The Rule of Law?

[Boatswain2PA]

Okay liberals, school me on your thoughts about President Obama and AG Holder selectively enforcing our nation's laws.

Here's my position: I don't like a lot of the laws, but the legislative branch is supposed to write them, the judicial is supposed to interpret them, and the executive branch is supposed to enforce them.

For example: I think the endangered species act is out of control. We now have the BLM in nearly armed warfare against ranchers to save a tortoise that has been living alongside the free-range cattle for a century and a half....but it's the law! It's been adjudicated that the rancher needs to move his cattle, so despite my VERY conservative/libertarian principles, I think he is in the wrong.

But how do liberal's justify President Obama and AG Holder's refusal to enforce laws simply because they don't want to? AG Holder has a long history of choosing what laws to enforce based on politics/race (voting intimidation in Philly), and now his department will has been "asked" to begin prosecuting Lois Lerner for abusing her authority in the IRS by intimidating taxpayers simply due to their political beliefs (by the way, President Nixon was RIGHTFULLY impeached for doing the same thing). I don't believe anybody actually believes that AG Holder will actually do his job and seek prosecution for Lerner....because they come from the same political spectrum.

President Obama simply refuses to enforce the DOMA. This has NOT been struck down by the courts, so it is still the "law of the land", which by his constitutional oath he is obligated to enforce. Yet he simply chooses not to because he does not agree with it.

So, those of you of the liberal persuasion, how do you justify this? Please don't say "because they are unjust laws"....we have MANY unjust laws in this nation, but it is not up to the executive branch (President Obama and the DOJ) to select for us what laws are unjust...that is why we elect legislators.

 

[gnarlylove]

Do you think this is unique to liberals or Prez Obama?

Do you think this is a reason to support Republicans/Cons?

Any self-conscious liberal would have abandoned supporting Obama by 09, if not before. His record has proven in line with codifying Bush's policies of permanent war, tax exemptions for the wealthy etc.

Lastly, do you think this is in any way a unique case of not upholding the law? Ever heard of HBSC the bank? They admitted to 850 million in nacrotrafficking and spent no time in jail. The federal prosecutor said these are not the sort of people that belong in jail, according to Matt Taibbi. Do you grasp what this means? The system is corrupt to the core. The law is not universally applied, and there's no reason to think Obama is any special case as virtually all politicians, federal, state and local are operating according to favortism. It's not their choice in a sense because if they didn't, the rich would buy someone else.

Sorry I didn't address the specifics but I don't think it's unique in any way.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

I don't think it is unique to liberals, but what IS unique is that many people are, seemingly, willing to accept it.

I also think it is certainly more predominant with liberals. Conservatives are much more likely to break with their party and "fire" those who need fired. Nixon, for example.

This could be because conservatives have a greater moral compass, or it could be that liberal's know that they can get away with it because there will be no media focus on their actions.

As to whether this, in itself, is justification to support conservatives? Then no, but we unfortunately operate in a 2-party system where the only way to be "against" one party is to be "for" the other party.

So, are there no liberals out there who can give me a reasonable explanation of why they support Holder and Obama on this issue?

 

[FA_Q2]

No one is coming in to defend this because it is flat out indefensible. We no longer live in a nation of laws. It has been replaced with a system that allows whoever is in power to do as they please without concern one of what the law actually states and no one will do a damn thing about it because party has become more important than country.

This is what happens when the law becomes so expansive that no one actually knows what it states, when everyone breaks several federal laws per day and when regulation (with the same force of law) is added to the books by unelected and unchecked officials at a rate that would fill a library every year. Something has to change.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you think this is unique to liberals or Prez Obama?

Do you think this is a reason to support Republicans/Cons?

Any self-conscious liberal would have abandoned supporting Obama by 09, if not before. His record has proven in line with codifying Bush's policies of permanent war, tax exemptions for the wealthy etc.

Lastly, do you think this is in any way a unique case of not upholding the law? Ever heard of HBSC the bank? They admitted to 850 million in nacrotrafficking and spent no time in jail. The federal prosecutor said these are not the sort of people that belong in jail, according to Matt Taibbi. Do you grasp what this means? The system is corrupt to the core. The law is not universally applied, and there's no reason to think Obama is any special case as virtually all politicians, federal, state and local are operating according to favortism. It's not their choice in a sense because if they didn't, the rich would buy someone else.

Sorry I didn't address the specifics but I don't think it's unique in any way.

Does the fact that both sides do it make it right?

 

[gnarlylove]

Is that a serious question? If so, I can't believe I wasted my time replying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is that a serious question? If so, I can't believe I wasted my time replying.

I'm sorry, was your blithering about the rich a serious post?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

…and the executive branch is supposed to enforce them.

The rule of law is the is the foundation upon which our Constitutional Republic is based. And the fundamental doctrines guiding the rule of law are judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts as sanctioned by the Constitution and its case law, where the Federal courts determine what the Constitution means, and whether acts of government are indeed Constitutional.

Consequently, acts of Congress or acts of the Executive are Constitutional until such time as a Federal court, or ultimately the Supreme Court, rules otherwise:

It is no surprise, and it is not at all unusual historically, for a president to come to the conclusion that he does not always have to get “the consent of Congress.” Take, for example, the power of the president to issue a formal “Executive Order,” which has all the force of enacted law. George Washington issued eight of those, setting an initial precedent for “unilateral” executive action; Franklin Roosevelt still holds the record – 3,522. Barack Obama has issued 168.

One of the most famous Executive Orders of modern times was issued by President Harry Truman in 1952. That was during the Korean war, and Truman acted to keep the steel mills operating in the face of a labor union strike.

But presidents can take such bold measures only at the risk that the Constitution might override what they have done. Truman’s steel mill seizure, indeed, was struck down by the Supreme Court in perhaps the strongest constitutional rebuff of any presidential action.

President George W. Bush, who in his time heard a lot of criticism of his defense of the power of what was called the “unitary executive,” also was faced down by the Supreme Court in 2006 when it overturned his Executive Order to create a system of military courts to try suspected war criminals after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.

So far, in the short time since President Obama spoke of his plan to go it alone, he has done nothing as bold as Truman or the second Bush did in those particular orders. He has imposed a $10.10 minimum wage guarantee on private businesses that obtain new government contracts, has taken steps to create a new kind of retirement account for people with only modest incomes, and has moved to set up some jobs-generating business initiatives.

Obama may yet face a veto-of-sorts from the Supreme Court on one of his initiatives to try to get around legislative gridlock: his appointments to government boards during a time when the Senate was in recess, after refusing to vote on those nominees. That case still awaits a decision from the Justices.

The Constitution Outside the Courts: President Obama

Consequently, the notion that the Executive is to blindly and mindlessly ‘enforce’ Federal laws is naïve and uninformed, as it’s the responsibility of Federal agencies to write the policies that actually implement the laws Congress passes, and to write those policies requires interpretation on the part of the Executive branch of government.

Conservatives critical of the president’s actions with regard to the enforcement of laws is therefore solely partisan and unfounded. Until such time as the Supreme Court rules any of the president’s actions un-Constitutional, as we saw when GWB’s Executive Order to create a system of military courts was invalidated by the High Court, the president is not in ‘violation’ of the rule of law or of the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

…and the executive branch is supposed to enforce them.

The rule of law is the is the foundation upon which our Constitutional Republic is based. And the fundamental doctrines guiding the rule of law are judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts as sanctioned by the Constitution and its case law, where the Federal courts determine what the Constitution means, and whether acts of government are indeed Constitutional.

