Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 142

Thread: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Last Seen
    09-26-10 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,219

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    What is the purpose of marriage if it is not religious in nature?
    Marriage to a good woman civilizes the male and forms the basic building block of a civilized society, along with the traditional family.

  2. #82
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    You argue that judicial supremacy is wrong, but at the same time, argue that executive supremacy is correct.
    Look, I can't help your intentional or uninetentional mischaracteriation of my comments. I can only tell you that what I have not argued and that is executive supremacy. You think I am arguing executive supremacy because I am defending the exercise of a clear executive authority.

    I already noted my argument that if the legislative branch believes that the executive has misinterpreted its legislative intentions or is not properly enforcing the legislation it has passed that the legislature has political recourse...enact new legislation. Further, that the executive issues a signing statement or an EO directing the executive branch to interpret or enforce legislation in some way is in no way an abuse of his constitutional authority to direct and supervise the executive branch.

    Of course, the real issue here is whether the concept of the "unitary executive" is itself constitutional. I would argue that it's not.
    That's because you're ignorant. The Unitary Executive theory is nothing more than that the President possesses an explicitly constitutional authority to direct and supervise the Executive Branch. There is no constitutional question here.

    If Bush feels that he should not enforce parts of legislation because he feels that it is unconstitutional, his recourse is to veto the legislation.
    That is one option. The ABA has presented an argument similar to this. Have you read it. I have. And it suffers from major flaws. When a bill has become law, the President has an obligation under the Take Care Clause not to enforce provisions of that bill that are unconstitutional. That is true whether he has signed the law, whether it has been enacted in an override of his veto, or whether it was enacted before he became President. In those cases in which he has signed the law, a signing statement is one proper means of fulfilling his Take Care obligation.

    He does not have the option to decide which parts of it he will enforce, since he took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
    His oath is to also defend the Constitution.

    Because you're a constitutional scholar, right? ~Sheesh~ You have no authority to assess whether the ABA has addressed the issue in a way consistent with the Constitution. The ABA's position is merely and coincidentally your preferred opinion at the moment. This is nothing more than naked appeal to authority.

    The ABA task force's central conclusion is that the President's only choice, when presented a bill that has a provision that he believes is unconstitutional, is to veto the bill. Here's the task force's reasoning (on pages 18-19): (A) The Presentment Clause (Article I, section 7, clause 2) provides that every bill which shall have passed both houses of Congress shall be presented to the President for signature or veto. (B) Under the Take Care Clause (Article II, section 3), the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." (C) Therefore, the President is obligated to faithfully execute all bills that become law; he may not sign a bill into law and refuse to enforce one of its provisions.

    The problem with this reasoning is that proposition C does not follow from A and B. The easiest way to recognize this is to understand that the Constitution is one of the "Laws" that the President "shall take Care be faithfully executed."

  3. #83
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Man View Post
    Marriage to a good woman civilizes the male and forms the basic building block of a civilized society, along with the traditional family.
    So these things do not exist without marriage?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Man View Post
    Marriage to a good woman civilizes the male and forms the basic building block of a civilized society, along with the traditional family.
    Marriage does not civilize the man, the relationship does. Are you seriously saying that after marriage, the man is miraculously civilized just because of the marriage?

    No, therefore Marriage does not do those things, the relationship does.

  5. #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Last Seen
    09-26-10 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,219

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    So these things do not exist without marriage?
    Some what. The legal system serves to formalize them and give them more legitimacy which makes them stronger.

  6. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Last Seen
    09-26-10 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,219

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Marriage does not civilize the man, the relationship does. Are you seriously saying that after marriage, the man is miraculously civilized just because of the marriage?

    No, therefore Marriage does not do those things, the relationship does.
    Agreed, but the legal system formalizes the relationship and makes it stronger.

  7. #87
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Man View Post
    Agreed, but the legal system formalizes the relationship and makes it stronger.
    Marriage is a contract betwen a man and a woman, one that comes with rights, privileges, and responsibilities.

    Because of this, the state must be involved.

  8. #88
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Man View Post
    Some what. The legal system serves to formalize them and give them more legitimacy which makes them stronger.
    How does make them stronger?

    I ask because I noticed absolutely no differences in my level of civilization after engaging in the ritual of marriage.

    Was there somehting that occured, some magical switch, that was hit when I went through the ritual that I am, for whatever reasons, unaware of?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #89
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Marriage is a contract betwen a man and a woman, one that comes with rights, privileges, and responsibilities.

    Because of this, the state must be involved.
    I believe marraige is at best a social contract, but why is it governed by rules not engaged with regarding all other contracts?

    Cannot two men enter into another form of contractual obligation together?

    If so, then why do we create special circumstances for the social contract?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: 44 to reverse 43's executive orders

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Man View Post
    Agreed, but the legal system formalizes the relationship and makes it stronger.
    Marriage does not make the relationship stronger, it just allows for more legal benefits from the government.

    Again, the relationship is what makes it strong, not marriage.

Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •