PDA

View Full Version : Will Rand enforce unconstitutional laws as President?




Pages : [1] 2

Brett85
11-16-2014, 09:24 PM
I'm just wondering, because there are some limited government Constitutionalists who believe that the Constitution requires the President to enforce all the laws on the books, even if he feels that certain laws are unconstitutional. So they would believe that Rand would need to enforce something like the Patriot Act if he were President. Others, specifically some hardcore libertarians, believe that the President has an obligation to ignore unconstitutional laws and not enforce them. So I'm just wondering how Rand would address this issue as President. Would he just refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law as President? Or would he feel that the President is forced to enforce all laws and reluctantly enforce it? Has Rand ever addressed this issue?

erowe1
11-16-2014, 09:28 PM
Yeah. I can't imagine him not enforcing any.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 09:28 PM
Yeah. I can't imagine him not enforcing any.

But will he enforce all of them? For instance, would he enforce something like the Patriot Act since it's the law of the land?

CPUd
11-16-2014, 09:35 PM
But will he enforce all of them? For instance, would he enforce something like the Patriot Act since it's the law of the land?

I think he would have to. SCOTUS would need to declare it unconstitutional, separation of powers and whatnot. Now if it came up for renewal, he may be able to veto it, at some political expense.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 09:36 PM
But will he enforce all of them? For instance, would he enforce something like the Patriot Act since it's the law of the land?

I'm not convinced that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 09:40 PM
I'm not convinced that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.

WHy?

Brett85
11-16-2014, 09:43 PM
I think he would have to. SCOTUS would need to declare it unconstitutional, separation of powers and whatnot. Now if it came up for renewal, he may be able to veto it, at some political expense.

They would probably override his veto, especially if the GOP remained in the majority.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 09:46 PM
WHy?

What part of it is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 09:54 PM
Anybody who takes the Oath of Office has a personal responsibility and obligation to not do anything that they feel is a violation of the Constitution, quite regardless of what SCOTUS says or doesn't say. Otherwise the Oath would direct loyalty to SCOTUS rather than the Constitution.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 09:56 PM
Yes. Especially after getting on Obama for not enforcing the laws.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 09:58 PM
Anybody who takes the Oath of Office has a personal responsibility and obligation to not do anything that they feel is a violation of the Constitution, quite regardless of what SCOTUS says or doesn't say. Otherwise the Oath would direct loyalty to SCOTUS rather than the Constitution.

But some people claim the Constitution itself says that the President is bound to enforce all laws on the books.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 09:58 PM
Yes. Especially after getting on Obama for not enforcing the laws.

If Rand, as President, enforces any law that he personally believes is a violation of the Constitution, then he would be in violation of his Oath of Office.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:01 PM
But some people claim the Constitution itself says that the President is bound to enforce all laws on the books.

I don't care what "some people" say. The Oath is provided in the Constitution itself, and it is blatantly clear. The Oath is the last line of defense against a SCOTUS and a Congress run amok. You swear to God to uphold the Constitution, and God is a higher authority than any on Earth. For the same reason, a Sheriff who takes the oath is likewise obligated to not enforce any laws he finds contrary to the Constitution, lest he be found a liar and a fraud before the Living God.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:03 PM
If Rand DOES get elected President and he DOES choose to enforce laws that he, personally feels are unconstitutional, then it will not go well for him at the Judgement Seat. By taking the Oath before God, and then ignoring it, he jeopardizes his very soul. If that's how he was going to do, then he'd be better off just not running.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 10:04 PM
If Rand, as President, enforces any law that he personally believes is a violation of the Constitution, then he would be in violation of his Oath of Office.


“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The first thing it mentions is executing the office of President. His role is not to pass or repeal laws at his discretion, but to enforce laws passed through parliamentary procedure. He is tasked with upholding the Constitution to the best of his ability-he isn't mandated to go outside his ability to uphold it.

