Who enforces adherence to the Constitution?

[Saucy_Sage]

My mistake. I thought the first post was a real question. I am so naive sometimes. . .

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Any real Constitutional scholar will tell you that the Constitution, for all it's brilliant qualities, is often vague and unclear (See the actual wording of the Second Amendment for one well know example). Intelligent, educated people can come to very, very different conclusions what is and is not constitutional. Additionally, there are guarantees that can come into conflict with each other. Ultimately these decisions are made by the Supreme Court, although typically for a case to reach the Supreme Court it is almost always not a clear cut, obvious choice.

Imbecile, you need to study the history of the 14th Amendment, then return to talk about how the Constitution is ambiguous. The entire Civil War-Reconstruction Era was a Constitutional crisis resolved by force of arms not authorized in the Constitution.

 

[squarejohn]

The Attorney General and the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the members of whom are nominated by the President and confirmed by both houses of Congress.

That's the system the very same Constitution established, the one you seem so ardent about defending. So if you support the Constitution as you seem to imply, then you no doubt support the system.

So what's your problem again?

I support the system. I do not support the current systematic destruction of it by those now in power.

 

[cloudy]

I support the system. I do not support the current systematic destruction of it by those now in power.

I didn't see you bitching about it when W was in office.

 

[squarejohn]

Any real Constitutional scholar will tell you that the Constitution, for all it's brilliant qualities, is often vague and unclear (See the actual wording of the Second Amendment for one well know example). Intelligent, educated people can come to very, very different conclusions what is and is not constitutional. Additionally, there are guarantees that can come into conflict with each other. Ultimately these decisions are made by the Supreme Court, although typically for a case to reach the Supreme Court it is almost always not a clear cut, obvious choice.

Anyone who can read and understand a newspaper can understand the Constitution. You don't need to be one of those "intelligent, educated people" to read and understand the Constitution. I am highly intelligent and very well educated, but I am not one of those "intelligent educated" ones of whom you refer.

Those intelligent, educated people are well known to me and to those like me. They are the ones who have never held a real job or run any kind of operation. They are always working on their resume or their doctorate, when they are not criticizing the work of others. They are the ones whose eyes glaze over when the conversation turns to something other than their specialty. Ask four of them a question and you get five answers. When something unexpected happens, they don't know what to do except to point fingers of blame at others. If they ever stumbled into their true calling, you would find them on the end of a broom or a mop.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Anyone who can read and understand a newspaper can understand the Constitution. You don't need to be one of those "intelligent, educated people" to read and understand the Constitution. I am highly intelligent and very well educated, but I am not one of those "intelligent educated" ones of whom you refer.

Those intelligent, educated people are well known to me and to those like me. They are the ones who have never held a real job or run any kind of operation. They are always working on their resume or their doctorate, when they are not criticizing the work of others. They are the ones whose eyes glaze over when the conversation turns to something other than their specialty. Ask four of them a question and you get five answers. When something unexpected happens, they don't know what to do except to point fingers of blame at others. If they ever stumbled into their true calling, you would find them on the end of a broom or a mop.

Thus speaks a card-carrying member of the stupidocracy.

Okay. Next!

 

[squarejohn]

Thus speaks a card-carrying member of the stupidocracy.

Okay. Next!

Nice to see I struck a nerve.

 

[sr71plt]

There you all (well, some) go, from both sides--jumping from a simple procedural question (albeit seemingly meaning to ask an entirely different question) into polemics (although the OP started out with the polemics before asking the question). The question posed simply was this:

"What body or agency is responsible for arresting and charging the guilty offenders?"

And the answer is simple, missed by most here. The body/agency responisble for arresting and charging (it did go into polemics from here, though).

The Attorney General of the United States is the only answer to that question.

Neither the president nor the Senate can do this specific job--they have to put the official in place responsible for doing that specific job, but neither can initiate either of those actions themselves. (The Senate could initiate a contempt of Congress action--but this is contempt of Congress, not of the Constitution). And the Supreme Court can do nothing until the action has been initiated and brought to them.

I'll forgo commenting on the obvious polemical intent of the OP. The OP just didn't ask the question he apparently thought he did. (He probably meant, why isn't somebody doing what I want done? That's a different question from who is reponsible to take the action.)

My perception of the question he probably meant to ask is that he's just got his head up his ass about the Constitution and how the system has managed to stay on pretty much an even keel longer than most any other system by not knee jerking as he would like.

 

[3113]

I assume you are talking about the Attorney General who began his tenure by announcing that America is a nation of cowards. This is the same Attorney General who has a policy of not prosecuting black lunatics for voter intimidation, but will prosecute only white lunatics for the same thing.
And he is the same guy who is suing the state of Arizona for passing a law that will allow Arizona to defend itself against the hordes of illegal aliens.

