Posted on 03/20/2005 7:01:40 PM PST by SeasideSparrow
Not Constitutionally? Who exercises authority over the Justice Dept. now? Who sent Federal Marshals and the FBI to Alabama and Mississippi in the '60's?
<< Who exercises authority over the Justice Dept. now? Who sent Federal Marshals and the FBI to Alabama and Mississippi in the '60's? >>
Constitutionally?
No-one.
[Please quote me whatever part, section, paragraph, sentence, phrase or word of the United States Constitution that permits and/or authorises the excercise of police powers by the United States Federal Government]
The Left Thinks LEGALLY; the Right Thinks MORALLY.
Funny I always heard that the Right Thought while the Left went with their Feelings.
"If we can save just one person, it will be worth it"
"It's for the Childrun"
"If we took the money we spend on, ......... like, .......... one ICBM, .......... you know, and spent it on food, man, .............. we could, ........... like, ................ feed the world, ............ sooo cool."
So9
The executive branch is in charge of enforcement of laws passed by congress and of decisions made by the judiciary, not of doing what it happens to feel like strongarming.
In fact, in the Elian case, the exacutive was enforcing a judicial ruling, not, as you would like in the Terri case, overturning one.
So9
"The executive branch is in charge of enforcement of laws passed by congress and of decisions made by the judiciary"
They also have a duty to check the other branches if they spin out of control. As is the case.
"In fact, in the Elian case, the exacutive was enforcing a judicial ruling, not, as you would like in the Terri case, overturning one."
Enforcing a wrongful ruling is immoral: overturning an immoral ruling is virtuous.
Both rulings -- Elian and Terry -- were unconscionable. Both fly in the face of the law--spirit and letter. The Executive had a duty to rein in both courts, when no one else will.
Where the constitution is used as a justification for immoral and unconscionable rulings, it is *by definition* being misused. Such misuse is by definition unconstitutional, and justifies the use of military force by the Executive to rein it in.
Enforcing a wrongful ruling is immoral: overturning an immoral ruling is Illegal.
The proper course is appeal and/or impeachment.
Where the constitution is used as a justification for immoral and unconscionable rulings, it is *by definition* being misused. Such misuse is by definition unconstitutional, and justifies the use of military force by the Executive to rein it in.
Not so. It is perfectly possible to have things in the Constitution that are immoral. Slavery used to be in there, and as John Brown found out, that did not justify the use of force to rein it in.
The Constitution is about the law. Morality is about whining over constitutional decisions your particular cult doesn't like.
SO9
"Enforcing a wrongful ruling is immoral: overturning an immoral ruling is Illegal."
Morality trumps legality every time. When they come into conflict, that shows that the law is wrong.
"The proper course is appeal and/or impeachment."
Even pettifogging, pipsqueaking legalism allows for injunctions to prevent irreversable harm from occurring while the case is being argued. Here we have a case in which evil men are denying injunctive relief when a woman's life is at stake. The proper course here is for Bush to send in the Army.
"Not so. It is perfectly possible to have things in the Constitution that are immoral. Slavery used to be in there"
The words slave and slavery never appeared in the constitution, ever. You should read up on the compromises that allowed slave and non-slave states to sign the same constitution.
However, you do have a point. There are now provisions in the constitition extending the vote to women and 18 year olds, and that is immoral.
"and as John Brown found out, that did not justify the use of force to rein it in."
1. What John Brown found out was what every revolutionary finds out; you're only right if you win. If he'd been able to go venue shopping, he could have found plenty of places where he would have been acquitted.
2. Are you really arguing that the use of force to end slavery is not justified?
"The Constitution is about the law. Morality is about whining over constitutional decisions your particular cult doesn't like."
Road apples. Law is nothing more than the codification of our own beliefs regarding right and wrong, which is to say morality. Law arises out of morality, is based on morality, and is utterly meaningless outside the context of morality. However, morality precedes and is superior to law.
You are misstating my position. I never suggested that he overturn a judicial ruling.
Article II Section 3
"...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, ...
Chief Law Enforcement Officer. The President has the sole constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed,"17 and this grants him broad discretion over federal law enforcement decisions. He has not only the power, but also the responsibility to see that the Constitution and laws are interpreted correctly.18 In addition, the President has absolute prosecutorial discretion in declining to bring criminal indictments. As in the exercise of any other constitutional power, one may argue that a particular President is "abusing his discretion," but even in such a case, he cannot be compelled to prosecute any criminal charges.
From the same article on use of Executive Orders as an example of the use of force by the President under statutory regulations:
On December 25, 1868, President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation (the "Christmas Proclamation") pardoning "all and every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion" related to the Civil War.9 President Johnson's Christmas Proclamation was grounded squarely on his constitutional pardon power.10 The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that the proclamation was "a public act of which all courts of the United States are bound to take notice, and to which all courts are bound to give effect."11
That is by leaps and bounds not the only example of a President legally intervening in the affairs of a State.
On August 7, 1794, President Washington issued a proclamation ordering those engaged in the Whiskey Rebellion to disperse and calling forth the militia to put down the rebellion. This proclamation was issued pursuant to statutory authority delegated to the President.7 The statute provided that the President first had to warn citizens to disperse and return to their homes, but that he could call forth the militia to deal with any individuals who did not follow this command.8 Thus, the Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation may have been the first directive issued pursuant to power conferred by Congress.
So the entire Florida and Federal Judiciary are Eeevil?
And Bush isn't? He's different? He's the one man in a position of power who could act?
If Bush had any desire to act there is a simple and legal way to do it. He could order a US Atty to convene a Grand Jury to investigate Medicaid Fraud in the Hospice Terri is in. There are already allegations. The US Atty could then subpoena her to testify and take her into protective custody .
It would take all of 5 minutes to arrange. Am I really smarter than the entire justice Dept? Am I really the only one to know this?
They don't want to do anything, that's why they passed a sham law that would have no effect.
Law arises out of morality, is based on morality, and is utterly meaningless outside the context of morality. However, morality precedes and is superior to law.
Bah, Law arises out of pragmatism, always has, always will. Then it is wrapped in a little morality play to make it more palatable.
SO9
"So the entire Florida and Federal Judiciary are Eeevil?"
Are you arguing that leftism is *not* evil?
Have you forgotten that the Florida Supreme Court is composed of seven democrats who tried to violate Florida law to give the dems time to "recount" their way to a Gore win?
Certainly there are a lot of evil people on the bench.
"And Bush isn't? He's different?"
I don't think he's evil, no.
"He's the one man in a position of power who could act?"
"Could" don't mean squat. Sure, evil men "could" do good...if they weren't evil. But they are, and they won't, and that's when it's time for good men to step up to the plate.
"The US Atty could then subpoena her to testify and take her into protective custody."
She has already been subpoenaed. "Judge" Greer's response? "Kill her."
"Am I really smarter than the entire justice Dept? Am I really the only one to know this?"
I don't know how smart you are. Are you the only one who doesn't know that a subpoena has already been tried?
"They don't want to do anything, that's why they passed a sham law that would have no effect."
You may be right. I hope you're wrong.
"Bah, Law arises out of pragmatism, always has, always will."
That is an extremely cynical viewpoint and not, I think, supported by history.
"Then it is wrapped in a little morality play to make it more palatable."
And why would that make it more palatable? Think it through. The rebuttal to your argument is contained in your own statement.
No, you and your friends will revile him - because you have to blame somebody, so what the hell...blame Bush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.