• 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!

44 to reverse 43's executive orders

Southern Man said:
Talk about a far out of left field straw man... :shock:
Click to expand...

Care to explain why it that is a straw man?

1) The Constitution does provide for separation of church and state, and states so explicitly.

2) When you pass laws that adhere strictly to a subset of a Judeo-Christian ethic, that clearly goes against separation.

3) Anti abortion law at a Federal level is clearly based on a subset of a Judeo-Christian ethic.

4) Bingo, there you have it - The church attempting to force their idea of what morality is into government. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.

5) Whatever powers are not explicitly stated in the Constitution belong to the states and to the people.

6) While Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, and should be overturned, the argument against the Federal government forcing the states to adopt the opposite position is just as compelling. Ever hear of the 10th amendment?

7) Abortion is murder? Says who? Churches, and not all churches take that stance.

8) Why don't all churches take that stance? Because there is disagreement among Biblical scholars as to whether abortion is murder or not.

9) What disagreement you ask? The following passages help to explain the other side:

Genesis 2:7 said:
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Click to expand...

Man did not become a living soul until he took his first breath. But there is more:

Exodus 21:22 said:
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman' husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Click to expand...

As you can see, while the penalty in the Bible for murder is death, the penalty for causing a fetus to abort is a fine, to be determined by the elders, after consulting the woman's husband. That is actual biblical evidence that abortion is not murder, but is one interpretation. There are others, of course. But the bottom line here is that not every Christian believes abortion is murder, but the fundamentalists are attempting to pass Federal legislation making it so, based on their own version of the Judeo-Christian belief. This is clearly unconstitutional, as it is forcing the belief of some denominations of the Church onto everybody else, clearly in violation of the first amendment.

10) Now, I will ask you once more - What straw man are you talking about? I see none here.
 
danarhea said:
Care to explain why it that is a straw man?

1) The Constitution does provide for separation of church and state, and states so explicitly. ....
Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't provide for separation of Church and State; that's merely one contemporary interpretation. It does say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion..." Traditional marriage ain't a religion.
 
Southern Man said:
The Constitution doesn't provide for separation of Church and State; that's merely one contemporary interpretation. It does say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion..." Traditional marriage ain't a religion.
Click to expand...

Hit's the nail on the proverbial head. :applaud

But let us keep reminding ourselves of Dan's conservative leanings regardless of his Liberal light arguments. :rofl
 
danarhea said:
You argue that judicial supremacy is wrong, but at the same time, argue that executive supremacy is correct.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

His oath is to also defend the Constitution.

Here is a report by the American Bar Association that addresses this issue in a very straightforward manner, and in a way that is consistent with the Constitution.
Click to expand...

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."
 
Southern Man said:
Marriage to a good woman civilizes the male and forms the basic building block of a civilized society, along with the traditional family.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but the legal system formalizes the relationship and makes it stronger.
 
Southern Man said:
Agreed, but the legal system formalizes the relationship and makes it stronger.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Southern Man said:
Some what. The legal system serves to formalize them and give them more legitimacy which makes them stronger.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Southern Man said:
Agreed, but the legal system formalizes the relationship and makes it stronger.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DERAILED

Oh the horror...
 
Tucker Case said:
Cannot two men enter into another form of contractual obligation together?
Click to expand...

Contracts are limited. For instance two men forming a contractual obligation to sell drugs is illegal.

If the contract consists of an illegal act, the contract is null and void and not valid.
 
Tucker Case said:
I believe marraige is at best a social contract, but why is it governed by rules not engaged with regarding all other contracts?
Click to expand...
When married, the law of the state defines the rights and privileges enjoyed by each spouse, and how these things interact with other laws.

Cannot two men enter into another form of contractual obligation together?
Click to expand...
Sure... but then the obligations and the rights conferred by them are defined by the contract, not the law, and are limited to what can be conveyed by literal contract.. The literal contract cannot convey some of the rights that the law does -- protection against a spouse being forced to testify, tax benefits/penalties, immediate transfer of joint property upon death, etc.

So, while those contracts might be able to convey many of the same benefiots, they cannot convey them all because many of the rights/privliges eminate solely from the state.
 
Tucker Case said:
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?
Click to expand...

You mean the morning after your wedding you didn't notice your new nose ring and a chain that led to your wife's hand?
 
Southern Man said:
You mean the morning after your wedding you didn't notice your new nose ring and a chain that led to your wife's hand?
Click to expand...

I didn't and have been with my wife for 17 years.

We dated for about 5 years and within that time we realized we were living together, had back accounts together, had a house together. Essentially we were married per say already emotionally, so we went ahead and got married then.

Marriage had nothing to do with our relationship being strong.
 
TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...
What benefits? My taxes went up after I got married.

But I did get a bunch of stuff from my relatives, and my siblings gave me that tool box that I always wanted. And the bank up'd my credit worthiness. And my boss put me further up the line for a promotion. :cool:
 
Southern Man said:
What benefits? My taxes went up after I got married.
Click to expand...

Mine didn't, they went down.

Southern Man said:
But I did get a bunch of stuff from my relatives, and my siblings gave me that tool box that I always wanted. And the bank up'd my credit worthiness. And my boss put me further up the line for a promotion. :cool:
Click to expand...

Easier to get loans, lower percentage rates with two income coming in from marriage.
 
TheNextEra said:
I didn't and have been with my wife for 17 years.

We dated for about 5 years and within that time we realized we were living together, had back accounts together, had a house together. Essentially we were married per say already emotionally, so we went ahead and got married then.

Marriage had nothing to do with our relationship being strong.
Click to expand...
Then ask her for a divorce and see how your life changes.
 
Southern Man said:
Then ask her for a divorce and see how your life changes.
Click to expand...

Again, why would I? I get more benefits this way and so does she.

It has nothing with making our relationship stronger though, sorry to disappoint you.

Our relationship was just as strong before we were married.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom