Is a Constitutional Crisis on the way?

[MaxGrit]

For the OP – the constitutional crisis has already happened. It happened many years ago when we, as a nation, decided that the constitution did not really have to be followed. That we can make any clause mean anything (such as the commerce clause which no longer has any real meaning). Like it or not, somewhere we have failed to steward the constitution properly. Somewhere we decided that we would simply ignore it rather than change it when sections because outdated.

And, like it or not, we are going to continue in this fashion for MANY years to come. There is not going to be any real awakening and no real calamity to make an apathetic and mostly ignorant voter base change what is happening. The system DOES work even though it is riddled with severe problems, and it will limp on for many decades to come.

The problem with the system we have now is the lost of republican nature as well as oligarchs judges overriding the will of the state govn.

 

[MaxGrit]

A tax cannot be challenged until it is actually paid and it will be challenged, there are also many cases going through the lower courts on aspects that were never challenged originally, I think several have a good chance to make it to SCOTUS so it will be ruled on again.

I would be very surprised if SCOTUS choses to hear any challenge based on it being a "tax".

They already ruled that as a "tax", it's constitutional - they're not going to change their minds.

Wrong, the only thing ruled on is the governments power to tax, nothing was said about its constitutionality because that wasn't part of the challenge, they only hear the specific parts that are being challenged in that particular case. You might want to actually read the decision, you'll get a really good lesson in circular reasoning. The acrobatics and the hoops Roberts performed were amazing would have been neat if it weren't such a bunch of BS.

Well I really liked what he did on Citizens United case

 

[MaxGrit]

You know whats amusing everything Obama is being accused of by the right all the things the left calls wacko, crazy, extremist, paranoid use whatever word you like is the exact same type of stuff the left was accusing Bush of. How many other's remember the claims of Bush is a dictator he's tearing up the Constitution overreaching trying to expand the powers of the executive branch?

I remember.

They were right then as well. Neither is even remotely close to a dictator BUT they both tried to (and succeeded) sequester more power to the branch they controlled. The American people have allowed it as well as they will continue to allow it. Look at one of the first responses:

This. Wrongpublicans will continue to terrorize the nation with threats of "hitting the debt ceiling" and "plummeting off a fiscal cliff" just as they have since they stole a majority in the House.

President Obama, a dictator? Please. We sure could use one, though, to deal with all these Tea-hadis running around Washington, shutting down the gyvyrnmynt.

Too many people WANT the president to have more power. It’s like the acceptance of Mussolini, “at least the trains run on time.” The current electorate wants to hear that things are being taken care of, that they don’t have to worry about anything and that the government will ensure everything is all right. Rights be damned, they only get in the way.

The executive continues to move more power to itself and the massive bureaucracy that it heads. This is natural but was supposed to be something that the constitution defended against. Sadly, it is proving that it is not up to the task.

The Constitution as originally intended by the founders did have the state checking executive power though the Senate.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

First of all, jury nullification doesn't change laws. Prohibition was repealed by the ratification of the 21st, not "by force of Jury".

Second, exactly how is the Jury system "under attack"?

Duh, what do you think led to its repeal?

A well-funded national campaign financed by numerous special interest groups, such as the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, the Constitutional Liberty League of Massachusetts, The Crusaders, the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform, and countless others.

Not "force of Jury".

Are you claiming that Jury Nullification was not a major factor in the repeal of Prohibition?

One would think that 60% acquittal and even more hung cases would be a MAJOR FACTOR.

 

[FA_Q2]

And how exactly can you guarantee that? Mass surveillance isn't new, it's been going on for decades, and no one has ever had a problem with it until Internet libertarians found out about it.

You’re kidding right? The left had a HUGE problem with it. Well, they did back when Bush was the CIC.

Now the right does.

The problem is that there are too many partisan lemmings that knew this was wrong ten years ago but ignore reality when their guy is in power (and vice versa).

Some of us on the left still have a HUGE problem with it.

Yes, some of you do and though I disagree with almost everything that the left stands for I respect those that actually have beliefs rather than partisan ideologies that reflect whatever the current talking notes are.

The problem is that you are a tiny minority on the left, as I am a tiny minority on the right who railed against such measures when Bush signed them.

Unfortunately, more people are interested in us vs. them than they are in actual issues and realities.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Duh, what do you think led to its repeal?

A well-funded national campaign financed by numerous special interest groups, such as the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, the Constitutional Liberty League of Massachusetts, The Crusaders, the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform, and countless others.

Not "force of Jury".

Are you claiming that Jury Nullification was not a major factor in the repeal of Prohibition?

One would think that 60% acquittal and even more hung cases would be a MAJOR FACTOR.

Your claims of causation are where I have a problem.

The changing public opinion on Prohibition was the cause of both the passage of the 21st, and the often claimed yet never sourced "60% acquittal" statistic. The change in public opinion was due to many factors, including the previously mentioned special interest groups and national campaigns.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The changing public opinion on Prohibition

Public opinion among the common man never changed or wavered concerning Prohibition. Do you really think that a majority of the every-day folk EVER supported Prohibition?

What happened was a bunch of "Progressives" came into power, while the common folk weren't paying attention to politics (sound familiar) and rammed through a Constitutional Amendment that NO ONE liked (sound familiar).

All of a sudden the common folk were made aware of the dangers of the KKK eugenicist Progressive Movement that sought to control every aspect of their lives (sound familiar?).

You Progressives had the audacity to interfere with one of civilization's oldest pastimes --- drinking. That's how arrogant Progressives are, that's how utterly naive they are. They actually think that they can "play G-d" for everyone's "own safety." That they can build a "Great Society" and cures all common ills. In reality, you Progressives impoverish entire cultures (Black America) at best, or genocide non-conformers at worst (Mao).

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The changing public opinion on Prohibition

Public opinion among the common man never changed or wavered concerning Prohibition. Do you really think that a majority of the every-day folk EVER supported Prohibition?

What happened was a bunch of "Progressives" came into power, while the common folk weren't paying attention to politics (sound familiar) and rammed through a Constitutional Amendment that NO ONE liked (sound familiar).

All of a sudden the common folk were made aware of the dangers of the KKK eugenicist Progressive Movement that sought to control every aspect of their lives (sound familiar?).

You Progressives had the audacity to interfere with one of civilization's oldest pastimes --- drinking. That's how arrogant Progressives are, that's how utterly naive they are. They actually think that they can "play G-d" for everyone's "own safety." That they can build a "Great Society" and cures all common ills. In reality, you impoverish entire cultures (Black America) at best, or genocide non-conformers at worst (Mao).

First of all, the term "progressive" is meaningless. I know you think it means something, but it doesn't - and either way, I'm not one.

Secondly, the temperance movement (pro-prohibition) had existed as long as this country had. Prohibition didn't come out of nowhere - it came from the religious/social conservative puritan culture of the earliest colonists. The first legal "prohibition" on alcohol on this continent passed in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1657.

Prohibition wasn't "rammed through". It was argued in all the levels of government in this country (and colonies) for 200 years before it was actually passed.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Proverbs 28:4
"Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law resist them."

The House has officially decided to sue Obama for the usurpation of legislative powers, all of which are vested in Congress according to Article I of the US Constitution.

Without a doubt, the courts will rule AGAINST Obama, even it takes 6-18 months.

The question however is how Obama will react. Will he scoff at both the Legislative and Judicial Branches and plow along anyway? What happens then?

Quite literally, the Court will be asked to resolve the following question:

Is Obama a dictator?

And herein lies the problem. If he is a dictator, the Court's opinion will not shake him, it will merely be an opinion.

If they rule that he is not a dictator, then we no longer have need of Congress, since apparently the President can rightfully assume any and all legislative powers at any time. Congress would merely function as Caesar's Rubber Stamp at best. Congress becomes worthless.

You cannot sue a sitting president for things he does while in office as President. The earliest that this case could actually be litigated would be as of January 21, 2017.

You do realize this, right?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Proverbs 28:4
"Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law resist them."

The House has officially decided to sue Obama for the usurpation of legislative powers, all of which are vested in Congress according to Article I of the US Constitution.

Without a doubt, the courts will rule AGAINST Obama, even it takes 6-18 months.

The question however is how Obama will react. Will he scoff at both the Legislative and Judicial Branches and plow along anyway? What happens then?

Quite literally, the Court will be asked to resolve the following question:

Is Obama a dictator?

And herein lies the problem. If he is a dictator, the Court's opinion will not shake him, it will merely be an opinion.

