ST Alpha - "Provided he gives a clear explanation of his opinion why the provisions are unconstitutional, and that this opinion is not controversial, I don't have" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 160

Provided he gives a clear explanation of his opinion why the provisions are unconstitutional, and that this opinion is not controversial, I don't have

Posted by Roger More (aka RogerMore) Mar 12 '09, 11:45

a problem. This is checks and balances at work

Obama was clear at the outset that he would be making signing statements in certain circumstances, in a New York Times article that you posted to this board

[ linked post has been deleted ]

Responses:

[deleted] 16
- I don't see these as a determination, but as an opinion/interpretation. Ultimately, if someone disagrees with a signing statement they should be - Roger More Mar 12, 11:56 4
  - [deleted] 3
    - regarding your last question, because those criticisms were targeted more on the manner which they were used than the mechanism itself. -- nm - znufrii Mar 12, 12:12 2
      - [deleted] 1
        
        constitutionally speaking, you are almost certainly correct. But that doesn't mean the practice itself isn't a useful tool - znufrii Mar 12, 12:21
- Or Congress? But until SCOTUS rules on something whatever actions the other branches take are de facto Constitutional. -- nm - TWuG Mar 12, 11:53 10
  - [deleted] 9
    - *blink* - znufrii Mar 12, 12:05 2
      - [deleted] 1
        
        and I refuse to comment on whether or not that was just a crafty way of agreeing you without running into a huge "I TOLD YOU SO!" -- nm - znufrii Mar 12, 12:08
    - What I said is this: Unless SCOTUS finds an action taken by Congress or the President to be unconstitional, then it is de facto Constitutional. - TWuG Mar 12, 12:01 5
      - [deleted] 4
        
        The same thing that gives Congress the right to say it *is* Constitutional. - TWuG Mar 12, 12:10 3
        
        [deleted] 2
        
        Then we better hope someone with standing takes it before SCOTUS. You dislike signing statements. Full stop. I dislike the manner in which they are - TWuG Mar 12, 12:17 1
        
        [deleted]
Basically, Obama doesn't want to give up any of the powers that Bush defined for the executive branch, but has pledged to use them with more restraint - znufrii Mar 12, 11:47 3
- Sure - I understand the concern, and Obama's pledge itself isn't sufficient for me. But if there's a system in place that provides accountability, I'm - Roger More Mar 12, 11:51 2
  - [deleted]
  - that's exactly the problem, there is inherently no accountability for a President who takes it upon himself to decide which laws are constitutional - znufrii Mar 12, 11:53
My other caveat is, of course, that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on constitutional matters -- nm - Roger More Mar 12, 11:46

Post a message top

Provided he gives a clear explanation of his opinion why the provisions are unconstitutional, and that this opinion is not controversial, I don't have

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.