Yep. He's the one. Tough luck for you if you don't like him, but he's the one who has the job of protecting the constitution.

Anything else you want to know?

 

[3113]

Nice to see I struck a nerve.

I see from this thread that every one of your nerves is struck and being struck over and over again by the government now in power. You and your posts are vibrating with nerves. All we have to do is say "Health care!"

Wow. Jumped a whole foot there. Another nerve struck! Damn. You guys are too easy.

 

[bronzeage]

Anyone who can read and understand a newspaper can understand the Constitution. You don't need to be one of those "intelligent, educated people" to read and understand the Constitution. I am highly intelligent and very well educated, but I am not one of those "intelligent educated" ones of whom you refer.

Those intelligent, educated people are well known to me and to those like me. They are the ones who have never held a real job or run any kind of operation. They are always working on their resume or their doctorate, when they are not criticizing the work of others. They are the ones whose eyes glaze over when the conversation turns to something other than their specialty. Ask four of them a question and you get five answers. When something unexpected happens, they don't know what to do except to point fingers of blame at others. If they ever stumbled into their true calling, you would find them on the end of a broom or a mop.

I had to put down my newspaper and read the second paragraph twice. It seems say there is no value in education and people who pursue advanced degrees do so only because there only other avenue in life is janitorial service.

It's one of those book sense vs. common sense apologies.

 

[Liar]

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Question: would this (in theory at least, since I guess it would be political suicide) also extend to Supreme Court justices?

 

[oggbashan]

Sometimes there are advantages in having an unwritten Constitution (or none).

That doesn't stop us in the UK arguing about the Constitution we don't have but the arguments seem less bitter.

Og

 

[bronzeage]

Question: would this (in theory at least, since I guess it would be political suicide) also extend to Supreme Court justices?

There is no term for a Justice.

Once appointed, it is a life term. The President nominates a person, who must be approved by the Senate. He cannot send someone to the court house to sit with the other Justices, just because no one is yet approved.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I had to put down my newspaper and read the second paragraph twice. It seems say there is no value in education and people who pursue advanced degrees do so only because there only other avenue in life is janitorial service.

It's one of those book sense vs. common sense apologies.

If stupid people can't be proud of being stupid, what have they got to be proud of?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I see from this thread that every one of your nerves is struck and being struck over and over again by the government now in power. You and your posts are vibrating with nerves. All we have to do is say "Health care!"

Wow. Jumped a whole foot there. Another nerve struck! Damn. You guys are too easy.

Even the Democrats are over Obama.

 

[bronzeage]

If stupid people can't be proud of being stupid, what have they got to be proud of?

When John comes back, we can ask him what the averaged newspaper reader would make of this passage:

"The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

 

[squarejohn]

Anything else you want to know?

Not at the moment; but I'm sure you could provide an answer to any question. Your mother must be very proud.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Question: would this (in theory at least, since I guess it would be political suicide) also extend to Supreme Court justices?

Apparently it would. The section makes no distinction between a SCOTUS justice and an ambassador. I doubt it would ever happen but, if it did, the Senate could vote after returning to DC. If they did not vote for the appointment, the justice would be removed from office.

Appointments are not necessarily for life. There is the possibility I mentioned above and the fact that justices can be impeached.

ETA: More about that:
Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

ETA: Here is more about impeachment of a justice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

 

[squarejohn]

When John comes back, we can ask him what the averaged newspaper reader would make of this passage:

"The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

It means the democrats lose all their rights and everything they've stolen.

 

[bronzeage]

It means the democrats lose all their rights and everything they've stolen.

You can do better than that. Any graduate of a Louisiana high school could explain the meaning.

No advanced degree needed.

 

[Handley_Page]

I love the smell of a Tea Party in the morning. Luckily, I can get my daily allotment of kneejerk politics just by dropping into AH.

I get my sex and writing talk elsewhere.

Sad, isn't it !

 

[sr71plt]

Apparently it would.

"Apparently" doesn't work in the case of Supreme Court Justices.

 

[sr71plt]

It means the democrats lose all their rights and everything they've stolen.

Guess that answer puts you way below the average then.

(It means if your daddy has been convicted of treason, you don't have to look over your shoulder yourself for his crime. In times in some other systems before the Constitution, it was popular to wipe out all of the descendents too--a favorite activity in Bible, as a matter of fact.)

I'm not surprised you didn't know what it meant and thought it had something to do with those you knee jerk against. (Are those tea bags hanging from your baseball cap?)

 

[3113]

Not at the moment; but I'm sure you could provide an answer to any question.

Any of yours, certainly. Yours are very simple and easy to answer.