court.

[novax]

WOW!! I agree with nealry every single one of the lines except 13.. I am somewhat iffy.. I think it is perfectly fine to have christian organization in schools as long as it is not politcally funded. I can say that I trust robert bork and other conservative christians more than most... True Christians tend to have their moral agenda correct for the most part but nothing is an absolute.. But like I said, I am some what agnostic but I have an open mind in the possibility of a higher power.. Ethics really need to be empathised and I think religion is just one way that can effectively accomplish this.

I agree that God should remain on money and pledge. The founding fathers were very intelligent people and great leaders.

Yeah.. I would be very happy if a president like that was in power!!!
America would be so so better off!

Also.. Put GPS sensors on convicted cons.. The majority of crimes are comitted by repeat offenders anyways..

Educate and reduce obesity..The vast majority of obesity can be controlled with the exceptions like certain diabetics... We should get rid of junk food in cafeterias and promote healthy foods.

Make college affordable for everyone if certain requirements are met... Drug screen, minimal GPA, a screen assesment test that can be taken up to 3 times. I believe in privatising all levels of education.

THIS is only wishful thinking: Some how, stop people who are drug users, alcholics, ect from having children... I not talking about the cruel institutions that they had in the 50's and 60's.. OMG it was very hittler like what the American governent did.. I wish there a mirracle pill or procedure that makes these type of people infertile but is reversable... Have this done to everyone..Have a manadatory drug screen for drugs such as cocain, herorine, ect before the process is reversed at age 21..Abusive and irresponsible parents have no right in having children that end up living in severe poverty...

Yeah.. Im sick of America needlessly dumping money.. Helping others is called "charity" and not something the government should get involved with.

The government is so beuracratic... All these concepts is almost identical to the famous modern econmic nobel prize winner Milton Friedman.

I strongly believe in all these points.... Also, I would end the leniancy towards celebrities.. So many NBA players and other athletes do haneous crimes and get away with just a minor slap to the wrist..

OJ simpson.. He deserves to hang..

Those guys from the Pacers that asaulted Piston fans.. They should be expelled...

Yeah....Conservatism economically and moderate socially is the way to go..I can only hope that in the future, such policies would be pass in the US.. I think the entire government is moving towards conservatism anyways.. Look at the senate, house, and judical board..

The Consituiton party seems much better than the curernt republican party.. I think the republican party will prolly evolve more like that in the future anyways..

[Jeremy1]

Also let's assume that you have your party controlling all branches of government. I'm interested to see what people from different parties would do. State your party and what you would do. I'll go first.

Political Party -Constitution Party

1) I would abolish the department of homeland security, education, health and human services, commerce, energy, housing and urban development, and a few others.

2) Repeal NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA. I would immediately withdraw from the United Nations, WTO, IMF, World Bank and NATO.

3) Fine businesses that hire illegals. Enforce our immigration laws. This would fix the drain on our medical care, schools, prisons, law enforcement, food stamp programs etc. If we house illegals I would make their country of origin pay us the money to hold them plus a tad bit of interest or make them house them.

4) Use prisoners as slave labor: working in agriculture, fields, chain gangs, mining, and give some who qualify the option to serve in the United States military.

5) Abolish the IRS and move to a flat tax system.

6) Cut a bunch of programs that are buried in the government bureaucracy. My colleague and I (Thinman) were discussing the waste in food stamps. Definitely dramatically cut that down and reform it. I would be very strict with who applies.

7) Change our 1965 immigration act back to the way it was before. That is to favor European countries and political refugees. I would cease all immigration from the Middle East. Instead of taking a million people each year I would move it down to around 200 thousand each year for 10 years so we can assimilate.

8) Cease all foreign aid. I’m sick and tired of pouring billions of dollars each year on Africa. The continent is a dump and never gets any better. I would refuse to give them anymore money unless they let us take care of the underlying issue to feed their people. That is only set up an agriculture industry for them to feed their people and fix the problem. If they don’t agree tough luck and stop bothering us. We will not continue to pour money on the problem. Collect all debt owed to us.

9) Repeal a lot of gun legislation.

10) Adoption of a law clarifying that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not give automatic U.S. citizenship to a child born on U.S. soil to illegal alien parents.

11) Make English the US official language. Take off all foreign languages on ballots and end all affirmative action programs.

12) All budget surpluses from cutting government will go directly to paying down the debt. I would try to make a national campaign to pay off the debt and raise money. Like Clinton does for his globalist agenda.

13) Restore God in public. Appoint very conservative justices to uphold our religious heritage. Keep 10 commandments in courthouses, God on money and in pledge. I would have a Robert Bork type justice.

14) Military – I would build a strong military and follow the Reagan doctrine. I would overturn the don’t ask don’t tell policy.

15) Judicial Activism – I would make a law so congress can overturn a bad decision by the courts.

16) Panama Canal – End the treaty that gave it away and get it back.

17) Political Parties- I would cut the bureaucracy and regulation for 3rd parties to be a legitimate choice. Also install something like IRV.

18) Social security – There is obviously major fraud in it. I would find the fuggers screwing us and make them pay back everything they took plus interest.

19) Put a gas tax to pay for our roads.

20) Favor states rights. Offer tax cuts, incentives, for business to stay home and move back. Shield them from stupid lawsuits. If a liberal lawyer comes and threatens to sue I would have the business call up a department and give them the lawyers name and how much he threatened to sue for. I would make the lawer pay what he threatened to sue for. Pass a law to attack these vermon.

Also the Constitution Party.

1. I would abolish all unconstitutional beauracracies. Pretty much everything that is now a part of government besides the FBI and the CIA.
2. I would immediately get out of all the trade treatise. All of Idependents #2
3. I would immediately get out of the united nations and force their headquarters out of America.
4. I would repeal all gun laws and immediately help train and fund militias.
5. The first thing I would do is declare personhood to all the unborn.
6. I would impeach all the judges who didn't follow the constitution and who cited foreign laws.
7. I would build a wall around the borders, enforce all the laws now on the books and immediately start deportation. I would also heavily fine any business that hire illegals. I would immediately put in place a moratorium on immigration until we get our act together.
8. I would also introduce a 10% flat tax with the majority going to the military.
9. I would implement that all state judges be elected as it should be.
10. I would discontinue all foreign aid.
11. I would also overturn the don't ask don't tell policy and would also discontinue the allowance for women in the military.
12. I would also use criminals as hard laborers to pay for their stay in prison and learn a trade to better equip themselve when out.
13. If need be, I would immediately push for an ammendment to ban homosexual marriage.
14. I would limit terms for senators and other elected officials who seem to never leave.
15. I would end the 20 year appeals that those on death row now have.
16. I would also support states rights since after all, the federal government is the creation if you will of the states.
17. I would restore God to His rightful place in civil law and government.
18. I would abolish the federal election commitee.
19. I would support business and families with tax breaks and incentives.
20. I would if possible, go back to the gold standard.
22. Abolish the council on foreign relations
23. There are many more. I also agree and would do Independents #16

[JerseyArt]

Well, okay, that may be true, but the FACT of the matter is that SCOTUS does declare laws to be unconstitutional and, more times than not, Congress and the President defer to the Court's decision.

And as a practical matter most times they should defer provided those decsions do not themsleves violate the Constitution or the seperation of powers.

Certainly it would be chaos if Congress and or the executive branch just routinely and frequently ignored or overruled judicial opinion on matters of law.

But that wasn't the issue being discussed. We were talking about the myth that final authority on matters of Constitutionality rests with the USSC. That simply isn't so nor was it even intended to be that way.

So, what that means is that there is a difference between what SHOULD be and what really is.

Yes based on an ignorance of the Constitution and the seperation of powers. It also stems from another myth that judges are somehow miraculously endowed with super human qualities which raise their opinions far above those of mortal men. They are just human beings, with all the same prejudices and deficencies as the rest of us. Often times they are politcal hacks who achieved their positioon through nothing more than favoritism and financial/political contributions.

How many times in history has an American President ignored SCOTUS when a presidential act or law was declared unconstitutional?

Very few. In fact, I can only think of two times off the top of my head.

Andrew Jackson ignoring John Marshall's order to stop the removal of the Cherokee and Abe Lincoln's refusal to release people who had been jailed without the right of habeas corpus after Roger taney told him to are the only two times that I can think of in which an American President openly and clearly defied the Supreme Court.

You referenced two early cases. It;s important to note that after Marbury v Madison the court went to gre4at lengths for the subsequent half century to avoid direct confrontations with the other branches in general, and the executive branch in particular. People forget that the President also swears to defend and protect the Constitution of the US. The early courts didn't forget that and avoided confrontations they knew they would lose.

[xer0xed]

Also let's assume that you have your party controlling all branches of government. I'm interested to see what people from different parties would do. State your party and what you would do. I'll go first.

Political Party -Constitution Party

1) I would abolish the department of homeland security, education, health and human services, commerce, energy, housing and urban development, and a few others.

2) Repeal NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA. I would immediately withdraw from the United Nations, WTO, IMF, World Bank and NATO.

3) Fine businesses that hire illegals. Enforce our immigration laws. This would fix the drain on our medical care, schools, prisons, law enforcement, food stamp programs etc. If we house illegals I would make their country of origin pay us the money to hold them plus a tad bit of interest or make them house them.

4) Use prisoners as slave labor: working in agriculture, fields, chain gangs, mining, and give some who qualify the option to serve in the United States military.

5) Abolish the IRS and move to a flat tax system.

6) Cut a bunch of programs that are buried in the government bureaucracy. My colleague and I (Thinman) were discussing the waste in food stamps. Definitely dramatically cut that down and reform it. I would be very strict with who applies.

7) Change our 1965 immigration act back to the way it was before. That is to favor European countries and political refugees. I would cease all immigration from the Middle East. Instead of taking a million people each year I would move it down to around 200 thousand each year for 10 years so we can assimilate.

8) Cease all foreign aid. I’m sick and tired of pouring billions of dollars each year on Africa. The continent is a dump and never gets any better. I would refuse to give them anymore money unless they let us take care of the underlying issue to feed their people. That is only set up an agriculture industry for them to feed their people and fix the problem. If they don’t agree tough luck and stop bothering us. We will not continue to pour money on the problem. Collect all debt owed to us.

9) Repeal a lot of gun legislation.

10) Adoption of a law clarifying that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not give automatic U.S. citizenship to a child born on U.S. soil to illegal alien parents.

11) Make English the US official language. Take off all foreign languages on ballots and end all affirmative action programs.

12) All budget surpluses from cutting government will go directly to paying down the debt. I would try to make a national campaign to pay off the debt and raise money. Like Clinton does for his globalist agenda.

13) Restore God in public. Appoint very conservative justices to uphold our religious heritage. Keep 10 commandments in courthouses, God on money and in pledge. I would have a Robert Bork type justice.

14) Military – I would build a strong military and follow the Reagan doctrine. I would overturn the don’t ask don’t tell policy.

15) Judicial Activism – I would make a law so congress can overturn a bad decision by the courts.

16) Panama Canal – End the treaty that gave it away and get it back.

17) Political Parties- I would cut the bureaucracy and regulation for 3rd parties to be a legitimate choice. Also install something like IRV.

18) Social security – There is obviously major fraud in it. I would find the fuggers screwing us and make them pay back everything they took plus interest.

19) Put a gas tax to pay for our roads.

20) Favor states rights. Offer tax cuts, incentives, for business to stay home and move back. Shield them from stupid lawsuits. If a liberal lawyer comes and threatens to sue I would have the business call up a department and give them the lawyers name and how much he threatened to sue for. I would make the lawer pay what he threatened to sue for. Pass a law to attack these vermon.

Hmm... Party = Republican.

I wouldn't do 1, 2, 8, or 16. For 5 I would do the Fairtax instead of the Flat Tax, as I think Income Taxes are wrong. I basically agree with all the rest though. Apparently, I'm a bit more of a global capitalist type. :P

Edit: I posted a thread a few months back and I think you'll find our ideas to be somewhat similar... http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?p=6971453

And yes, I know to completely make abortion illegal is idealistic; I'm thinking at least some additional regulations on the 2nd/3rd trimesters would be good policy.

[runjumpthrow]

But that wasn't the issue being discussed. We were talking about the myth that final authority on matters of Constitutionality rests with the USSC. That simply isn't so nor was it even intended to be that way.

I was not making that argument. However, final authority to decide whether or not something is constitutional CLEARLY does reside with SCOTUS. There has been enough precedent established to make that a fact, the framer's original intent notwithstanding.

You referenced two early cases. It;s important to note that after Marbury v Madison the court went to great lengths for the subsequent half century to avoid direct confrontations with the other branches in general, and the executive branch in particular. People forget that the President also swears to defend and protect the Constitution of the US. The early courts didn't forget that and avoided confrontations they knew they would lose.

That is neither here nor there. The fact that the court was made up of justices who did not want to exercise any influence does not mean that influence or power does not exist. There are PLENTY of examples of 19th Century rulings where SCOTUS overstepped their Constitutional limits and ruled by judicial fiat. The Dred Scott case of 1857 is probably the best example of that.

What about Gibbons v. Ogden and McCulloch v. Maryland? These are two decisions in which the SC CLEARLY made a final decision about constitutionality. Both of those cases were also in the 50-year window you discussed.

[JerseyArt]

I was not making that argument. However, final authority to decide whether or not something is constitutional CLEARLY does reside with SCOTUS. There has been enough precedent established to make that a fact, the framer's original intent notwithstanding.

