Nothing here has negated the argument that the decision to not efnorce the law, based on the position that the act in question shoudl not be illegal, is subjective.
There has been no such argument. You are merely asserting it is the case. As it is, there is nothing Obama has done that is not legal under current Supreme Court understandings. Notice, not even George Bush was ever prosecuted for allegations that he disregarded the law.
You use the term "the only way".
There is only one "only way".
Only way to get to a place, yes. The place in question would be 'effectiveness'. But there are many degrees in effectiveness. Therefore, multiple places to be, multiple ways of getting to them.
I may only be able to get to the top floor of the Empire State Building by elevator, but I can move around the rooms on the floor in multiple ways.
Well then -- there's no excuse for not enforcing the law.
So...?
So, what? I already gave you an explanation. It didn't appear in your quote. The President has to gravitate within parameters. He is in a state of enforcing the law so long as he is in those parameters. The one who decides he is not in those parameters is the Supreme Court. Obama is not being reckless in this decision, and is not stepping outside the bounds established by his predecessors and upheld by the Supreme Court. I don't think there will be much a problem.
You mean only in the most direct sense, given that this is what the Constitution says.
Dont forget:
The basis for non-enforcement is The Obama's position on if the act should or should not be illegal, as it is tied to state laws that run contrary to the federal law.
Should/shoudl not be illegal is not a call the President gets to make.
Even if that is the reason, the president can make such a call, because relations with the states are part of the dynamic in his use of resources.
Everyone can make such calls, actually, if the Supreme Court determines it is within their rights to do so. Variously, it has given such agenda-setting powers to the branches of federal government and to the states.
I totally agree with this. I find I am getting into debates with people who want to push objectivity as the only moral choice. I don't think it exists. Can you say a few words?
Objectivity is fine. It is even essential in debates so as to achieve clarity, but it has to be understood as a mental process -- a particular style of analysis -- and not a condition. 'Being objective' just means looking more closely at the contents of your consciousness, analyzing them closely for details and disparities and relating your observations to other people whose presence you are also experiencing subjectively. No one can ever actually make contact directly with the "real world." We can't come into contact, mentally, with objects -- only impressions of those objects by way of our sensations.
I am impressed that the tables are turned. You are a conservative in the position of defending the actions of Obama! LOL!
I'm only a liberal in the United States. Anywhere else I would be classified a moderate, because I am not a proponent of classical liberalism [libertarianism] or communism.
If I ever criticized George Bush for such things, it would have been on grounds his movements lacked utility, not because I considered them illegal, at least not in American law. Accusations of illegality smack of hysteria and I use them sparingly -- hysteria is one way of losing your soul. Outside American law, I am
somewhat indifferent, because while I respect the United Nations for some things, I only respect laws insofar as the powers behind them can mete out the penalties of breaching them. That said, international law still carries some weight, and I am disappointed in Bush's disregard of that.