Consequently, acts of Congress or acts of the Executive are Constitutional until such time as a Federal court, or ultimately the Supreme Court, rules otherwise:

It is no surprise, and it is not at all unusual historically, for a president to come to the conclusion that he does not always have to get “the consent of Congress.” Take, for example, the power of the president to issue a formal “Executive Order,” which has all the force of enacted law. George Washington issued eight of those, setting an initial precedent for “unilateral” executive action; Franklin Roosevelt still holds the record – 3,522. Barack Obama has issued 168.

One of the most famous Executive Orders of modern times was issued by President Harry Truman in 1952. That was during the Korean war, and Truman acted to keep the steel mills operating in the face of a labor union strike.

But presidents can take such bold measures only at the risk that the Constitution might override what they have done. Truman’s steel mill seizure, indeed, was struck down by the Supreme Court in perhaps the strongest constitutional rebuff of any presidential action.

President George W. Bush, who in his time heard a lot of criticism of his defense of the power of what was called the “unitary executive,” also was faced down by the Supreme Court in 2006 when it overturned his Executive Order to create a system of military courts to try suspected war criminals after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.

So far, in the short time since President Obama spoke of his plan to go it alone, he has done nothing as bold as Truman or the second Bush did in those particular orders. He has imposed a $10.10 minimum wage guarantee on private businesses that obtain new government contracts, has taken steps to create a new kind of retirement account for people with only modest incomes, and has moved to set up some jobs-generating business initiatives.

Obama may yet face a veto-of-sorts from the Supreme Court on one of his initiatives to try to get around legislative gridlock: his appointments to government boards during a time when the Senate was in recess, after refusing to vote on those nominees. That case still awaits a decision from the Justices.

The Constitution Outside the Courts: President Obama

Consequently, the notion that the Executive is to blindly and mindlessly ‘enforce’ Federal laws is naïve and uninformed, as it’s the responsibility of Federal agencies to write the policies that actually implement the laws Congress passes, and to write those policies requires interpretation on the part of the Executive branch of government.

Conservatives critical of the president’s actions with regard to the enforcement of laws is therefore solely partisan and unfounded. Until such time as the Supreme Court rules any of the president’s actions un-Constitutional, as we saw when GWB’s Executive Order to create a system of military courts was invalidated by the High Court, the president is not in ‘violation’ of the rule of law or of the Constitution.

The rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves. It stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right. It has zip a dee doo dah to do with the courts or any claim that a law is automatically constitutional until a court says it isn't.


Consequently, you are still a pretentious fuck face.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Consequently, acts of Congress or acts of the Executive are Constitutional until such time as a Federal court, or ultimately the Supreme Court, rules otherwise:

It is no surprise, and it is not at all unusual historically, for a president to come to the conclusion that he does not always have to get “the consent of Congress.” Take, for example, the power of the president to issue a formal “Executive Order,” which has all the force of enacted law. George Washington issued eight of those, setting an initial precedent for “unilateral” executive action; Franklin Roosevelt still holds the record – 3,522. Barack Obama has issued 168.....Consequently, the notion that the Executive is to blindly and mindlessly ‘enforce’ Federal laws is naïve and uninformed, as it’s the responsibility of Federal agencies to write the policies that actually implement the laws Congress passes, and to write those policies requires interpretation on the part of the Executive branch of government.

Conservatives critical of the president’s actions with regard to the enforcement of laws is therefore solely partisan and unfounded. Until such time as the Supreme Court rules any of the president’s actions un-Constitutional, as we saw when GWB’s Executive Order to create a system of military courts was invalidated by the High Court, the president is not in ‘violation’ of the rule of law or of the Constitution.

So disagreeing with President Obama/Eric Holder's decision to effectively disregard the nation's immigration laws is "solely partisan and unfounded"? No, it's American.

There is a big difference between using an executive order to create an action in absence of a legislative law...such as the creation of the military court system to try terrorists....and open defiance of existing legislated (and adjudicated) law such as President Obama/Eric Holder are doing with disregarding the nation's immigration laws.

