dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 So your, and apparently this adminisration's, legal argument is that the decision only applies to one appointment made under the specific conditions of the law suit, and not all appointments made under the specific conditions of the law suit? Na, my opinion is that whatever the wisdom of the decision, it means what it means. The administrations position seems to be, we'll claim it only applies to this case to keep running the board until another decision comes. When that happens, they won't have a position to take other than the decision. 3rd brought it up in comparison to Mississippi just deciding not to adhere to federal law. It be similar if they ignored federal law they didn't like while/before it was being litigated/appealed...but once it reaches SCOTUS or is denied further review to continue ignoring it would be different than that example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 In a few cases SCOTUS disagrees with itself..but this wouldn't be one of them. Mississippi is part of the republic and represented, then can participate as other states do by voting and debating and furthering their point of view and casting their states electoral votes for executive branch candidates etc etc....in the end if they lose the argument/election/debate and something is passed that negatively effects them that they think is not constitutional they can take it to the courts and ultimately as high as SCOTUS where it will be decided one way or the other and then that is the end of it. There is no next step in our Republic where they grant themselves the power to interpret the constitution as they see fit and go rouge picking and choosing federal law they like and dislike. So the Feds create the laws and determine if they're constitutional? You don't see a problem here? There's nothing built into the framework of the constitutional construction of our government that grants the Supreme Court plenary power to determine constitutionality. There are multiple schools of thought on the issue. Many believe that all entities of government: both houses, all three brances, and states included, have a responsibility to uphold the constitution. Your assertion that the states only redress can be their representation, which has been all but abolished by the decision to hold popular elections for Senate, essentially deconstitutionalizes the constitution, because if the only check on Federal power was representative democracy (Republic), there would be no need for a constitution to limit the power of the Feds in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Na, my opinion is that whatever the wisdom of the decision, it means what it means. The administrations position seems to be, we'll claim it only applies to this case to keep running the board until another decision comes. When that happens, they won't have a position to take other than the decision. 3rd brought it up in comparison to Mississippi just deciding not to adhere to federal law. It be similar if they ignored federal law they didn't like while/before it was being litigated/appealed...but once it reaches SCOTUS or is denied further review to continue ignoring it would be different than that example. What other laws should this administration's interpretation be applied to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 So the Feds create the laws and determine if they're constitutional? You don't see a problem here? There's nothing built into the framework of the constitutional construction of our government that grants the Supreme Court plenary power to determine constitutionality. There are multiple schools of thought on the issue. Many believe that all entities of government: both houses, all three brances, and states included, have a responsibility to uphold the constitution. Your assertion that the states only redress can be their representation, which has been all but abolished by the decision to hold popular elections for Senate, essentially deconstitutionalizes the constitution, because if the only check on Federal power was representative democracy (Republic), there would be no need for a constitution to limit the power of the Feds in the first place. If I recall correctly you are/were recently in law school ... so believe you know well and how SCOTUS came about having that power ... a power they've had for ages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 If I recall correctly you are/were recently in law school ... so believe you know well and how SCOTUS came about having that power ... a power they've had for ages If you're referring to Marbury, it never quite established the concept of judicial review the way we think of it today. Marshall made a cogent point when he said that in deciding a case where the statute is in conflict with the constitution the court must follow the constitution - follow the supreme law. It wasn't until McColloch that the statist bastard took the liberty, by way of pure ditka no less, of designating the SC the sole arbiter of constitutionality. We've entertained this system for some time, but that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean that we should, on the basis of "this is how we've always done it" accept congressional or judicial overreach. Just as the congress cannot act beyond its scope of authority, neither can the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) If you're referring to Marbury, it never quite established the concept of judicial review the way we think of it today. Marshall made a cogent point when he said that in deciding a case where the statute is in conflict with the constitution the court must follow the constitution - follow the supreme law. It wasn't until McColloch that the statist bastard took the liberty, by way of pure ditka no less, of designating the SC the sole arbiter of constitutionality. We've entertained this system for some time, but that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean that we should, on the basis of "this is how we've always done it" accept congressional or judicial overreach. Just as the congress cannot act beyond its scope of authority, neither can the court. The most famous line in American judicial history is from that case where he says it is their role to "say what the law is" b/c if you are to apply it to a set of facts, you must be able to The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and they say what it is. Perhaps you do not like the court doing this and would prefer Jefferson's argument? That he should say? Which would of course give Obama the power to say...and the NLRB issues would be long over... Edited January 28, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 The most famous line in American judicial history is from that case where he says it is their role to "say what the law is" b/c if you are to apply it to a set of facts, you must be able to The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and they say what it is. Perhaps you do not like the court doing this and would prefer Jefferson's argument? That he should say? Which would of course give Obama the power to say...and the NLRB issues would be long over... You're a facist man, NEO-FACIST! No, I don't really have an answer, I don't think anyone does. I generally support the doctrine of judicial review, but I do think it needs to be kept in check. It wouldn't be appropriate to defy the court for the sake of being contrary, but if the court were really egregious I do think it would be appropriate for the state to refuse to