LOL

Yes you are and you're doing it again. It does not clearly reside with SCOTUS, and Ive gone too great lengths outlining exactly why.

Precedent is irrelevant. It is in fact only relevant with respect to court decisions. You are arguing in a circular manner ie: the court has final authority over the other branches because court precedent says so.

Interestingly enough though, at least from my perspective, it hits to the heart of the matter in a different way. Precisely that the Constitution is not a "living breathing document" but a clear contract between the people and their government. The reality of co equal branches is part of that contract. If someone imagines that such an arrangement is inconvenient or outdated then there exists a mechanism to correct such perceived defects. You cannot as you just suggested simply ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist simply because it doesn't suit your purpose. No unwritten precedent takes precedence over the written Constitution.

That is neither here nor there. The fact that the court was made up of justices who did not want to exercise any influence does not mean that influence or power does not exist. There are PLENTY of examples of 19th Century rulings where SCOTUS overstepped their Constitutional limits and ruled by judicial fiat. The Dred Scott case of 1857 is probably the best example of that.

You missed the point. The assertion was that the court claimed a power, specifically that of final jurisdiction on matters of Constitutionality, then deliberately avoided any confrontation both in that decision as well as subsequent decisions for roughly half a century that would test the validity of their claim.

What about Gibbons v. Ogden and McCulloch v. Maryland? These are two decisions in which the SC CLEARLY made a final decision about constitutionality. Both of those cases were also in the 50-year window you discussed.

I'm familiar with G v O and have no idea how that furthers your point. I don't know the other, so a link or explanation would be appreciated.

However if your point is simply that the USSC ruled on matters of Constitutionality then once again you missed the point.

The argument has not been that the USSC cannot rule on matters of Constitutionality. Rather we are disagreeing as to whether they are the final voice on such matters. Pointing out cases in which that was not tested does not further your argument. You would need to point out cases where the Executive and Judicial branch were directly at odds and in which some remedy was proferred by the court which could be ignored by the executive

[runjumpthrow]

LOL

It does not clearly reside with SCOTUS, and Ive gone too great lengths outlining exactly why.

For WHATEVER reason (at this point of the debate it really doesn't matter) the SC has earned, gained, taken, stolen, whatever verb you want to use, the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws or acts. That is NOT in dispute. The fact that you don't LIKE that is largely moot.

Precedent is irrelevant. It is in fact only relevant with respect to court decisions. You are arguing in a circular manner ie: the court has final authority over the other branches because court precedent says so.

Precedent is irrelevant? I don't think so. The concept of past judicial decisions influencing present and future judicial decisions is firmly established. There is no use in you arguing otherwise.

Interestingly enough though, at least from my perspective, it hits to the heart of the matter in a different way. Precisely that the Constitution is not a "living breathing document" but a clear contract between the people and their government. The reality of co equal branches is part of that contract. If someone imagines that such an arrangement is inconvenient or outdated then there exists a mechanism to correct such perceived defects. You cannot as you just suggested simply ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist simply because it doesn't suit your purpose. No unwritten precedent takes precedence over the written Constitution.

The Constitution is a living document. Were it not, the framers wouldn't have inserted the elastic clause or Article 5.

You missed the point. The assertion was that the court claimed a power, specifically that of final jurisdiction on matters of Constitutionality, then deliberately avoided any confrontation both in that decision as well as subsequent decisions for roughly half a century that would test the validity of their claim.

So what? Again, like I said, the fact that the court, during certain times chose to not exercise power or influence does not mean that power and influence was not there. Clearly the Warren Court did not avoid confrontation.

I'm familiar with G v O and have no idea how that furthers your point. I don't know the other, so a link or explanation would be appreciated.

However if your point is simply that the USSC ruled on matters of Constitutionality then once again you missed the point.

The argument has not been that the USSC cannot rule on matters of Constitutionality. Rather we are disagreeing as to whether they are the final voice on such matters. Pointing out cases in which that was not tested does not further your argument. You would need to point out cases where the Executive and Judicial branch were directly at odds and in which some remedy was proferred by the court which could be ignored by the executive

In Gibbons v. Ogden, the SC ruled that the federal government could control interstate commerce. In McCulloch, the SC ruled that states had no right to interfere with federal institutions. In both of those cases, the SC made a ruling that was directly related to the Constitution - specifically dealing with Article 6 and the 10th Amendment. In both those cases, the SC WAS the final voice.

As far as cases in which there was a direct dispute between the SC and the President, I can think of three: First, the aformentioned cases of Lincoln and the suspension of habeas corpus and Jackson and the Cherokee and lastly, US v. Nixon when Nixon was ordered by the SC to turn over the tape recordings made in the Oval Office.

In the cases of Jackson and Lincoln, they essentially ignored the SC because they COULD. Congress was NOT going to begin impeachment proceeedings against Lincoln and Jackson because the parties of both of those men controlled the House. Had the Democrats controlled the House in 1862 and the Federalists controlled the House in 1832, there is a good chance that both of those men could have been impeached.

Nixon had to obey the Court's order because he did not have the support in Congress necessary to ignore the Court.

[Com-Shuk]

You were obviously born and raised in a rich family and given a decent job by luck.
Because its quite obvious that you are NOt educated as one day you whine about the U.N not helping enough when all you want is to get rid of them(unless you need their help). Ive seen 80 iq's with more logic than this.

Not allowing imigrants? they're the one doing the dirty jobs, real americans are collecting welfare! good job!

making the us all english? wow what a good way to help your idiotic brains! You must feel pathetic not being able to learn a simple language as spanish. It would also help in reducing the level of culture your country has making dumb people seem brighter because they have less to know/understand.

"
19) Put a gas tax to pay for our roads. " i wonder what all those pennies you have to give away on highways are for!!!

Ceise all foreign aid? i would love to see your kids growing in africa eating maggots. I would love to the the usa making money without cheap labor from these countries.

You really speak like every idiotis ive know that had everything handed to them and no life experience at all.
Im pretty sure you would not say these things to a girl with an iq over 90 or in a public street as you probably have social anxiety or you'd get beatten up by some immigrant thug that works more than you ever will.

Oh btw, im far from poor, i hate humans and still think the way you are thinking shows lack of life knowledge

[JerseyArt]

For WHATEVER reason (at this point of the debate it really doesn't matter) the SC has earned, gained, taken, stolen, whatever verb you want to use, the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws or acts. That is NOT in dispute. The fact that you don't LIKE that is largely moot.

Ok bro, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I really need you to focus. As I will demonstrate you aren't keeping up with the discussion and its becoming annoying repeating myself.

No one has questioned the fact that the USSC has become through practice, if not by Constitutional authority, the de facto final word on issues of Constitutionality.

This discussion began with my pointing out that the executive is already in possession of the power to challenge the USSC. That is not an opinion, it is simply fact, and based on the recognition that we have co equal branches of government. The fact that Congress or the President may avoid asserting that authority, whether for political or other reasons, is irrelevant. That they possess the power to do so is implicit in the Constitution. To put it in a different perspective if this were not so we would live in a judicial oligarchy. Because without the power to contradict judicial opinion and decrees the other branches would be forced to submit to any whim of the court. This might seem irrelevant on its face, but what if hypothetically the USSC ruled that all soldiers who fought in Iraq are guilty of murder and must be exectued by the state (yes I know this is far fetched, but it illustrates a point.) No one would question that the executive would be right to assert non compliance with such an outrageous order. After that it is just a question of when such authority should be exerted.

Precedent is irrelevant? I don't think so. The concept of past judicial decisions influencing present and future judicial decisions is firmly established. There is no use in you arguing otherwise.

I anticipated this response and already answered it in the previous post. This is not an issue which lies in the sole domain of the court, so precedent is irrelevant. The law isn't the precedence in this instance, rather it is practice. To accept the premise that one branch of government is entitled to assert its authority to the exclusion of the other two branches defeats the purpose of co equal branches. The seperation of powers is a Constitutional principle which defies by definition the authority of the court to unilaterally decide. Istated clearly in my previous post that precedent is important in matters of law with respect to court decisions, but this is a matter which cannot be settled by one branch of government, and the other branches cannot be tied to court decrees and precedents without defeating the purpose of the seperation of powers. It is ok for the branches to by practice cede authority to the court., It is not ok for any branch to permanently relinquish such authority.

The Constitution is a living document. Were it not, the framers wouldn't have inserted the elastic clause or Article 5.

Article 5 allows for amendments to the Constitution and outlines the mechanism for making any change to that document. That they specified such a mechanism defeats your point. It not only suggests but mandates that any changes need to be voted on and agreed to by a very difficult process, not read into the document through convenience. It is the anti thesis of a living document doctrine.

So what? Again, like I said, the fact that the court, during certain times chose to not exercise power or influence does not mean that power and influence was not there. Clearly the Warren Court did not avoid confrontation.

Pnce again irritating because I specifically outlined the time frame. Do you even know when the Warren court sat in our history?

In Gibbons v. Ogden, the SC ruled that the federal government could control interstate commerce. In McCulloch, the SC ruled that states had no right to interfere with federal institutions. In both of those cases, the SC made a ruling that was directly related to the Constitution - specifically dealing with Article 6 and the 10th Amendment. In both those cases, the SC WAS the final voice.

As far as cases in which there was a direct dispute between the SC and the President, I can think of three: First, the aformentioned cases of Lincoln and the suspension of habeas corpus and Jackson and the Cherokee and lastly, US v. Nixon when Nixon was ordered by the SC to turn over the tape recordings made in the Oval Office.

In the cases of Jackson and Lincoln, they essentially ignored the SC because they COULD. Congress was NOT going to begin impeachment proceeedings against Lincoln and Jackson because the parties of both of those men controlled the House. Had the Democrats controlled the House in 1862 and the Federalists controlled the House in 1832, there is a good chance that both of those men could have been impeached.

Nixon had to obey the Court's order because he did not have the support in Congress necessary to ignore the Court.

Again you are failing to comprehend the crucial distinction. For the final time no one is questioning the general principle that the Court has a role in determining Constitutionality. Your examples are pointless.

The only debate is whether they are the final authority on such matters, and none of those examples support your point that they are.

And of course legislators and Presidents are subject to voter approval or ire if they choose to override the court. It is not an impeachable offense to exert executive power however, and legislators also have to answer to voters if they had chosen such a course.

[novax]

Jermy

8. I would also introduce a 10% flat tax with the majority going to the military.

I disagree with the first part.. 20 percent flat tax is fair to everyone..

I think that everyone should some sort of American service for 3 months.. Serve in the military might not be a bad idea as long as their are different types of service other than just combat which I believe there are.


Gold should not be the standards...There are some serious dangers of gold being the standard..There is nothing wrong with the dollar.

Otherwise, I agree with most of the other points.

[runjumpthrow]

N/m

[runjumpthrow]

Jersy Art is right..

The founding fathers built the government on check and balances.. Each can overturn the other if one becomes too powerful or injust.

You should research the powers of each branch and understand how it really works.

This is precisely what I said. I simply stated that there have been MANY instances in American history when things did not work the way they were intended.

Each branch of government CAN check the powers of the others. However, sometimes, they DON'T.

[novax]

You were obviously born and raised in a rich family and given a decent job by luck.
Because its quite obvious that you are NOt educated as one day you whine about the U.N not helping enough when all you want is to get rid of them(unless you need their help). Ive seen 80 iq's with more logic than this.

Not allowing imigrants? they're the one doing the dirty jobs, real americans are collecting welfare! good job!

making the us all english? wow what a good way to help your idiotic brains! You must feel pathetic not being able to learn a simple language as spanish. It would also help in reducing the level of culture your country has making dumb people seem brighter because they have less to know/understand.

"
19) Put a gas tax to pay for our roads. " i wonder what all those pennies you have to give away on highways are for!!!

Ceise all foreign aid? i would love to see your kids growing in africa eating maggots. I would love to the the usa making money without cheap labor from these countries.

You really speak like every idiotis ive know that had everything handed to them and no life experience at all.
Im pretty sure you would not say these things to a girl with an iq over 90 or in a public street as you probably have social anxiety or you'd get beatten up by some immigrant thug that works more than you ever will.

Oh btw, im far from poor, i hate humans and still think the way you are thinking shows lack of life knowledge

This quote is hillarious.. First off, you assume Independents background which is a big mistake.. Never assume anything, you have no idea what back ground he came from.

Second off, Eglish should be the standard language for this country.. The majority is English speaking.. Why cater to the minority.. Furthermore, a country most have certain areas of uniformity or the country fails.. Such as unifority in currency and LANGUAGE... Communication is vital.

Third off, Your telling me that you are wiser than nobel prize winner a PHD dude like Milton Friedman.. Or lets say Green Span, Bernake, or the educated population for that matter..The majority of the "real world" educated people would agree with Independent for the most part..

The majority of the unedcated or idealist would not agree.. Just look at this chart.. I have several more...

Your bases are idiotic.


Also, on the other issue.. I agree with Jersy Art.

[novax]

This is precisely what I said. I simply stated that there have been MANY instances in American history when things did not work the way they were intended.

Each branch of government CAN check the powers of the others. However, sometimes, they DON'T.

I also agree with you on this matter to a small degree.. Yes, there has been times where the president oversteped his bounds (power)...

But for the most part, that is very rare now days.

[runjumpthrow]

At this point, I am willing to concede to Jersey Art. His knowledge of the Constitution and law is superior to mine.

Nice work. I know when to admit that I have been bested!

