[bestcigsnick]

Perhaps you would prefer he flee the jurisdiction to not do his job?

I would prefer if people didn't make stupid comparisons between parliamentary gridlock and an executive having quasi-dictatorial power.

[JoesBro]

You mean, the secret president?

Don't be ridiculous. He's talking about the president's Socialist Jew advisor.

[hechicxxrr]

There is nothing illegal about it. However, don't you think it’s ethically preposterous to claim DOMA is unconstitutional yet continue enforcing it?

Personally, I think the POTUS should enforce all laws except those actively being repealed.

I also think elected legislatures should vote up or down on the legislation before them.

My position is consistent.


I used the position above to point out the absurdity of gribbler's argument in the other thread (the rules don't say they can't flee the State therefore it is acceptable).

edit - I should have said "gribbler and others". gribbler is a nice guy and I don't want to appear to be picking on him exclusively.

[cypedembeda]

Nice rebuttal.

[hygtfrdes]

I guess you could make it illegal for a wisconsin state senator to leave the state, if you really think being able to stall legislation makes the legislature too powerful.

[Alice_Medichi34]

I guess you could make it illegal for a wisconsin state senator to leave the state, if you really think being able to stall legislation makes the legislature too powerful.

How would you propose they do that without a quorum?

[drugsprevi]

How would you propose they do that without a quorum?

I said you, in a hypothetical sense. Not they, in a practical sense. Do you think it should be illegal for someone to cross state lines?

[uncoosesoge]

It seems reasonable that either POTUS or congress could have a finding that a particular law was unconstitutional since they are co-equal with the courts. The supremes, however, are the final arbiters of "constitutionality" so I think that if a law is believed to be unconstitional by POTUS or congress then they have a responsibility to test that proposition by bringing a case before SCOTUS (and the supremes have a responsibility to take the case).

[nemoforone]

It seems reasonable that either POTUS or congress could have a finding that a particular law was unconstitutional since they are co-equal with the courts. The supremes, however, are the final arbiters of "constitutionality" so I think that if a law is believed to be unconstitional by POTUS or congress then they have a responsibility to test that proposition by bringing a case before SCOTUS (and the supremes have a responsibility to take the case).

Only because SCOTUS deemed itself final arbiter. In reality both legislative and executive branches take oaths to uphold the constitution. The constitution is silent on whose role it is to provide final interpretation.

[megasprut]

Only because SCOTUS deemed itself final arbiter. In reality both legislative and executive branches take oaths to uphold the constitution. The constitution is silent on whose role it is to provide final interpretation.

All true, but it doesnt change the current reality i.e. that SCOTUS decides. The idea that the POTUS can unilaterally decide that a law is unconstitutional is a dangerous precedent IMO. The President is not a King.

[DeilMikina]

What is wrong with the Court deciding constitutionality Ogie?

It seems they are better suited for the role than either one individual (POTUS) or reps of the "mob" (congress).

"Punting" to the courts seems valid.

[Annewsded]

I would hope all lawmakers keep an eye to the Constitutionality of legislation during the formulation process but if a binding decision needs to be made I would trust the Courts over the others. Just because a law was passed I don't think you can presume it is Constitutional on the argument it wouldn't have been passed otherwise.

[Dreqsqse]

The fact that a president indicates he thinks a bill is unconstituional but presumes to sign the bill into law anyway says volumes and violates his most basic oath.

I can agree with this. He should refer it to the Courts rather than sign.

Surely he has this power (standing)?

[AdobebePhoto]

Who is arguing otherwise?

I would hope all lawmakers keep an eye to the Constitutionality of legislation during the formulation process but if a binding decision needs to be made I would trust the Courts over the others.

[crumoursegemo]

I am bested.

I am simply unable to argue the intricacies of this part of your system.

[baskentt]

I am bested.

I am simply unable to argue the intricacies of this part of your system.

No problem our system is a bit eccentric to put it mildly.

[Annevecenqp]

No problem our system is a bit eccentric to put it mildly.

It is certainly different.

On a related tangent, we currently have a case before the BC Supreme Court where the Court is being asked to rule whether our federal laws against polygamy violate the Charter of Rights. There are no defendants before the court, just a legal reference. BC wants to ensure the law is sound before they pursue polygamists in Court (there is serious doubt the law will stand as is).

edit - link for anyone interested: http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110221/bc_polygamists_110221/20110221?hub=BritishColumbiaHome