Anyone who is not blinded by their own ideology should be able to see that.

 

[Billo_Really]

Okay liberals, school me on your thoughts about President Obama and AG Holder selectively enforcing our nation's laws.

Here's my position: I don't like a lot of the laws, but the legislative branch is supposed to write them, the judicial is supposed to interpret them, and the executive branch is supposed to enforce them.

For example: I think the endangered species act is out of control. We now have the BLM in nearly armed warfare against ranchers to save a tortoise that has been living alongside the free-range cattle for a century and a half....but it's the law! It's been adjudicated that the rancher needs to move his cattle, so despite my VERY conservative/libertarian principles, I think he is in the wrong.

But how do liberal's justify President Obama and AG Holder's refusal to enforce laws simply because they don't want to? AG Holder has a long history of choosing what laws to enforce based on politics/race (voting intimidation in Philly), and now his department will has been "asked" to begin prosecuting Lois Lerner for abusing her authority in the IRS by intimidating taxpayers simply due to their political beliefs (by the way, President Nixon was RIGHTFULLY impeached for doing the same thing). I don't believe anybody actually believes that AG Holder will actually do his job and seek prosecution for Lerner....because they come from the same political spectrum.

President Obama simply refuses to enforce the DOMA. This has NOT been struck down by the courts, so it is still the "law of the land", which by his constitutional oath he is obligated to enforce. Yet he simply chooses not to because he does not agree with it.

So, those of you of the liberal persuasion, how do you justify this? Please don't say "because they are unjust laws"....we have MANY unjust laws in this nation, but it is not up to the executive branch (President Obama and the DOJ) to select for us what laws are unjust...that is why we elect legislators.

I'm a liberal and there are two specific points I'd like to make:

1. Obama is not a liberal President, hasn't one liberal in his Cabinet and does not follow a liberal agenda, so why lay this down as a liberal issue and not an American one?
2. Did you protest his predecessor over his "selective enforcement", which led to the deaths of over 1 million innocent men, women and children; our economy; our reputation around the world; and our American heritage?

Because if you were silent when the last President was doing basically the same things this President is doing, I really don't care to hear anything you have to say now.

BTW, I've protested both!

 

[Sunni Man]

Obama and Holder could care less about American law or the U.S. Constitution.

They have a race based Marxist agenda that overrides everyone and everything. ...

 

[Billo_Really]

Obama and Holder could care less about American law or the U.S. Constitution.

They have a race based Marxist agenda that overrides everyone and everything. ...

Their agenda is not Marxist, it's neo-conservative.

 

[Katzndogz]

We don't have the Rule of Law. We have the Rule of Whim.

 

[oldfart]

I don't think it is unique to liberals, but what IS unique is that many people are, seemingly, willing to accept it.

I also think it is certainly more predominant with liberals. Conservatives are much more likely to break with their party and "fire" those who need fired. Nixon, for example.

Your conclusion of "fact" is a product of the ideological blinders you view the world through. The "you" here is grammatical, not personal. Everybody does it. It's called "confirmation bias". Really good thinkers try to identify it in themselves and moderate it.

This could be because conservatives have a greater moral compass, or it could be that liberal's know that they can get away with it because there will be no media focus on their actions.

Balderdash. Now you sound like a ten-year old. You seem to be more intelligent than that.

So, are there no liberals out there who can give me a reasonable explanation of why they support Holder and Obama on this issue?

On what issue? Your generalizations are so broad, you preclude any sensible response. It's like if I asked you to debate why conservatives all love totalitarians and support death squads.

Oh, I am not a liberal and never claim to be. So technically I have no dog in the fight. I am a Left Opposition--Spartacist politically and a technical wonk economically.

 

[Jughead]

Obama is not a liberal President, hasn't one liberal in his Cabinet and does not follow a liberal agenda, so why lay this down as a liberal issue and not an American one?

Not liberal?

