What's the conservative/liberal position on presidential/congressional supremacy?

[PayDay]

Yes, but here as elsewhere, political ideologies exist without reference to any constitution.

Right, but all political power in this country is based on and resides from our Constitution.

The Constitution even says that we don't listen to the rest of the world on how to govern.

The only way to change the basis of ideology in this country, the Constitution, is to violate the IX Amendment to that Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So in an "ideological sense" as you present, the president/Executive branch can use any version of the word 'execute' but when applied to the law of the land, the Constitution, execute can only mean anything non disparaging.

 

[PayDay]

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 FF's intended.

I don't understand the theory you are postulating. GIMME MOAR!!!

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

I don't understand the theory you are postulating. GIMME MOAR!!!

Conservatives are generally concerned with preserving the inherited status quo; but, that is only one element of their ideology. Sometimes it presents cognitive dissonance WRT other conservative values. Those who can't deal with it stop being conservatives and become reactionaries, like the Tea Partiers. (N.B.: The "inherited status quo" in the U.S. at any time includes the Constitution as the courts and polity generally have interpreted it up to that time, not the Constitution as it might be interpreted by strict-text or original-intent theory.)

 

[PayDay]

Conservatives are generally concerned with preserving the inherited status quo; but, that is only one element of their ideology. Sometimes it presents cognitive dissonance WRT other conservative values. Those who can't deal with it stop being conservatives and become reactionaries.

..that's a lot of labels...

I don't think this is a Conservative issue. What's going on right now reminds me of the stuff I read about the Republican opposition to arming Russia and Europe just prior to WW2.

Aspects of the Republican party oppossed the spending and the methodology NOT the Ideology or the Morality.

They wanted a declaration of war before arming, it was a matter of process they were opposed to rather than the result of the action. Had both parties know what the world would have been like six years after FDR quietly armed our Allies via Arctic, there might have been greater dissent on the matter of process.

Still doesn't mean Republicans, at the time, were wrong, because what FDR did set a precedent for an Executive action. He acted mostly within his powers at the time, which is why the debate was never carried on after the fact.

Currently BO is thinking of using an Executive order that is outside of the scope of his Executive power as set forth in Article II, which is why many politicians, from both parties and many ideologies, are reacting the way they are.

 

[KingOrfeo]

In our system government power is enumerated, Obama's calculated subversion notwithstanding.

That, whether arguable or not, does not address the OP.

 

[KingOrfeo]

..that's a lot of labels...

I don't think this is a Conservative issue. What's going on right now reminds me of the stuff I read about the Republican opposition to arming Russia and Europe just prior to WW2.

Aspects of the Republican party oppossed the spending and the methodology NOT the Ideology or the Morality.

Are you sure? Are you sure that an extra-Constitutional, isolationist desire to stay out of the war played no role in their thinking?

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Constitution even says that we don't listen to the rest of the world on how to govern.

Not in so many words; it simply declares itself "the supreme law of the land" without reference to any foreign authority.

The only way to change the basis of ideology in this country, the Constitution, is to violate the IX Amendment to that Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So in an "ideological sense" as you present, the president/Executive branch can use any version of the word 'execute' but when applied to the law of the land, the Constitution, execute can only mean anything non disparaging.

Well, Obama ordering a halt to deportations would not deny or disparage anyone's rights. But it might arguably encroach on Congress' turf, which is a completely different question, one having nothing to do with the 9th Amendment.

 

[PayDay]

Are you sure? Are you sure that an extra-Constitutional, isolationist desire to stay out of the war played no role in their thinking?

Answering that would be vernturing into opinion or assumption, it may have, but as fact, their objections were based on Law.

 

[PayDay]

Not in so many words; it simply declares itself "the supreme law of the land" without reference to any foreign authority.

Article I, Section 9:
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
"And no person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

Well, Obama ordering a halt to deportations would not deny or disparage anyone's rights.

It violates mine.

But it might arguably encroach on Congress' turf, which is a completely different question.

6 on one, half-dozen on the other.

 

[PayDay]

one having nothing to do with the 9th Amendment

All of everything to do with everything in the United States of America has everything to do with Amendment IX.

It's called #9 of the X Amendments that form the Bill of Rights, which I, and any citizen, always has the right to, under any circumstances, even when under Oath or Affirmation.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It violates mine.

You have no legal, constitutional, or moral right to have the government deport anybody.

6 on one, half-dozen on the other.

No, it isn't; completely different parts of the Constitution are involved.

 

[KingOrfeo]

BTW, WRT Obama's plan to halt deportations by executive order, the country is split down the middle, and support/opposition breaks down along partisan lines. I very much doubt differing interpretations of the Constitution have anything to do with that split; it's almost certainly based on how the respondents feel about immigration as such.

 

[PayDay]

You have no legal, constitutional, or moral right to have the government deport anybody.

I have the legal, constitutional, and moral right to have the current Immigration laws used and enforced to it's maximum capacity. I also have the right to have my property and rights protected to the full extent of the law. An Executive order that changes law unConstitutionally violates every citizen's rights.

Not deporting by law also violates my Amendment IX, X, XI, and XIII rights, among many others.

No, it isn't; completely different parts of the Constitution are involved.

You are wrong. There is no circumstance in this country where all of the Constitution and Amendments do not apply. It always applies, that's why ignorant and evil people ignore it.

It's fine to not agree with me, but it's obvious you are not even listening.

This is like typing a message to a wall.

 

[PayDay]

BTW, WRT Obama's plan to halt deportations by executive order, the country is split down the middle, and support/opposition breaks down along partisan lines. I very much doubt differing interpretations of the Constitution have anything to do with that split; it's almost certainly based on how the respondents feel about immigration as such.

The Constitution of the United States of America always applies to the United States of America and it's citizens.

Why do you think they want to give away citizenship? At minimum it marginalizes the value of the Constitution.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I have the legal, constitutional, and moral right to have the current Immigration laws used and enforced to it's maximum capacity. I also have the right to have my property and rights protected to the full extent of the law. An Executive order that changes law unConstitutionally violates every citizen's rights.

No, sir, you have no such rights, and no lawyer in America will tell you any different.

Not deporting by law also violates my Amendment IX, X, XI, and XIII rights, among many others.

No lawyer in America will tell you so.

You are wrong. There is no circumstance in this country where all of the Constitution and Amendments do not apply.

No lawyer in America will tell you so.

It's fine to not agree with me, but it's obvious you are not even listening.

This is like typing a message to a wall.

I am listening/reading your posts; and I know why you are wrong and I am telling you why you are wrong. If you do not understand what I am saying, none of which is all that complicated nor in any way controversial, that makes you the wall.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Constitution of the United States of America always applies to the United States of America and it's citizens.

Yes, but different parts of it come into play in different circumstances. Most of those circumstances have nothing to do with "citizens," BTW; noncitizens here legally or illegally have the same rights -- religious freedom, free speech, due process of law, etc. -- that you have under the BoR.

Why do you think they want to give away citizenship? At minimum it marginalizes the value of the Constitution.

And that . . . is too meaningless even to be wrong.

 

[PayDay]

No, sir, you have no such rights, and no lawyer in America will tell you any different.
No lawyer in America will tell you so.
No lawyer in America will tell you so.

I choose pro se, so who gives a fuck what a lawyer thinks? They aren't exactly known for their honesty and moral compasses. I don't need a lawyer to be able to read the Constitution or fight for my rights.

Yes, but different parts of it come into play in different circumstances. Most of those circumstances have nothing to do with "citizens," BTW; noncitizens here legally or illegally have the same rights -- religious freedom, free speech, due process of law, etc. -- that you have under the BoR.

A non citizen has zero rights under the Constitution. Any law that offers right to illegal immigrants or due process of law to illegals or non citizens is illegal and unConstitutional.

And that . . . is too meaningless even to be wrong.

Your opinion is your Constitutional right as long as it does not bring harm to another citizen.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I choose pro se, so who gives a fuck what a lawyer thinks? They aren't exactly known for their honesty and moral compasses. I don't need a lawyer to be able to read the Constitution or fight for my rights.

But, you do need a lawyer to tell you what the Constitution, written in 18th-Century legalese and subject to two centuries and more of interpretative jurisprudence, says and means. Lawyers will have differing opinions on many points of constitutional interpretation -- but not on any of the points you have raised in this thread; you are entirely wrong about every single one of them.

A non citizen has zero rights under the Constitution.

No lawyer will tell you so. There is only a limited range of legal rights citizens have that noncitizens have not -- residence on U.S. soil, working on U.S. soil, immunity from deportation, voting and holding public office -- that's about all. A noncitizen cannot vote, but does have the constitutional right to, e.g., publish editorials or campaign for a candidate or an issue.

 

[PayDay]

But, you do need a lawyer to tell you what the Constitution, written in 18th-Century legalese and subject to two centuries and more of interpretative jurisprudence, says and means. Lawyers will have differing opinions on many points of constitutional interpretation -- but not on any of the points you have raised in this thread; you are entirely wrong about every single one of them.

Nope.

No lawyer will tell you so. There is only a limited range of legal rights citizens have that noncitizens have not -- residence on U.S. soil, working on U.S. soil, immunity from deportation, voting and holding public office -- that's about all. A noncitizen cannot vote, but does have the constitutional right to, e.g., publish editorials or campaign for a candidate or an issue.

....

You must be a lawyer.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You must be a lawyer.

I am; which means I know a lot more about constitutional law (it's a required course in every law school) than you do. You won't find any lawyer who disagrees with anything I have said in this thread about the Constitution or the law.

N.B.: As pointed out above, constitutional law as such is not the subject of discussion in this thread. The subject is not law but political ideology, as it relates to a proper division of powers between the executive and legislative branches.

 

[PayDay]

I am; which means I know a lot more about constitutional law (it's a required course in every law school) than you do. You won't find any lawyer who disagrees with anything I have said in this thread about the Constitution or the law.

N.B.: As pointed out above, constitutional law as such is not the subject of discussion in this thread. The subject is not law but political ideology, as it relates to a proper division of powers between the executive and legislative branches.

You obviously do not know more about Constitutional Law than I do.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You obviously do not know more about Constitutional Law than I do.

Than you do? That's about on this level:

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

News • small towns • ISSUE 46•26 ISSUE 45•46 • Nov 14, 2009

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation.

"Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top."

"Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation," continued Mortensen, referring to the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. "The words on the page speak for themselves."

According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ."

Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments."

"And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said.

Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.

"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."

Mortensen told reporters that he'll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle.

"The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life."

"Don't just take my word for it," Mortensen added. "Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime."

Look, the Constitution, like any ordinary statute, is and says and means whatever the judges say it does, not what a layman/non-lawyer might take it to be/say/mean.

And all judges are lawyers.

This is an area where lawyers have the final say, necessarily and by definition.

 

[PayDay]

Do you really have the audacity to tell me that I have to have a lawyer to raise an issue in a court based on Constitutionality, when Constitutionality can be rasied at any time during any legal process and by any person, and that even if the court thinks I'm wrong only one of many Judges didn't decide Constitutionality? ...and that that Judge decides the Constitutionality at that time only and any court decision can be appealled against until I reach the highest court in the land, a court created by the Constitution, empowered by the Constitution, and a court that allows pro se pleadings and briefs?

Really? You're fucking retarded. Fuck lawyers. You took one class and cited a discriminatory article.

I own two copies of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

I've read, highlighted and cross referenced one copy so many times it fell apart and I had to get a new one. I've read it so many times I can site interpretation and sections from memory.

...stupid fucking retarded partisan kids.

 

[phrodeau]

Do you really have the audacity to tell me that I have to have a lawyer to raise an issue in a court based on Constitutionality, when Constitutionality can be rasied at any time during any legal process and by any person, and that even if the court thinks I'm wrong only one of many Judges didn't decide Constitutionality? ...and that that Judge decides the Constitutionality at that time only and any court decision can be appealled against until I reach the highest court in the land, a court created by the Constitution, empowered by the Constitution, and a court that allows pro se pleadings and briefs?

Really? You're fucking retarded. Fuck lawyers. You took one class and cited a discriminatory article.

I own two copies of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

I've read, highlighted and cross referenced one copy so many times it fell apart and I had to get a new one. I've read it so many times I can site interpretation and sections from memory.

...stupid fucking retarded partisan kids.

I think he said you need a lawyer to explain it to you, not to go to court about it. Personally, I'd prefer to get the explanation before making a court appearance.