Citing Constitutional Authority

[heliochrome85]

ill wait until they read the full constitution.

[stebo0728]

ill wait until they read the full constitution.

LOL at this, I agree



And IB - whats wrong with starting new traditions?

[IBCoupe]

Nothing is necessarily wrong with new traditions. I don't have a problem with new traditions. I have a problem with attempting to turn an empty gesture into a tradition (which is what I wrote; "new tradition" was Z's phrase). An empty gesture done for partisan reasons only once is obnoxious enough. An empty gesture done ad infinitum will make me tear my hair out.

[szh]

Yes, "new tradition" was my phrase. And, yes, I stand by by statement.

Because you started the discussion by using the phrase "turn an empty gesture into a tradition".

I particularly, and absolutely, disagree with you calling it an empty gesture!

It is about time that politicians (no matter what party frankly) recognize that it is their job to be our representatives, to fulfill the position to the best of the ability of the constituency they represent, within the bound/limits/framework of the US Constitution and the laws that exist in this country today. If any law conflicts with the Constitution, then the law is wrong by definition - until it or the Constitution is changed.

Now, if they feel that some portion of the Constitution is wrong, they are entirely free to try and change it (with all the appropriae due process that such change entails). I do not have any problem with that.

But, conveniently ignoring it (or any sub-part of it) because it is not to their personal liking is entirely and totally unacceptable and wrong.

That is the problem I have with most of the politicians in office today - again no matter which side of the table they are on or how junior/senior they are. They expediently ignore - again, both sides sometimes - whatever they want to. I do not agree with many of the policies and tenets of the Tea Party folks, but find some of their thoughts and concepts have merit!

So reminding politicians of their duties and obligations, is a Good Thing™ in my book! If this means starting a "new tradition" or even "turning an empty gesture into a tradition", so be it! Because my desired end goal is achieved.

Z

[heliochrome85]

But, conveniently ignoring it (or any sub-part of it) because it is not to their personal liking is entirely and totally unacceptable and wrong.

i dont hear you complaining about their reading, when they did exactly that.

[szh]

But, conveniently ignoring it (or any sub-part of it) because it is not to their personal liking is entirely and totally unacceptable and wrong.

i dont hear you complaining about their reading, when they did exactly that.

Yes, they should have read the whole thing, IMHO. More political expediency, I suppose ...

FWIW, I did not "complain" here because I am not here much nowadays ... work pressure intervenes.

BTW, I have read the US Constitution - amendments and all - back when I was studying for my "citizenship exam" (I forget what it is called) ... in 1983.

I wonder how many "born in the US" citizens have ever read the basic text (watching that Star Trek episode does not count ) - let alone the amendments!

And, yes, I have not read it again recently. But then, I am not a US Senator or US Congressman either, so my reading it is not required for me to do my job.

Z

[heliochrome85]

im not saying you needed to. im saying its an empty gesture at best, because they didnt read the whole text. its like reading the bible, but only reading the parts you agree with, and claiming that you deserve praise for reading it. empty. gesture.

[szh]

So maybe "my tradition" needs to be "read the whole thing, for crying out loud".

Z

[szh]

By the way, I remember thinking back in 1983 that the Founding Fathers of the US were remarkably forward-thinking for their time.

It is amazing that so few (relatively speaking) amendments have been required. More than anything else, the recent ones that were based to changing cultural and equal rights, etc., were something that I could not expect them to understand or be able to have incorporated in the original!

"A Good Job Well Done" to begin with, I say!

Z

[IBCoupe]

It is about time that politicians (no matter what party frankly) recognize that it is their job to be our representatives, to fulfill the position to the best of the ability of the constituency they represent, within the bound/limits/framework of the US Constitution and the laws that exist in this country today. If any law conflicts with the Constitution, then the law is wrong by definition - until it or the Constitution is changed.

See, Z, this is what makes me shake my head and laugh. You're praising lip service to the Constitution as a reminder to Congress as to the limits of Constitutional framework, when that act itself is something wholly outside of the Constitution's instructions to Congress.

What I'm more concerned with is the fact that we appoint whomever we can get away with that agrees with us the most to the Supreme Court, instead of, y'know, Consitutional scholars, or at the very least, consistently clear-thinkers. That's the check on Congressional actions. That's how the Constitution works. Not with symbolic gestures from Congress.

[szh]

Let's make sure we all understand the separation of powers concept. Unless I have it wrong here (please correct me if so!):

1. The Judicial branch (Federal and Supreme Courts) do not make laws, they interpret them, as needed.

2. The Legislative branch (Congress and Senate) makes and enacts the laws.

3. The Executive branch (President, Justice Dept, etc.) enforces the laws, as needed.

So, yes, the legislative branch wrote the Constitution. When they choose to enact more laws, they have to make sure that it is done in context of, and not in opposition to the Constitution.

If not, then the law is flawed. And, I also acknowledge, so may be the Constitution.

Which is why I believe that when a law and the Constitution are in conflict, the Legislative branch has an obligation to either (a) change the law or (b) change the Constitution. Whichever makes more sense, and whichever they can get sufficient votes and ratification for (since amending the Constitution is a hell of a lot tougher process).

However, if we can avoid passing laws (and the inflammatory BS from politicians) that are in conflict in the first place, then the need for a fix does not arise. It is in this context that I believe reminding the Legislative branch of what the Constitution states, is relevant.

So, given that Senators and Congressfolk are often not legal or Constitutional scholars, then reminding them is a Good Thing. My wife, a Tax professional and Securities and Insurance expert, was required to take classes every year to maintain her licenses. You, as an eventual lawyer, will need to do the same to maintain your professional status. Why shouldn't the leaders of this country be required similar on-going training?

Clearly, we have to agree to disagree on this topic. You think it was a symbolic gesture. I think it was correct training (and re-training) material. Done?

Z

[IBCoupe]

When was the last time you saw a lecture in a classroom of 40 people work as "training?" Now make that 435. It was a symbolic gesture. You might like to believe that it accomplished anything, but it didn't.

And my point was that the Courts exist to not only interpret law, but to strike down unconstitutional laws. With that in mind, it doesn't nearly matter to me as much that we have a Congress that cites its Constitutional authority as it matters to me that we have a Congress who'll actually confirm a judicial nominee with a brain.

[szh]

You might like to believe that it accomplished anything, but it didn't.

You might like to believe that it didn't accomplish anything, but it did.

Z

[heliochrome85]

You might like to believe that it didn't accomplish anything, but it did.

Z

proof?

[stebo0728]

I think we have a massive quagmire here between what actually happened, and what some of us wish had happened. Im on Z's side, only I understand his idea was not the one that happened, but Im in agreement on the training bit, but lets be sure and include the legal aids, OR, even better, lets make each congressman turn in a "book report" on a bill to the speaker before voting on it. Wouldnt that raise some heads?

[heliochrome85]

I think we have a massive quagmire here between what actually happened, and what some of us wish had happened. Im on Z's side, only I understand his idea was not the one that happened, but Im in agreement on the training bit, but lets be sure and include the legal aids, OR, even better, lets make each congressman turn in a "book report" on a bill to the speaker before voting on it. Wouldnt that raise some heads?

thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard. when we start electing people actually capable of reading to congress, then we can expect them to be able to understand the rules the constitution outlined.

[szh]

You might like to believe that it didn't accomplish anything, but it did.

Z

proof?

Self-evident!

You might like to believe that it accomplished anything, but it didn't.

Didja ask IBCoupe for his proof?

Z

[szh]

I think we have a massive quagmire here between what actually happened, and what some of us wish had happened. Im on Z's side, only I understand his idea was not the one that happened, but Im in agreement on the training bit, but lets be sure and include the legal aids, OR, even better, lets make each congressman turn in a "book report" on a bill to the speaker before voting on it. Wouldnt that raise some heads?

thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard. when we start electing people actually capable of reading to congress, then we can expect them to be able to understand the rules the constitution outlined.

I don't expect most politicians to be able to find their noses with either hand.

They tend to not want to look further than the next election, unfortunately.

Z

[stebo0728]

I agree with both of you on your audits of congressmen and their attitudes. So what? We just accept that and deal with it? Or do we try to change it? The problem is, most of America suffers from the "But Not My" syndrome. Congressmen just need to change, "oh but MINE is doing ok, he can stay". You can argue that they are doing what they should for that person thats why they think that, but I dont believe that anymore, I think most people are just too disconnected to understand that their congressman really sux the big one. So how do we fix it?

[IBCoupe]

Can't prove to you that nothing happened. Logically impossible. No proof is available, so obviously it makes sense not to ask me for any.

[audtatious]

You state it didn't and they state it did. You ask for proof that it did and then simply state that proving it is logically impossible. Yet, you still stand by your statement that it did no good.

That's some awesome logic!!!!!

[IBCoupe]

As far as I can tell, nothing has changed. There. Logical enough for you?

Go ahead and show me what has changed as a result of treating the Constitution like the opening of a baseball game.

[audtatious]

Wouldn't matter one way or another

[IBCoupe]

That's what I thought.

[audtatious]

That's both of us. It's a waste of time, thus not worth mine.

[IBCoupe]

Well, thanks for adding so much to the discussion.

[audtatious]

You are quite welcome. We must do it again the next time proof is asked for one viewpoint without showing it for the other