PDA

View Full Version : Feckless Congress



llotter
06-16-2011, 08:12 AM
So, we have our feckless Congress suing the Executive branch for over stepping its authority by doing what the Constitution clearly says is their responsibility, going to war, in this case, in Libya.

Unbeknownst to the impotent Congress however, the Constitution has no standing in court, essentially because it is the weakest of the co-equal branches and Congress therefore will not be able to find refuge behind the skirts of the courts. The situation is that the Executive controls the military and the CIA and the FBI and all the real muscle, while the Congress controls nothing except the budget. But it is all too obvious that they are incapable of controlling what is so far out of control already as to leave them totally powerless. The Morom does what he wants and Congress and the rest of us merely are left to submit.

Soflasnapper
06-16-2011, 09:45 AM
Actually, the point is that there is a law on the books, passed by the Congress AND signed by the president at the time.

Perhaps a valid law, perhaps a law that violates the separation of powers. The Congress has always held to the first position, and all presidents, the latter.

I don't think there will be a problem with standing, just the question of whether the 5-4 conservative majority will take their usual statist positions, and favor the strong executive over enforcing this law.

eg8r
06-16-2011, 10:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> just the question of whether the 5-4 conservative majority will take their usual statist positions</div></div>Statist? LOL, I guess imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery. You and lww are two peas in a pod. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

llotter
06-16-2011, 12:39 PM
Actually the point I was making is that The Moron has absolute power because he has command of the police and military and is threatening to use that power. Meanwhile, Congress will not fight to preserve their prerogatives because they believe they can appease The Moron.

Soflasnapper
06-16-2011, 12:58 PM
I now understand what you were trying to say, and you were right.

Courts have ruled that Congressmen do not have standing to sue the executive branch for enforcement of such laws. Quite so, and therefore this suit by Kucinich and some dozen others will be dismissed without a hearing.

Soflasnapper
06-16-2011, 01:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> just the question of whether the 5-4 conservative majority will take their usual statist positions</div></div>Statist? LOL, I guess imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery. You and lww are two peas in a pod. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

Hey! Hey! No fair!

Well, there is such a thing as statism, or being statist, and the so-called conservative part of the high court certainly qualifies.

llotter
06-16-2011, 05:56 PM
It is not the legal issue that I am pointing out but the raw, bald-faced exercise of police power that The Moron is using to intimidate the other branches. I don't remember the exact context but analogous situation was responded to by inviting the Pope to enforce his pronouncement with his army...knowing he had none. I know you can help me with this one.

Soflasnapper
06-17-2011, 10:00 AM
Remember that a little.

Some dictator or other (Hitler, Stalin, forget just now) was told the Pope would oppose his latest move.

The question then was, 'how many divisions does he have?'

Similar to the question, 'you, and what army?'

llotter
06-17-2011, 10:12 AM
I can almost hear The Moron saying that now.

Soflasnapper
06-19-2011, 04:45 PM
Stalin said it, either to the French foreign minister, or to Churchill himself.

Both versions are mentioned here. (http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/how-many-divisions-does-the-pope-of-rome-have/)

The reply of Pius XII? “You can tell my son Joseph that he will meet my divisions in heaven”. Oh, snap!

Soflasnapper
06-19-2011, 04:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is not the legal issue that I am pointing out but the raw, bald-faced exercise of police power that The Moron is using to intimidate the other branches. [...] </div></div>

But one head of the executive branch did bow to the 8-0 decision of the SCOTUS, and released the tapes, to his political undoing. (Nixon, I mean.)

Allegedly, had it not been a unanimous decision (1 abstention, Whizzer White, who'd just been appointed by Nixon, recusing himself), Nixon had planned to disobey. In the face of a unanimous court, he didn't try that.

Sev
06-19-2011, 07:31 PM
For one brief minute John Wilkes Booth was the most powerful man in America.

LWW
06-20-2011, 03:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is not the legal issue that I am pointing out but the raw, bald-faced exercise of police power that The Moron is using to intimidate the other branches. [...] </div></div>

But one head of the executive branch did bow to the 8-0 decision of the SCOTUS, and released the tapes, to his political undoing. (Nixon, I mean.)

Allegedly, had it not been a unanimous decision (1 abstention, Whizzer White, who'd just been appointed by Nixon, recusing himself), Nixon had planned to disobey. In the face of a unanimous court, he didn't try that. </div></div>

Been studying "HISTORY" from professor Stone?