Now the Republicans are calling Obama's plan to halt deportations by executive action unconstitutional, overstepping his constitutional authority, invading Congress' turf. In the W years they were defending the "unitary executive" concept and the president's authority to add binding "signing statements" to legislation, etc. ISTM that neither party has a consistent position here -- generally, each party always wants supremacy and maximum scope/powers/autonomy for whichever branch it controls at the moment. But that's the parties. Considering liberals and conservatives (and libertarians and socialists, etc.) as such, is there any actual ideological argument that would take a more consistent position on one side or the other of the division-of-powers issue?
What's the conservative/liberal position on presidential/congressional supremacy?
- Thread starter KingOrfeo
- Start date
ms_ann_thrope
Resurrected
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2012
- Posts
- 25,731
Could you rephrase that into something simple enough to understand? I have a slight case of ADD and I've had two glasses of wine. Thank you.
Democrat good; republican bad. It's the same shit day after day after day...
Disgustipated
LAWLZ
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Posts
- 25,596
Hi. Shuddup.
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
I would expect true conservatives to take a more literal reading of the Constitution with respect to the extent of power and duties for each branch of government versus the "liberal" view of government that seems to believe "the authority of the government to do that which needs to be done is mandated by and vested in the 'need'."
Of course, as you have observed, most of those who have held power tend to take a "liberal" view on their authority and the scope of its use regardless of the labels more consistently applied to their self-identity.
Of course, as you have observed, most of those who have held power tend to take a "liberal" view on their authority and the scope of its use regardless of the labels more consistently applied to their self-identity.
LadyVer
Definitely not a mouse
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Posts
- 19,013
Thank you. I wasn't quite sure.
ishtat
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Posts
- 5,746
One observation on this issue is that Antonin Scalia and his sock puppet Clarence Thomas have both in the past leaned very strongly towards supporting the Presidential power (v Congress) - at least in theory. It would be interesting to see what they might do in practice.
Could you rephrase that into something simple enough to understand? I have a slight case of ADD and I've had two glasses of wine. Thank you.
As between the President and Congress, who should be Boss? And why?
PayDay
unlabelable
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Posts
- 6,872
KingOrfeo said:
If you think Orf is spouting liberal nonsense you can't read.
To answer the question:
Article I: Section 1, Article II, and Article III, Section(s) 1&2.
Those parts---^ Distinctly create a separation of powers limiting the legal jurisdiction of any one branch:
The reason for this---v
Is that the Executive branch is stomping on Article I, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
This is why you hear the term 'Executive Fiat' because rather than use the Executive Order for Powers not vested in any branch of Government (like Bush did when he created the original DHS), BO is using Executive orders to do the job of Congress. Saying "they won't legislate" is not a valid reason, nor a valid power, of an Executive Order.
The Constitution is the only viable nonpartisan way to separate government powers that anyone has ever come up with.
I think you be hard pressed to find any other Executive Order from any other president that usurps power from other branches. If you find one, as in valid precedent, I'd be interested, so you should post it.
U
unregistered
Guest
Yeah, well, that's a point, but Congress tried and failed to establish its parliamentary-style supremacy over the executive by impeaching Andrew Johnson, and it has never been very much of a point since.
PayDay
unlabelable
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Posts
- 6,872
Right, that's the defense for a violation---^
None of that addresses the question posed in the OP. Remember, we are not discussing constitutional law here, but political ideology as it relates to interpretation of same.
PayDay
unlabelable
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Posts
- 6,872
Anything can set precedent. To assume that they can't because they haven't shows a lack of faith in the Constitution as the supreme Power, just IMO.
PayDay
unlabelable
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Posts
- 6,872
The political ideology in this country should never disdain values in the Constitution without an amendment. All political ideologies in this country should hold the exceptional value of the Constitution at the same level, the top.
A politician only has power due to the Constitution, regardless of ideology.
U
unregistered
Guest
PayDay
unlabelable
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Posts
- 6,872
So many people get stuck on the partisan bullshit media spouts...
Makes me sad. Bush was a despot once too, as was Clinton.
The news is pulling puppet strings and many of yous are dancing.
Anything any politician does should first be checked against the Constitution, any commentary thus heard should be used only to support the Constitutional or Law issue. Anything else is just fluffing.
Political ideologies in general exist without reference to the U.S. Constitution or any other. Ideologies make constitutions.
Last edited:
U
unregistered
Guest
PayDay
unlabelable
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Posts
- 6,872
Right, but we're not talking about the whole world here, are we?
I thought this was about the United States of America.
But there many variations on a "Republican form of government." E.g., in parliamentary systems the question posed in the OP simply would not arise. We have instead a presidential, or separation of powers, system, but that still leaves open a wide range of interpretations -- which no written constitution conceivable ever could settle in all respects that might arise -- as to which branch properly wields which powers.
Last edited:
Yes, but here as elsewhere, political ideologies exist without reference to any constitution.
Conservatives might insist on strict interpretation of the Constitution just because they are conservatives and the Constitution is the Constitution -- but, that would apply regardless of the Constitution's content. E.g., if the Constitution set up a Communist state, American conservatives would be concerned to preserve that system as our Communist FFs intended.
Last edited:
If the democrats do something all of their party thinks it is great and all of the republicans say it will ruin the U.S.
When the republicans do the same thing, and they always do, all of the republicans think it is great and all of the democrats think it will ruin the U.S.
People just have to look back through history. There isn't a single thing one party has done that the other party hasn't done. The people of both parties just follow along like a puppy on a string.
They will believe anything their party says and damn anything the other party says even though it was just a little while ago that their party said the same thing.
When the republicans do the same thing, and they always do, all of the republicans think it is great and all of the democrats think it will ruin the U.S.
People just have to look back through history. There isn't a single thing one party has done that the other party hasn't done. The people of both parties just follow along like a puppy on a string.
They will believe anything their party says and damn anything the other party says even though it was just a little while ago that their party said the same thing.
Wrong Element
Sentient Onion
- Joined
- May 5, 2002
- Posts
- 24,909
That's the gist of it. Most people only care that their side comes out on top, fairness and the law be damned.
I don't think either branch is "superior," but the Constitution does specify certain duties and limits. For example, something like fighting ISIS inside Syria would obviously require congressional authorization, but I suspect the Obama administration, like every administration since the Cold War began, would disagree with this.
Similar threads