[Com-Shuk]

This quote is hillarious.. First off, you assume Independents background which is a big mistake.. Never assume anything, you have no idea what back ground he came from.

Second off, Eglish should be the standard language for this country.. The majority is English speaking.. Why cater to the minority.. Furthermore, a country most have certain areas of uniformity or the country fails.. Such as unifority in currency and LANGUAGE... Communication is vital.

Third off, Your telling me that you are wiser than nobel prize winner a PHD dude like Milton Friedman.. Or lets say Green Span, Bernake, or the educated population for that matter..The majority of the "real world" educated people would agree with Independent for the most part..

The majority of the unedcated or idealist would not agree.. Just look at this chart.. I have several more...

Your bases are idiotic.


Also, on the other issue.. I agree with Jersy Art.

Of course man.
EVery european country with many language is failing miserably at everything!
So is canada!

Wait, let's look at the crime rates and national debts.

[novax]

Lets look at power..

Japan.. Very uninform in language and very powerful..

England.. Also very powerful

USA... The most powerful nation.

[theredshirt]

USA... The most powerful nation.

and most diverse...next

[INDEPENDENT 18]

Educate and reduce obesity..The vast majority of obesity can be controlled with the exceptions like certain diabetics... We should get rid of junk food in cafeterias and promote healthy foods.

That’s another one I forgot. I would take an Arnold approach and push for schools to only serve healthy bb food. Once you start eating healthy you can never turn back to junk food. Fat people cost the state a ton of money each year in medical costs. Also most fat people seem kind of mad at life and depressed hopefully they will feel better about themselves. I would encourage people to have a healthy lifestyle.

Make college affordable for everyone if certain requirements are met... Drug screen, minimal GPA, a screen assesment test that can be taken up to 3 times.

If we paid off the debt every student could go to college for free. (According to my history teacher)

THIS is only wishful thinking: Some how, stop people who are drug users, alcholics, ect from having children...

lol you know Ronald Reagans dad was a drunk? I wouldn't really regulate it. Also my dad was a heavy smoker and as a result I never smoke. Sometimes problems in childhood are good for character.

I think the entire government is moving towards conservatism anyways.. Look at the senate, house, and judical board..

Definitely not. They are getting more liberal as time goes by. I agree with a lot of what you said.

The Constitution party seems much better than the current republican party.. I think the republican party will prolly evolve more like that in the future anyways..

I hope it will. But I don't think it will because Bush and his admin made republicans look so bad most people are most likely going to retaliate and vote for democrats. But think about joining the Constitution Party.

You were obviously born and raised in a rich family and given a decent job by luck.

Nope. I was pretty pour growing up. I was lucky to get out of it and now I live in an upper middle class neighborhood. I am definitely not rich by any means.

Because its quite obvious that you are NOt educated as one day you whine about the U.N not helping enough when all you want is to get rid of them(unless you need their help). Ive seen 80 iq's with more logic than this.

Do you know how much money we funnel through the UN? I would rather give the money directly to problem countries we don’t need a middle man. The UN is corrupt. Oil for food program? They never do their job efficiently. They were established to prevent dictators to form a better and perfect world. They are an authoritarian organization that we put way to much money into. I don’t want to get rid of them. I just want to withdraw our membership. If the UN worked correctly we wouldn’t have to worry about Kim Jong Ill and Saddam. Yet out of all the member countries we give them the most money, our military is always used, we take the casualties, we take the criticism, we pay for the war, etc. Then to top it off in the past we let the UN control our troops? What a joke. This is America. We are a sovereign country I will not ask the UN permission or ever let them control our military.

Not allowing imigrants? they're the one doing the dirty jobs

That’s a liberal myth. First off I did some pretty regular jobs as a teen. I mowed lawns, something immigrants would do. It wasn’t such a big deal. Americans used to do those jobs before a bunch of illegals came and offered to do it for a 3rd of the price.

making the us all english? wow what a good way to help your idiotic brains! You must feel pathetic not being able to learn a simple language as spanish. It would also help in reducing the level of culture your country has making dumb people seem brighter because they have less to know/understand.

First off I speak two languages. I just don’t want America to cater to Mexicans who refuse to assimilate into American culture. There used to be a time where it was the other way around. I lived in France for a considerable amount of time. I didn’t ask for them to cater to me and have English everywhere. I tried my hardest and learned the language. When I voted I didn’t seek an English ballot. Many immigrants refuse to lean English and live here. How can a country stand united if we do not speak the same language? Have you ever been to LA? Florida? Arizona? Get a clue. I want to preserve American culture not have 50 thousand mini cultures that refuse to assimilate. If I wanted to learn Spanish and learn about Mexican culture I would go to Mexico, not down the street.