On a practical note, getting something accomplished long term legislatively will require working with Congress. Congress will not work with someone who upholds it's laws at his discretion. Also, when the next President comes in, everything will revert to normal most likely.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:05 PM
The first thing it mentions is executing the office of President. His role is not to pass or repeal laws at his discretion, but to enforce laws passed through parliamentary procedure. He is tasked with upholding the Constitution to the best of his ability-he isn't mandated to go outside his ability to uphold it.

On a practical note, getting something accomplished long term legislatively will require working with Congress. Congress will not work with someone who upholds it's laws at his discretion. Also, when the next President comes in, everything will revert to normal most likely.

This way, if he ever does anything evil, he can say he was just following orders.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 10:06 PM
This way, if he ever does anything evil, he can say he was just following orders.
"Evil" is thrown around pretty liberally on this forum, so I don't know what you are referring to.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:08 PM
The first thing it mentions is executing the office of President. His role is not to pass or repeal laws at his discretion, but to enforce laws passed through parliamentary procedure. He is tasked with upholding the Constitution to the best of his ability-he isn't mandated to go outside his ability to uphold it.

On a practical note, getting something accomplished long term legislatively will require working with Congress. Congress will not work with someone who upholds it's laws at his discretion. Also, when the next President comes in, everything will revert to normal most likely.

Faithfully execute the office of President, does not imply ignoring the "uphold and defend the Constitution" part.

If you swear to God to uphold and defend the Constitution, and then you don't, then you are in danger of your mortal soul. The whole reason the oath exists for for such officers to be able to defend the Constitution even when the entire government if not the entire nation is against them.

It is never right to do what is unconstitutional, even if you are literally the only soul on the planet taking that stand.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:09 PM
"Evil" is thrown around pretty liberally on this forum, so I don't know what you are referring to.

I do, and he's right.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:09 PM
I don't care what "some people" say.

Well, a lot of people say it. They point to Article II Section 3 of the Constitution.

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States."

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 10:10 PM
I imagine that if Rand effectively ended Medicare and Social Security for the remainder of his term via executive order, he would be assassinated in a matter of hours.

fr33
11-16-2014, 10:10 PM
I sure hope not. If that's what he does then wtf are we doing here?

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:15 PM
I sure hope not. If that's what he does then wtf are we doing here?

I think it's an open debate as to how far Rand could legally go to advance liberty as President.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 10:15 PM
Faithfully execute the office of President, does not imply ignoring the "uphold and defend the Constitution" part.

If you swear to God to uphold and defend the Constitution, and then you don't, then you are in danger of your mortal soul. The whole reason the oath exists for for such officers to be able to defend the Constitution even when the entire government if not the entire nation is against them.

It is never right to do what is unconstitutional, even if you are literally the only soul on the planet taking that stand.
Rand is a Christian. I don't think his soul is in danger and I don't think he believes so either.

No one can perfectly defend and uphold the Constitution. I could probably doing lots of things to help the Constitution. I could give all my money to the Tenth Amendment Center. It's not really a defined responsibility in that respect.

I don't think enforcing unconstitutional laws is unconstitutional. No more than working for the FDR is unconstitutional. It's part of the job description. Further, executing his duty is an equal part of the oath and comes first.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:18 PM
Well, a lot of people say it. They point to Article II Section 3 of the Constitution.

"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States."

So, just ignore the Oath the Constitution requires one to swear before God?

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:19 PM
Rand is a Christian. I don't think his soul is in danger and I don't think he believes so either.

No one can perfectly defend and uphold the Constitution. I could probably doing lots of things to help the Constitution. I could give all my money to the Tenth Amendment Center. It's not really a defined responsibility in that respect.

I don't think enforcing unconstitutional laws is unconstitutional. No more than working for the FDR is unconstitutional. It's part of the job description. Further, executing his duty is an equal part of the oath and comes first.

You can be a Christian, but if you swear to God and then ignore it, it's not going to go well no matter how much you went to Church. This is one of the reasons why Jesus instructed us not to swear, but simply to let our yes be yes and our no be no.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:19 PM
It seems like the Constitution does say that the President must enforce the laws on the books, but yet some of these laws are so terrible that I don't know if I could bring myself to enforce them if I were President. I don't know if I could bring myself to enforce federal marijuana laws and have the DEA arrest people in Colorado for smoking marijuana. The Constitution is fairly clear that the President must enforce the laws on the books, but if a law is just blatantly immoral and unconstitutional, should it be enforced? That seems like quite a dilemma to me.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:20 PM
"Evil" is thrown around pretty liberally on this forum, so I don't know what you are referring to.

