Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws

[Baculus]

The whole concept that ANY member of ANY of the three branches of American government would act in an extra-Constitutional way should be seriously worrying to every American citizen. Whether it's the current administration or any previous administration. I also don't see a difference between just stepping over that line a little and trampling it, as has been the standard for many decades now.

I believe such differences between stepping over the line and trampling do warrant attention and debate when it directly affects the balance of power even further than previously. There is a "tipping point" that may not have been reached in previous decades, but may be reached over the next decade if we are not careful, as far as Executive Power.

But, to me, I get the feeling that you simply want to shrug off the current administration's actions because it is "All Unconstitutional." I would disagree with this mentality since I believe it is apathetic and does not resolve anything. If criticism was warranted and leveled at previous administrations, then such criticism, as well as a need to for change, should be continued to be voice. If not, then the situation will only worsen and not improve, and such discussions will be moot.

I have discussed, in previous postings, the possible very, very early Unconstitutional nature of the government of the United States of America, which is based in the District of Columbia. It has even been suggested by political writers that the United States government has been in an Unconstitutional state since 1783, much earlier then even the 19th century Constitutional issues and crisis.

Don't get the impression that I am unaware - but we are addressing the most immediate issue, which is the subject of this debate.

[Larry]

Actually, as to a Presidential Authority to Ignore Law, I seem to remember early in the Reagan administration, Reagan announced that just because Congress approved some program (I think it was student loans) that Reagan didn't like, didn't mean Reagan had to spend the money. So he simply unilaterally declared that the government wouldn't approve any student loans (or whatever).

I seem to recall Congress taking him to court, and the court ruling that the President has the authority to veto a law, but not to ignore one. That he had a Constitutional duty to impliment the laws and programs that Congress passed (and that got signed).

[NoCalMike]

Bush doesn't challenge laws, he breaks them.

This was the ENTIRE POINT of passing through "War on Terrorism" legislation because now America will always and FOREVER be in a "state of war" so now Bush thinks he can just ignore laws because of it being war time. Welcome to the the reality behind such garbage legislation as the "War on Terrorism"

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I believe such differences between stepping over the line and trampling do warrant attention and debate when it directly affects the balance of power even further than previously. There is a "tipping point" that may not have been reached in previous decades, but may be reached over the next decade if we are not careful, as far as Executive Power.

So far as I'm concerned as soon as the government puts even one toe over that line they HAVE trampled it and deserve to be immediately removed from power by whatever means are necessary. I for one am hoping that we reach that "tipping point" sooner rather than later, because that's what's going to finally get the American citizens' collective heads out of our backsides and force action against this government.

But, to me, I get the feeling that you simply want to shrug off the current administration's actions because it is "All Unconstitutional." I would disagree with this mentality since I believe it is apathetic and does not resolve anything. If criticism was warranted and leveled at previous administrations, then such criticism, as well as a need to for change, should be continued to be voice. If not, then the situation will only worsen and not improve, and such discussions will be moot.

No, I don't want to shrug it off. However, I do realize that nothing is going to change even if I get all pissed off and yell and scream and shout about it. Largely because the vast super-majority of American citizens don't see it and wouldn't care even if they did. I haven't criticised prior administrations any more or less on this topic for the same reason.

Yes, there is need for change; it just isn't going to happen. I think we both know that. The only way this whole system is going to get fixed is for the entire Ivory Tower to collapse under its own weight.

I have discussed, in previous postings, the possible very, very early Unconstitutional nature of the government of the United States of America, which is based in the District of Columbia. It has even been suggested by political writers that the United States government has been in an Unconstitutional state since 1783, much earlier then even the 19th century Constitutional issues and crisis.

I'm not sure I'd go back as far as 1783, but I would be open to seeing what others have felt went wrong that early in the process.

Don't get the impression that I am unaware - but we are addressing the most immediate issue, which is the subject of this debate.

I don't debate. I'm not trying to change your mind and I can guarantee you're not going to change mine on anything. I understand that you're aware of the issue. We just see it differently and that isn't going to change.

[bearrock]

Actually, as to a Presidential Authority to Ignore Law, I seem to remember early in the Reagan administration, Reagan announced that just because Congress approved some program (I think it was student loans) that Reagan didn't like, didn't mean Reagan had to spend the money. So he simply unilaterally declared that the government wouldn't approve any student loans (or whatever).

I seem to recall Congress taking him to court, and the court ruling that the President has the authority to veto a law, but not to ignore one. That he had a Constitutional duty to impliment the laws and programs that Congress passed (and that got signed).

But there was a case in the 1920s (Myers v. something) where the Supreme Court sided with the president. I don't remember all the details, but essentially the Court (I think it may have been a plurality opinion) said that the president is not duty bound to execute unconstitutional laws passed by Congress, wating for the day the law is declared unconstitutional. I don't think Myers has precedential value because it was a plurality decision (I may be wrong on this point), but what seems apparent to me is that at least there is an open question as to the extent of executive power. I would like to see this question before the Supreme Court instead of administrations exercising the "silent veto".

[Baculus]

I will say, Mass_SkinsFan, that we have some similiar views, but I have a belief and determination that things can change. And that is why I try to ram home some of the points I have discussed. I am also going to create a webpage with a friend to discuss some of these issues; by the way, we are looking for some writers that will discuss issues such as what we've discussed in this thread.

I believe Americans are becoming more aware and perhaps a movement to make a Grand Change may come to fruition. Of course, if the same Powers That Be retain control behind the scene, then, yes, maybe it does not truly matter in the long run.

I'm not sure I'd go back as far as 1783, but I would be open to seeing what others have felt went wrong that early in the process.

I'd have to dig up the pages I was reading, but it was related to some changes that were made to the Constitution during that time, and how it relates to central federal power. Also, I would like to find some of the discussions I have read when it relates to the US Government becoming a corporate entity during the 1870's, and now this relates to the States of America and why federal power is overreaching due to the incorporated federal entity in the District of Columbia.

But that is probably another thread unto itself.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I will say, Mass_SkinsFan, that we have some similiar views, but I have a belief and determination that things can change. And that is why I try to ram home some of the points I have discussed. I am also going to create a webpage with a friend to discuss some of these issues; by the way, we are looking for some writers that will discuss issues such as what we've discussed in this thread.

I agree that we have some very similar views. I just get the feeling you have a lot more faith in the average American citizen than I do.

I would be more than willing to contribute whatever I can to the page, if you're interested. I will warn you there's no PHD or Master's degree behind my name. It's all simple common sense and basic logic. Let me know privately if you're interested.

I believe Americans are becoming more aware and perhaps a movement to make a Grand Change may come to fruition. Of course, if the same Powers That Be retain control behind the scene, then, yes, maybe it does not truly matter in the long run.

I don't hold quite as much faith as you do that the American people are "getting it". The only way I can see a Grand Change coming is via revolution, and I'm not sure that most Americans are willing to give up their comfy lifestyle for the added responsibility of a proper government.

I'd have to dig up the pages I was reading, but it was related to some changes that were made to the Constitution during that time, and how it relates to central federal power. Also, I would like to find some of the discussions I have read when it relates to the US Government becoming a corporate entity during the 1870's, and now this relates to the States of America and why federal power is overreaching due to the incorporated federal entity in the District of Columbia.

But that is probably another thread unto itself.

That's ok. It's probably far enough off topic that it should be saved for another time and another thread.