19) Put a gas tax to pay for our roads. " i wonder what all those pennies you have to give away on highways are for!!!

Oh opps I didn’t realize I said that. I meant raise it a bit.

Ceise all foreign aid? i would love to see your kids growing in africa eating maggots. I would love to the the usa making money without cheap labor from these countries.

First off the problem in Africa never ends. I am not going to keep pouring money on the problem. I am sick of it. Africa is a drain on the world. They can’t take care of themselves. I would be a complete jerk president to keep giving them money without letting us fix the under lying problem. If African countries refused, it’s obvious the aid is not that important to them. I would rather use the money to feed the poor in our own country. We have a 7 trillion dollar debt we are not really in a position to give away money that we don’t have. If we continue just giving them relief aid we will be giving them money for the next 100 years it will never end.

[Thinman]

Independent, Your thoughts on what you would do as president are interesting to say the least. One of them is downright scary, in my opinon. #13 which I quote.

"Restore God in public. Appoint very conservative justices to uphold our religious heritage. Keep 10 commandments in courthouses, God on money and in pledge. I would have a Robert Bork type justice."

This really flies in the face of the intent of the constitution. Even though the founding father were religious, they had the wisdom to put a clause on freedom of religion. What you are endorsing here is a state sanctioned religion. That was one of reasons we broke off from England is to get away from that.

[INDEPENDENT 18]

Independent, Your thoughts on what you would do as president are interesting to say the least. One of them is downright scary, in my opinon. #13 which I quote.

"Restore God in public. Appoint very conservative justices to uphold our religious heritage. Keep 10 commandments in courthouses, God on money and in pledge. I would have a Robert Bork type justice."

This really flies in the face of the intent of the constitution. Even though the founding father were religious, they had the wisdom to put a clause on freedom of religion. What you are endorsing here is a state sanctioned religion. That was one of reasons we broke off from England is to get away from that.

Well no because these things are what we already have. I would just defend them after the attacks they have been taking. "Restore" it. I wouldn't advocate a state religion or anything like that people are free to their beliefs. Also Robert Bork is a great justice he would just rule in Gods favor in regards to abortion. That is put it back to the states so they could vote on it. He wouldn't make it on the federal level. I agree with this because government shouldnt take a moral stance. That is why the left hates him. As for Robert Bork each President has a right to put someone on the bench who reflects his judicial philosophy. I would think about giving term limits to justices or maybe have them be voted on by the people. Justices are turning into politicians now. Also keep in mind he is not the absolute authority on the bench their are other justices he has to work with.

[theredshirt]

He wouldn't make it on the federal level. I agree with this because government shouldnt take a moral stance. That is why the left hates him. As for Robert Bork each President has a right to put someone on the bench who reflects his judicial philosophy. I would think about giving term limits to justices or maybe have them be voted on by the people. Justices are turning into politicians now. Also keep in mind he is not the absolute authority on the bench their are other justices he has to work with.

you should read what you write. you dont think government should take a moral stance that is why abortion should be abolished? that is a moral stance

[runjumpthrow]

That’s another one I forgot. I would take an Arnold approach and push for schools to only serve healthy bb food. Once you start eating healthy you can never turn back to junk food. Fat people cost the state a ton of money each year in medical costs. Also most fat people seem kind of mad at life and depressed hopefully they will feel better about themselves. I would encourage people to have a healthy lifestyle.

Actually, fat people (and smokers, drug users, people who drink alot, and others who engage in risky behavior) SAVE us money in the long run because they don't live as long.

In the short term, they might seem expensive, but someone who only lives for 55 years is going to be cheaper to care for than someone who lives for, say, 80 years.

[INDEPENDENT 18]

you should read what you write. you dont think government should take a moral stance that is why abortion should be abolished? that is a moral stance

No, overturn Roe vs. Wade so it will be turned over to the states. The federal government wont take a stance on it. It wouldn't be abolished we would just let the states decide.

[theredshirt]

No, overturn Roe vs. Wade so it will be turned over to the states. The federal government wont take a stance on it. It wouldn't be abolished we would just let the states decide.

well i disagree. thats why you want someone who will do gods will in the court system. its a moral stance. as is, its defined as leaving the option up to the woman. its not a moral stance. it allows for the woman to choose what she wants to do morally. the roe v wade does not make woman get an abortion. leaving it up to the states would lead to all the center states getting rid of the option and forcing females to either move to blue states or make a weekend out of it and go to the liberal big city states, or do it on their own. you see overturning it allows for a moral stance