If they rule that he is not a dictator, then we no longer have need of Congress, since apparently the President can rightfully assume any and all legislative powers at any time. Congress would merely function as Caesar's Rubber Stamp at best. Congress becomes worthless.

You cannot sue a sitting president for things he does while in office as President. The earliest that this case could actually be litigated would be as of January 21, 2017.

You do realize this, right?

How faireth Israel self-hating Jew? Why dost thou embraceth Obama when he has forsaken thee?

 

[Statistikhengst]

The House has officially decided to sue Obama for the usurpation of legislative powers, all of which are vested in Congress according to Article I of the US Constitution.

Without a doubt, the courts will rule AGAINST Obama, even it takes 6-18 months.

The question however is how Obama will react. Will he scoff at both the Legislative and Judicial Branches and plow along anyway? What happens then?

Quite literally, the Court will be asked to resolve the following question:

Is Obama a dictator?

And herein lies the problem. If he is a dictator, the Court's opinion will not shake him, it will merely be an opinion.

If they rule that he is not a dictator, then we no longer have need of Congress, since apparently the President can rightfully assume any and all legislative powers at any time. Congress would merely function as Caesar's Rubber Stamp at best. Congress becomes worthless.

You cannot sue a sitting president for things he does while in office as President. The earliest that this case could actually be litigated would be as of January 21, 2017.

You do realize this, right?

How faireth Israel self-hating Jew? Why dost thou embraceth Obama when he has forsaken thee?

That's the best you have to offer? To attack me with untruths?

Sad. Very sad.

The law is very clear about suing a sitting POTUS. Go inform yourself about it.
You make the Right look even more ridiculous than it is when you post this kind of drivel.

 

[FA_Q2]

You cannot sue a sitting president for things he does while in office as President. The earliest that this case could actually be litigated would be as of January 21, 2017.

You do realize this, right?

How faireth Israel self-hating Jew? Why dost thou embraceth Obama when he has forsaken thee?

That's the best you have to offer? To attack me with untruths?

Sad. Very sad.

The law is very clear about suing a sitting POTUS. Go inform yourself about it.
You make the Right look even more ridiculous than it is when you post this kind of drivel.

I cant find anything that states this is unequivocally true for congress. All I can find is that standing is the largest hurdle. Can you back this stamen up?

 

[zeke]

"Existing law" is quite a broad category.

Which EPA regulations are not consistent with existing law?

Existing law does not allow them to regulate carbon dioxide that was done by the courts, which they have no more power to amend existing law than the president. Of course they seem to lack that knowledge as they have demonstrated many times.

So, you're gonna go with the "I know better than the SCOTUS does" argument?

LMAO. Have you ever noticed that the right wing whack jobs on here KNOW EVERYTHING better than ANYONE.

Why they haven't been elected to a prominent Republican position to lead the fight on stopping the dictator we have is beyond my ability to grasp. These whack jobs on here have at least 5 different reasons for impeachment. All of them good to go.

Unless they suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome to such an extent that their party won't have them as a candidate for office.

That must be it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A tax cannot be challenged until it is actually paid and it will be challenged, there are also many cases going through the lower courts on aspects that were never challenged originally, I think several have a good chance to make it to SCOTUS so it will be ruled on again.

I would be very surprised if SCOTUS choses to hear any challenge based on it being a "tax".

They already ruled that as a "tax", it's constitutional - they're not going to change their minds.

Wrong, the only thing ruled on is the governments power to tax, nothing was said about its constitutionality because that wasn't part of the challenge, they only hear the specific parts that are being challenged in that particular case. You might want to actually read the decision, you'll get a really good lesson in circular reasoning. The acrobatics and the hoops Roberts performed were amazing would have been neat if it weren't such a bunch of BS.

Go back and read the decision. the Roberts court will uphold it by 7 to 2 at the least.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nullification was symptomatic not causal in ending Prohibition.

 

[deltex1]

"So, you're gonna go with the "I know better than the SCOTUS does" argument?"


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


He's just following the president's example.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Existing law does not allow them to regulate carbon dioxide that was done by the courts, which they have no more power to amend existing law than the president. Of course they seem to lack that knowledge as they have demonstrated many times.

This doesn't make any sense.

Neither the president nor the Supreme Court 'amended' any laws.

It is both necessary and appropriate for administrative and regulatory entities to infer the intent of Congress when implementing the policies authorized by acts of Congress.