abide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) You're a facist man, NEO-FACIST! No, I don't really have an answer, I don't think anyone does. I generally support the doctrine of judicial review, but I do think it needs to be kept in check. It wouldn't be appropriate to defy the court for the sake of being contrary, but if the court were really egregious I do think it would be appropriate for the state to refuse to abide. Well...they are appointed by the one person who the entire nation votes on and while not likely to happen you can impeach them. I wouldn't be initially opposed to giving them terms of say...15 years and with lifetime pay though...but that's a whole different debate. The bottom line though is there is no getting around the fact that everybody can't just interpret the law as they see it...if we are a nation of law there most be one body that ultimately says what it is not many bodies saying what it is... Edited January 28, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Well...they are appointed by the one person who the entire nation votes on and while not likely to happen you can impeach them. I wouldn't be initially opposed to giving them terms of say...15 years and with lifetime pay though...but that's a whole different debate. The bottom line though is there is no getting around the fact that everybody can't just interpret the law as they see it...if we are a nation of law there most be one body that ultimately says what it is not many bodies saying what it is... Hence the problem in representative democracy, or any government of men, therefore the need for constitutional restraints, which will ultimately be usurped as they become inconvenient to the men running the government, hence... It's all so !@#$ing futile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) Hence the problem in representative democracy, or any government of men, therefore the need for constitutional restraints, which will ultimately be usurped as they become inconvenient to the men running the government, hence... It's all so !@#$ing futile. Hence you have the choice of understanding how important cooperation is and at some times restraint when things don't go well...behaving as a statesman or even just an adult...or you have the choice of being Mississippi Edited January 28, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Hence you have the choice of understanding how important cooperation is and at some times restraint when things don't go well...behaving as a statesman or even just an adult...or you have the choice of being Mississippi I'll cooperate as long as you do what I say. (I learned that one from my wife) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Hence you have the choice of understanding how important cooperation is and at some times restraint when things don't go well...behaving as a statesman or even just an adult...or you have the choice of being Mississippi Only those who swim up-stream don't go over the falls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) Only those who swim up-stream don't go over the falls. hehe, a very Sarah Palinish way to cap off that conversation Edited January 28, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I'm really curious how this is going to proceed. Supremacy or Santa; which Clause wins out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) I'm really curious how this is going to proceed. Supremacy or Santa; which Clause wins out? Well if they go after it, supremacy trumps santa. I doubt they will though...but that is far from clear...hard line legal guys in the DOJ probably say they aught to b/c it really is kind of crazy to not enforce schedule 1 drug prohibition when violation is happening on a large commercial scale in a state that is collecting taxes and sanctioning it. But at the same time, there likely are some voices that understand the way things are going, the mood of the country, and feel "resources could be better spent elsewhere." In all likelihood they probably just hope they can avoid publicly saying they won't do anything, while at the same time not doing anything, and then soon Congress acts so they don't have to deal with it. But we'll see... Edited January 28, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 and then soon Congress acts so they don't have to deal with it. Congress acting soon on this issue strikes me as outrageously optimistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Well if they go after it, supremacy trumps santa. I doubt they will though...but that is far from clear...hard line legal guys in the DOJ probably say they aught to b/c it really is kind of crazy to not enforce schedule 1 drug prohibition when violation is happening on a large commercial scale in a state that is collecting taxes and sanctioning it. But at the same time, there likely are some voices that understand the way things are going, the mood of the country, and feel "resources could be better spent elsewhere." In all likelihood they probably just hope they can avoid publicly saying they won't do anything, while at the same time not doing anything, and then soon Congress acts so they don't have to deal with it. But we'll see... Tell me, what have we seen to date as far as the Obama administration selectively enforcing laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Tell me, what have we seen to date as far as the Obama administration selectively enforcing laws? At the very least you can't really openly say you will not enforce a law unless you have or plan to in the near future have a public policy position against it. So while you can, in practice, not do anything about something and take the position that it's in your discretion to allocate limited resources...it would be tough to publicly guarantee a state you will NEVER enforce a law that you have no official policy position against. **although...if the polls are to be believed and there is in fact GOP support for not doing anything...then in reality you could just tell them you aren't going to do anything...but it would be a little crazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 At the very least you can't really openly say you will not enforce a law unless you have or plan to in the near future have a public policy position against it. So while you can, in practice, not do anything about something and take the position that it's in your discretion to allocate limited resources...it would be tough to publicly guarantee a state you will NEVER enforce a law that you have no official policy position against. **although...if the polls are to be believed and there is in fact GOP support for not doing anything...then in reality you could just tell them you aren't going to do anything...but it would be a little crazy I'm specifically referring to illegal "immigration" and the prosecution of the "New Black Panthers" for their actions in Philadelphia in 2008 and their advertised threats in the Trayvon Martin death case against George Zimmerman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I'm specifically referring to illegal "immigration" and the prosecution of the "New Black Panthers" for their actions in Philadelphia in 2008 and their advertised threats in the Trayvon Martin death case against George Zimmerman. I'm well aware of what you were referring to I just chose not to answer your obvious question directly. If you read my post, you will see that the logic I identified as a possible maneuver is that which has been used in that instance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts