• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Not defending the health care bill

Would you support the action posted below?


  • Total voters
    19

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,429
Reaction score
35,271
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here's the question, for liberals and conservatives alike.

To preface this I'd like request two things:

First, that I ask you to answer under the hypothetical that the Obama Administration did not come out and say that they would not defend DOMA in court. IE, I don't want the conservatives on here saying "Absolutely, if they did it we should to". I want the question answered based simply on itself and your feelings in a general sense as to how the various branches of government should work.

Two, the poll is not necessarily asking for your PERSONAL opinion...IE would you agree with the principle of the action...but on a governmental procedural action. The govermental version of "I don't agree with what he's saying, but I agree with his right to say it". I'm not asking if you'd agree that it SHOULD be done, but rather should it be allowable.

So here's the question:

If Republicans win in 2012 and the new President decides that he believes the Health Care Law that was passed is unconstitutional, do you think it is acceptable and alright for him to have the Justice Department refuse to defend the law in court cases allowing it to be challenged in court without any proper defense of its legality being put forward by the state?
 
Last edited:
If Republicans win in 2012 and the new President decides that he believes the Health Care Law that was passed is unconstitutional, do you think it is acceptable and alright for him to have the Justice Department refuse to defend the law in court cases allowing it to be challenged in court without any proper defense of its legality being put forward by the state?

To say it would be acceptable is a ringing endorsement for Tyranny.

Its not acceptable for The Kenyan Tyrant to pick and choose between the laws of the land.......just as it wont be for whichever Conservative candidate defeats The Kenyan Tyrant in 2012.
.
.
.
 
Interesting question, Zyph.

Had to think about this one a bit and in the end I don't think President should be allowed to have the Justice Department refuse to defend a law in a court challenge. It's subverting the integrity of the courts. How can they make a fair and informed ruling if both sides are not presenting their best arguments? The Executive Branch is supposed to enforce the law and the Judicial Branch are supposed to Interpret the law. By refusing to defend a law facing a court challenge, the Executive Branch is no longer doing its job and makes it impossible for the Judicial Branch to properly do theirs.

Not to mention, it sets a bad precednet. Once one party does it, you know the other party will as well. It becomes a backdoor way of repealing controversial legislation by just waiting for a new President who opposes said legislation to come into office and then challenge it in court, knowing he won't defend the law in question.
 
I'm so against the health care bill, my honest impulse was to vote yes in an "ends justifies the means" kind of idea. After reading your OP though, specifically this;
"I want the question answered based simply on itself and your feelings in a general sense as to how the various branches of government should work.

Two, the poll is not necessarily asking for your PERSONAL opinion...IE would you agree with the principle of the action...but on a governmental procedural action",
I'd have to say, out of respect to our system of checks and balances, I could not support it (damn it).
 
Last edited:
I'm so against the health care bill, my honest impulse was to vote yes in an "ends justifies the means" kind of idea. After reading your OP though, specifically this; I'd have to say, out of respect to our system of checks and balances, I could not support it.

Ditto.....
 
So here's the question:

If Republicans win in 2012 and the new President decides that he believes the Health Care Law that was passed is unconstitutional, do you think it is acceptable and alright for him to have the Justice Department refuse to defend the law in court cases allowing it to be challenged in court without any proper defense of its legality being put forward by the state?

As I understand it, such an action is legal, and as such if the president had solid evidence that a challenge to the law was highly likely to succeed, then yes, there is nothing wrong with not defending it.
 
As I understand it, such an action is legal, and as such if the president had solid evidence that a challenge to the law was highly likely to succeed, then yes, there is nothing wrong with not defending it.
So, where's your vote?
 
Had I not known this had happened before on numerous occasions, I would have said no.
I voted yes.
 
Here's the question, for liberals and conservatives alike.

To preface this I'd like request two things:

First, that I ask you to answer under the hypothetical that the Obama Administration did not come out and say that they would not defend DOMA in court. IE, I don't want the conservatives on here saying "Absolutely, if they did it we should to". I want the question answered based simply on itself and your feelings in a general sense as to how the various branches of government should work.

Two, the poll is not necessarily asking for your PERSONAL opinion...IE would you agree with the principle of the action...but on a governmental procedural action. The govermental version of "I don't agree with what he's saying, but I agree with his right to say it". I'm not asking if you'd agree that it SHOULD be done, but rather should it be allowable.

So here's the question:

If Republicans win in 2012 and the new President decides that he believes the Health Care Law that was passed is unconstitutional, do you think it is acceptable and alright for him to have the Justice Department refuse to defend the law in court cases allowing it to be challenged in court without any proper defense of its legality being put forward by the state?

One thing to bring up, the law book are full of laws that have not been repealed but remain unenforced because they are stupid. There is precedent for this. However, I am on the fence about the apprpriateness of handling bad laws this way. I feel its better to repeal them.
 
If Republicans win in 2012 and the new President decides that he believes the Health Care Law that was passed is unconstitutional, do you think it is acceptable and alright for him to have the Justice Department refuse to defend the law in court cases allowing it to be challenged in court without any proper defense of its legality being put forward by the state?

I'd have to say yes.

Otherwise, you would in principle have to strip every prosecutor at every level of government of the power to decide who to prosecute for violating the law and who not to prosecute.

I do not believe that it is the government's obligation to defend a law (no matter the law) in court any more than I believe it is the prosecutor's obligation to prosecute each and every technical violation of the law, or the obligation of every defendant to take their charges before a jury of their peers.

If there's a law requiring any of those three things, I'm unaware of it and that would change my answer to some extent.
 
The question however is not about having no prosecutors that will defend the law TED, but having the POTUS dictating to the Justice Department that they will not defend it, regardless of the feeling of the prosecutors. I understand your point, but that is not what this thread is asking about.
 
Okay.

Well.

My understanding is that the President is in charge of the Justice Department, just like the President is in charge of a lot of departments. Congress has fobbed a lot of authority off on the executive branch, and it does not exist in a vacuum -- there is a chain of command.

Assistant DAs have to take orders from DAs, and so on up the food chain.

My answer is the same. :)
 
Okay.

Well.

My understanding is that the President is in charge of the Justice Department, just like the President is in charge of a lot of departments. Congress has fobbed a lot of authority off on the executive branch, and it does not exist in a vacuum -- there is a chain of command.

Assistant DAs have to take orders from DAs, and so on up the food chain.

My answer is the same. :)
I don't think your analogy is the same. It isn't about prosecutors having discretion, if anything, this takes away discretion by saying, no, you can't enforce this law because I disagree with it. If the DA in your jurisdiction came out and said, "I disagree with our DWI laws, so I'm barring anyone in my office from prosecuting them." Would you support that?
 
I don't think your analogy is the same. It isn't about prosecutors having discretion, if anything, this takes away discretion by saying, no, you can't enforce this law because I disagree with it. If the DA in your jurisdiction came out and said, "I disagree with our DWI laws, so I'm barring anyone in my office from prosecuting them." Would you support that?

No, I wouldn't support it, but that's his prerogative and I'd express my disagreement with how he exercises it in the next election.

The prerogative to defend a law or prosecute a lawbreaker is essentially the same, and the decision (or delegation of the decision) ultimately rests with the guy at the top of the food chain. When the food chain is really really long, these kinds of decisions are typically made further down the line instead of by the man in charge because the man in charge is very busy -- not because he doesn't have a right to make those decisions himself.
 
No, I wouldn't support it, but that's his prerogative and I'd express my disagreement with how he exercises it in the next election.

Exactly. The use of this "power" is as best I can find out legal, though used rarely. I don't have a problem with a president using the power they have. I might disagree with the particular reasoning and think he is making a mistake in doing it, but he is still within his rights that he got by being elected.

It's the difference between saying Bush made a mistake in going to war with Iraq, and saying Bush broke the law to do it.
 
No, I wouldn't support it, but that's his prerogative and I'd express my disagreement with how he exercises it in the next election.
Well look at the poll question again. It's whether you would support the action, not whether you agree that it's within his prerogative. So how do you reconcile your vote with this post? Could it be because you just agree with Obama on the DOMA thing so you're engaging in some result oriented rationalization? ;)
 
Well look at the poll question again. It's whether you would support the action, not whether you agree that it's within his prerogative. So how do you reconcile your vote with this post? Could it be because you just agree with Obama on the DOMA thing so you're engaging in some result oriented rationalization? ;)

Actually, if you were paying attention, the actual question was:

If Republicans win in 2012 and the new President decides that he believes the Health Care Law that was passed is unconstitutional, do you think it is acceptable and alright for him to have the Justice Department refuse to defend the law in court cases allowing it to be challenged in court without any proper defense of its legality being put forward by the state?

Emphasis mine.

I think it's fine for the President to exercise what discretion is available to him, since it's the same discretion available to law enforcers at all levels of government.. That doesn't mean I'd agree with it every time it happens or reward him with my vote.
 
Not investigating it's validity would be more unconstitutional.
 
To Clarify...

I'm not asking if its legal or not.

And I'm not asking if you would agree with its use specifically to the Health Care Law.

But if you agree with the use of the tactic in general. Essentially, do you condone or think such a tactic is acceptable. Mind you, there's things at times people find unacceptable that are completely legal (and vise versa), and its COMPLETELY legitimate to state "Its legal, so I'm okay with it being used". But I'm not necessarily expecting people to say "yes, I think its okay to use this tactic" simply because that tactic is legal.
 
Generally speaking, I think this kind of discretion is essential for the continued functioning of the justice system, so unless we come up with a better alternative or a well-defined method for regulating its use, this is the best there is.
 
To Clarify...

I'm not asking if its legal or not.

And I'm not asking if you would agree with its use specifically to the Health Care Law.

But if you agree with the use of the tactic in general. Essentially, do you condone or think such a tactic is acceptable. Mind you, there's things at times people find unacceptable that are completely legal (and vise versa), and its COMPLETELY legitimate to state "Its legal, so I'm okay with it being used". But I'm not necessarily expecting people to say "yes, I think its okay to use this tactic" simply because that tactic is legal.

The purpose of being able to do this is to not have to waste resources fighting a for a law that is almost certain to go down. That is why it is being used here, and it is perfectly acceptable to use the ability as it is intended. This includes even for laws I might like but would not pass constitutional muster.

Now, the problem with your example is that it is not a law that is clear cut on constitutionality. Experts cannot agree, the judges who have rules on it so far have not agreed. The constitutionality of the health care reform bill is very much up in the air. For that reason it is probably a bad example.
 
The purpose of being able to do this is to not have to waste resources fighting a for a law that is almost certain to go down. That is why it is being used here, and it is perfectly acceptable to use the ability as it is intended This includes even for laws I might like but would not pass constitutional muster.
I have a hard time picturing an example of a law that you would agree with but, yet, recognize it's uncontitutionality. Can you give an example?

Now, the problem with your example is that it is not a law that is clear cut on constitutionality. Experts cannot agree, the judges who have rules on it so far have not agreed. The constitutionality of the health care reform bill is very much up in the air. For that reason it is probably a bad example.
Obama's decision is just as political as the one in Zyph's example.
 
The question however is not about having no prosecutors that will defend the law TED, but having the POTUS dictating to the Justice Department that they will not defend it, regardless of the feeling of the prosecutors. I understand your point, but that is not what this thread is asking about.

I may not have fully understood the intent of your question. I voted "yes", because historically presidents have repeatedly used their power to ask the AG not to defend a law which, in his opinion (and supposedly in the opinion of his Justice Department staff), has a significant probability of being overturned as unconstitutional. If this is legal, a precedent has already been set, then I would say yes.

Now if you're asking if a president should have this power and whether the precedent should have been set by prior presidents, I would have voted no.

So I very well might have screwed up my vote. Only you know for sure! :)
 
I have a hard time picturing an example of a law that you would agree with but, yet, recognize it's uncontitutionality. Can you give an example?

No. Cannot think of one off the top of my head.

Obama's decision is just as political as the one in Zyph's example.

Have you read the ruling of the Mass DOMA case? I have a very, very hard time seeing any higher court disagree with the ruling. The ruling is a definite good work in laying the groundwork to withstand appeal. In a nutshell, marriage is up to states to determine what it is(as long as it is constitutional) not the federal government. Therefore a federal law that says a state sanctioned marriage is not recognized by the federal government is in fact the federal government overstepping it's bounds on states rights. It is very much designed to appeal to conservative judges. Needless to say there is a ton more to it, but that is the basic(well one of) argument the judge made.

The health care bill so far has 3 I believe judges ruling that it is in fact constitutional(this is three more than have done so for DOMA). Several other judges have simply not heard the case saying it had no merit. As such the constitutionality is very much questionable. If you can show where DOMA has a strong grounds to stand on, then you might have a point.
 
Here's the question, for liberals and conservatives alike.

To preface this I'd like request two things:

First, that I ask you to answer under the hypothetical that the Obama Administration did not come out and say that they would not defend DOMA in court. IE, I don't want the conservatives on here saying "Absolutely, if they did it we should to". I want the question answered based simply on itself and your feelings in a general sense as to how the various branches of government should work.

Two, the poll is not necessarily asking for your PERSONAL opinion...IE would you agree with the principle of the action...but on a governmental procedural action. The govermental version of "I don't agree with what he's saying, but I agree with his right to say it". I'm not asking if you'd agree that it SHOULD be done, but rather should it be allowable.

So here's the question:

If Republicans win in 2012 and the new President decides that he believes the Health Care Law that was passed is unconstitutional, do you think it is acceptable and alright for him to have the Justice Department refuse to defend the law in court cases allowing it to be challenged in court without any proper defense of its legality being put forward by the state?

The Presidents first and foremost job is to protect the Constitution. If a President believes a law to be unconstitutional then he has a right, and an obligation as POTUS to stop defending any law that is in the courts...be they enacted during or before his nomination and appointment.
 
Back
Top Bottom