Indeed, Congress writes its laws with the full understanding and intent that administrators and regulators will develop the details and specifics of actual implementation.

And when corporations or private citizens perceive a regulatory agency's implementation as contrary to Congress' intent, they are at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the policy.

When the Supreme Court determines that a regulatory agency is implementing policy as intended by Congress, that decision in no way 'amends' existing law – it's ignorant and ridiculous to maintain otherwise.

Then why did they attempt to pass cap and trade? They are now implementing part of that failed bill now.

They didn't.

Just as administrative agencies and the Supreme Court don't 'amend' laws, they also don't 'pass' laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The law was had a specific date...........

Which was appropriate and wisely delayed in accordance with IRS regulatory code and established legal precedent.

No laws were 'rewritten,' no laws were 'ignored,' no laws were 'violated,' and no laws were 'amended.'

The law had a specific date. Period.

Incorrect.

This is naive, partisan, and wrong.

The law itself and the legal precedent that exists as a consequence of reviewing other implementation delays affords regulatory agencies the ability to delay.

GWB delayed implementation of provisions of Medicare Part D and we heard no nonsense from anyone about a 'lawsuit.'

This 'lawsuit' is completely devoid of merit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Existing law does not allow them to regulate carbon dioxide that was done by the courts, which they have no more power to amend existing law than the president. Of course they seem to lack that knowledge as they have demonstrated many times.

This doesn't make any sense.

Neither the president nor the Supreme Court 'amended' any laws.

It is both necessary and appropriate for administrative and regulatory entities to infer the intent of Congress when implementing the policies authorized by acts of Congress.

Indeed, Congress writes its laws with the full understanding and intent that administrators and regulators will develop the details and specifics of actual implementation.

And when corporations or private citizens perceive a regulatory agency's implementation as contrary to Congress' intent, they are at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the policy.

When the Supreme Court determines that a regulatory agency is implementing policy as intended by Congress, that decision in no way 'amends' existing law – it's ignorant and ridiculous to maintain otherwise.

Really, how did a penalty written into the law and held unconstitutional, suddenly become a TAX without further congressional action?

You're still not making any sense.

Presidents, regulatory agencies, and the Supreme Court do not and cannot write, amend, or change laws.

You may perceive that as being the case but as a fact of law it is not.

If you have the name and number of a bill that was written and passed into law by a regulatory agency, for example, feel free to cite it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Doc. This is what you get when a Temporary Majority goes amuk.............and passes laws as my way or the highway....................

The Dems have no one to blame but themselves on this..............They own it.

Well, you see it that way because you want it to be that way.

It's not true, though. Both sides are equally at fault.

Aren't you glad you got to find out what's inside it?

On ObamaCare

The long-awaited revelations of its passage never came as promised, not really; rather, we scratched our heads in bewilderment awaiting instead on its implementation before we could be definitively sure about its contents. Even now its implementation has yet to be fully realized, but we know enough; yes, now, we know enough, more than we can stomach.

In the beginning, I was on the very edge of my seat for months and months . . . and, well, for months more. But after awhile, the seconds, it seemed, passed by as minutes, minutes as hours, hours as days. . . . I drifted in and out of sleep.

I recall awakening at some point and finding myself lying on the floor beside the dog. I was drenched in sweat. I wiped the drool from my chin and sighed. Something lurked in the shadows of my mind, but I couldn't make out its shape or put a name on it. Sometime later, I awoke again, still lying on the floor. I was cold, shivering. The dog whimpered—a bad dream, I suppose—rolled over on its back and farted. But even that noxious cloud of artificially flavored Kibbles 'n Bits was no match for the creeping flow of time and the lull that filled the air, and so the conscious world of thought slipped away from me again.

But, finally, some undeterminable time later, I was roused by a voice that came to me from afar, from the dark, outer reaches of humanity. The voice spoke in a strange language—garbled, intermittent bits and pieces of English mixed with gibberish. The voice uttered something about a penalty that wasn't a penalty, but a tax. Other voices chimed in—screaming something about a war on women. There was talk about a mandate that wasn't a mandate, but an opportunity; talk about an imposition on business owners that wasn't an imposition at all, but social justice. Another voice shouted, "Freedom is Slavery!" Actually, I'm not sure if I were awake or dreaming, as even the discernibly English portions of this incoherent gathering of voices was sheer madness.

The dog farted again, and I passed out.