He is in fact the most liberal President since Jimmy Carter, perhaps even more so. Just look at his policies. Obamacare, welfare reform, higher taxes, pro-abortion policies, pro-gay marriage (since 1996) ...etc. How much more liberal can he get? If he were to go any further left, he'd tip the scale and merge with the radical right!

 

[oldfart]

No one is coming in to defend this because it is flat out indefensible. We no longer live in a nation of laws. It has been replaced with a system that allows whoever is in power to do as they please without concern one of what the law actually states and no one will do a damn thing about it because party has become more important than country.

I don't argue your basic point because I agree with you. America has become too much a land where law is a commodity; bought in its making through the political system, and bought in its execution. I don't think that result has much to do with party, however. Money is spend to gain access and votes of both parties. Parties have come to be about ideology for the masses and money and power for the political elite. The ideology is the smoke and mirrors to keep the little people distracted from what is going on with the money and the power. It's not party or ideology that has become more important than country, it is narrow self-interest.

This is what happens when the law becomes so expansive that no one actually knows what it states, when everyone breaks several federal laws per day and when regulation (with the same force of law) is added to the books by unelected and unchecked officials at a rate that would fill a library every year. Something has to change.

Again I agree with your observation of facts. I believe the remedy for bad law is good law, not necessarily less law. But that is a whole new can of worms.

 

[oldfart]

Consequently, the notion that the Executive is to blindly and mindlessly ‘enforce’ Federal laws is naïve and uninformed, as it’s the responsibility of Federal agencies to write the policies that actually implement the laws Congress passes, and to write those policies requires interpretation on the part of the Executive branch of government.

In my part of the legal pasture (tax law) there are statutory regulations where the law specifically directs the Treasury to promulgate regulations to interpret certain provisions. The alternative would be to delay all laws by several years (based on the average time it takes such regulations to become final) which would frustrate the purpose of the law in the first place.

Further, the system of temporary regulations, proposed regulations, and final regulations has no easy counterpart in the law itself. When there is no applicable regulation to refer to, there is a huge uncertainty as to the outcome until a court case has its decade in court. Do we really want our tax system and economy to bear the costs of that kind of dead weight loss? As it is, Treasury issues proposed regulations which will be open for public comment and set in motion a well-defined process in which (at least theoretically) different groups can be heard and make their arguments. This process is pretty robust. Usually the proposed regulations are also temporary regulations, so that the public can rely upon them. They create a safe harbor from punitive penalties and certain adverse results for those who rely on them in good faith. Try doing that in a law!

 

[Boatswain2PA]

I'm a liberal and there are two specific points I'd like to make:

1. Obama is not a liberal President, hasn't one liberal in his Cabinet and does not follow a liberal agenda, so why lay this down as a liberal issue and not an American one?
   
   .......
   
   Their agenda is not Marxist, it's neo-conservative.

1. 
   
   That may just have been the single dumbest thing anyone has ever posted on the internet.....EVER!
   
   [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0]Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon)[Forum Weapon][How To Troll][Ignorance Is Bliss] - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Billo_Really]

Not liberal?

He is in fact the most liberal President since Jimmy Carter, perhaps even more so. Just look at his policies. Obamacare, welfare reform, higher taxes, pro-abortion policies, pro-gay marriage (since 1996) ...etc. How much more liberal can he get? If he were to go any further left, he'd tip the scale and merge with the radical right!

Obamacare doesn't have the "public option", therefore, it's not a liberal bill.

Welfare reform, is the talking point of the right.

Higher taxes, were actually lowered.

Pro-abortion and gay marriage, I have no comment on those issues and could care less about them. They are non-issues in my world.


His foreign policy is the PNAC neocon agenda.

His Defense Secretary was from the previous Administration.

He's worse than his predecessor regarding warrantless wiretaps.

He's constantly compromising to right wing representatives that are out to harm this country.

Name one liberal in his Cabinet?