Nothing in particular. But a lot of what the federal government does would count.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:20 PM
So, just ignore the Oath the Constitution requires one to swear before God?

Well, wouldn't you also be ignoring the oath to uphold the Constitution if you violated Article II Section 3 of the Constitution by not faithfully executing laws?

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:21 PM
It seems like the Constitution does say that the President must enforce the laws on the books

Laws that are unconstitutional aren't really laws.

Neither are laws that are immoral.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 10:21 PM
You can be a Christian, but if you swear to God and then ignore it, it's not going to go well no matter how much you went to Church. This is one of the reasons why Jesus instructed us not to swear, but simply to let our yes be yes and our no be no.
Well, since according to you and others that he can't uphold the Constitution and execute his duties at the same time, it looks like he will violate his oath one way or another. I think it makes more sense to place the responsibility of unconstitutional laws on Congress.

CPUd
11-16-2014, 10:22 PM
Part of the job of POTUS is having to decide what to do in lose-lose situations, then taking the blame for it.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:22 PM
Well, wouldn't you also be ignoring the oath to uphold the Constitution if you violated Article II Section 3 of the Constitution by not faithfully executing laws?

It says, "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." If the Constitution is the law of the land, then unconstitutional laws are not.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 10:23 PM
Laws that are unconstitutional aren't really laws.

Neither are laws that are immoral.

But keep in mind, the President isn't being elected as absolute ruler, so it really isn't his job to make such determinations, at least as matters of law.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:23 PM
Well, wouldn't you also be ignoring the oath to uphold the Constitution if you violated Article II Section 3 of the Constitution by not faithfully executing laws?

If they aren't Constitutional then they aren't laws. By enforcing them you would be violating Article 2 3.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:23 PM
Laws that are unconstitutional aren't really laws.

Neither are laws that are immoral.

Not according to the Supreme Court.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:24 PM
But keep in mind, the President isn't being elected as absolute ruler, so it really isn't his job to make such determinations, at least as matters of law.

If he does not want to make such a determination, then he should refuse to take the Oath. Of course, that means that he couldn't be President, but not being President is better than going to hell.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:24 PM
Well, since according to you and others that he can't uphold the Constitution and execute his duties at the same time, it looks like he will violate his oath one way or another. I think it makes more sense to place the responsibility of unconstitutional laws on Congress.

I agree with you that it's inevitable that he will violate his oath of office, but not because it's logically impossible to keep it. He has no constitutional duty to execute unconstitutional laws.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:25 PM
If they aren't Constitutional then they aren't laws. By enforcing them you would be violating Article 2 3.

So if Rand becomes President and decides to keep the Social Security and Medicare systems going, he would be enforcing unconstitutional laws and violating his oath of office to uphold the Constitution?

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:25 PM
Well, since according to you and others that he can't uphold the Constitution and execute his duties at the same time, it looks like he will violate his oath one way or another. I think it makes more sense to place the responsibility of unconstitutional laws on Congress.

I utterly reject your premise that unconstitutional laws are constitutional.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:26 PM
If he does not want to make such a determination, then he should refuse to take the Oath. Of course, that means that he couldn't be President, but not being President is better than going to hell.

I thought you had a legitimate argument at first, but now you're just getting extremely ridiculous.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:26 PM
Not according to the Supreme Court.

If the Constitution says one thing, and the Supreme Court says the opposite, then the President's oath obligates him to uphold the Constitution and to disobey the words of the Supreme Court.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 10:27 PM
I utterly reject your premise that unconstitutional laws are constitutional.

That isn't my premise. My premise is that the President is not the absolute ruler to make all of these determinations.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:27 PM
If the Constitution says one thing, and the Supreme Court says the opposite, then the President's oath obligates him to uphold the Constitution and to disobey the words of the Supreme Court.

Then you're basically advocating that the President act like a dictator, that he simply ignore all the other branches of government.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 10:28 PM
I thought you had a legitimate argument at first, but now you're just getting extremely ridiculous.
Not to mention, Jesus was against legalism and ridiculous rules that were contrary to common sense.

Keeping the National Park Service around=going to hell. What? lol.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:29 PM
So if Rand becomes President and decides to keep the Social Security and Medicare systems going, he would be enforcing unconstitutional laws and violating his oath of office to uphold the Constitution?

I think one defense that he could offer against this charge is that there's only so much he can do to steer the federal government back toward adherence to the Constitution, and that his oath only obligates him to make a good faith effort to do that. He might argue that doing something too extreme would get him removed from office and thus lose the ability to accomplish anything at all.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:30 PM
That isn't my premise. My premise is that the President is not the absolute ruler to make all of these determinations.

I generally agree with what you're saying, but would this also mean that the President has to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized marijuana? Or does the Constitution at least allow for prosecutorial discretion when it comes to that?

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:30 PM
So if Rand becomes President and decides to keep the Social Security and Medicare systems going, he would be enforcing unconstitutional laws and violating his oath of office to uphold the Constitution?

If he does nothing to extricate us from the situation then sure. Some things that are wholly entrenched like Social Security and Medicare, where if you ended them overnight people would die, then it is a fulfillment of the obligation to work towards removing the dependency that has entrenched an unconstitutional system. Ron Paul's plan to back out of SS slowly to avoid killing people is in line with upholding and defending.

Perpetuating unconstitutional systems is not.

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 10:31 PM
Yes. Especially after getting on Obama for not enforcing the laws.


If Rand DOES get elected President and he DOES choose to enforce laws that he, personally feels are unconstitutional, then it will not go well for him at the Judgement Seat. By taking the Oath before God, and then ignoring it, he jeopardizes his very soul. If that's how he was going to do, then he'd be better off just not running.


I imagine that if Rand effectively ended Medicare and Social Security for the remainder of his term via executive order, he would be assassinated in a matter of hours.


Rand is a Christian. I don't think his soul is in danger and I don't think he believes so either.

No one can perfectly defend and uphold the Constitution. I could probably doing lots of things to help the Constitution. I could give all my money to the Tenth Amendment Center. It's not really a defined responsibility in that respect.

I don't think enforcing unconstitutional laws is unconstitutional. No more than working for the FDR is unconstitutional. It's part of the job description. Further, executing his duty is an equal part of the oath and comes first.


It seems like the Constitution does say that the President must enforce the laws on the books, but yet some of these laws are so terrible that I don't know if I could bring myself to enforce them if I were President. I don't know if I could bring myself to enforce federal marijuana laws and have the DEA arrest people in Colorado for smoking marijuana. The Constitution is fairly clear that the President must enforce the laws on the books, but if a law is just blatantly immoral and unconstitutional, should it be enforced? That seems like quite a dilemma to me.


So if Rand becomes President and decides to keep the Social Security and Medicare systems going, he would be enforcing unconstitutional laws and violating his oath of office to uphold the Constitution?


That isn't my premise. My premise is that the President is not the absolute ruler to make all of these determinations.

Taft's point about assassination is why he should take the most radical libertarian he can as VP. If Judge Napolitano was just waiting to get into office, if only someone would assassinate Rand, that would make TPTB less likely to do it.

As for the rest, this thread is really making me question the point of voting for Rand, or voting at all for that matter. I know Rand isn't ever going to govern like an an-cap, or even a strict minarchist, but if he isn't even going to go back to the Constitution, what on earth is the point? I am nineteen years old. Any strategy that isn't going to lead to significant change in my lifetime (assuming I live a full life) isn't really worthwhile, IMO. Better to just let the system collapse on itself, as it inevitably will, with an establishment puppet on the throne, then start over.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:31 PM
Then you're basically advocating that the President act like a dictator, that he simply ignore all the other branches of government.

If the other branches go against the Constitution, his oath is to uphold it, not to violate it out of deference to the other branches. In this he would be the check against them. The branches in the wrong would be the ones violating their oaths, not the one keeping it.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:32 PM
He could also take the other approach and push for a Constitutional Amendment to allow SS.

If I were (God forbid!) elected President, then I would be required to veto any Defense Budget that funded the US Air Force until we passed a Constitutional Amendment to permit an Air Force.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:33 PM
If the other branches go against the Constitution, his oath is to uphold it, not to violate it out of deference to the other branches. In this he would be the check against them. The branches in the wrong would be the ones violating their oaths, not the one keeping it.

This. times 1000.

How is this not obvious?

Otherwise, why bother to have a President at all? Why not just end at Congress?

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:33 PM
If he does nothing to extricate us from the situation then sure. Some things that are wholly entrenched like Social Security and Medicare, where if you ended them overnight people would die, then it is a fulfillment of the obligation to work towards removing the dependency that has entrenched an unconstitutional system. Ron Paul's plan to back out of SS slowly to avoid killing people is in line with upholding and defending.

Perpetuating unconstitutional systems is not.

Right, but Ron Paul wouldn't have enacted that plan unilaterally, without going through Congress. He doesn't believe in having a powerful executive branch.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:33 PM
if he isn't even going to go back to the Constitution, what on earth is the point?

That's a very valid question.

But I think any notion that Rand would actually not enforce any unconstitutional laws is far beyond reasonable expectations.

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 10:34 PM
I thought you had a legitimate argument at first, but now you're just getting extremely ridiculous.

I actually think this is completely reasonable if you believe in a works-based system in any form. If Rand were to enforce all of the laws on the books, that would result in FAR more evil than Ted Bundy single-handedly was capable of. Heck, even as someone who rejects works-based salvation and who believes that motives matter somewhat, something like this might be enough for me to presume that he isn't a saved man if he were to do so.

If you see political issues as moral ones, rather than utilitarian ones, Gunny is right.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 10:34 PM
I generally agree with what you're saying, but would this also mean that the President has to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized marijuana? Or does the Constitution at least allow for prosecutorial discretion when it comes to that?

Prosecutorial discretion is allowed when there are limited resources available. Categorically ignoring laws is akin to repealing them and usurps the power of the legislative branch.

Rand could probably get federal marijuana prohibition repealed if he tried, but he could forget about it he decided to act on his own.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:35 PM
Right, but Ron Paul wouldn't have enacted that plan unilaterally, without going through Congress. He doesn't believe in having a powerful executive branch.

He doesn't believe in an executive branch using powers that the legislative branch hasn't given it.

But that doesn't mean that he would oppose the executive branch refraining from using powers that the legislative branch did give it.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:36 PM
Prosecutorial discretion is allowed when there are limited resources available.

It's safe to take for granted that Rand will have limited resources available.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:36 PM
If the other branches go against the Constitution, his oath is to uphold it, not to violate it out of deference to the other branches. In this he would be the check against them. The branches in the wrong would be the ones violating their oaths, not the one keeping it.

Why would he be the sole determiner when it comes to what laws are Constitutional and what laws aren't Constitutional?

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:37 PM
I thought you had a legitimate argument at first, but now you're just getting extremely ridiculous.

What do you think happens when you swear to God and then violate your oath?

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 10:37 PM
He could also take the other approach and push for a Constitutional Amendment to allow SS.

If I were (God forbid!) elected President, then I would be required to veto any Defense Budget that funded the US Air Force until we passed a Constitutional Amendment to permit an Air Force.
And this just goes to show that there isn't exactly a universal understanding of the Constitution. I believe the Air Force is allowed via the necessary and proper clause, simply because introducing new equipment doesn't change the actual power.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:38 PM
That isn't my premise. My premise is that the President is not the absolute ruler to make all of these determinations.

You might have a point if not for the Oath of Office. you can't just ignore that.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:38 PM
He could also take the other approach and push for a Constitutional Amendment to allow SS.

If I were (God forbid!) elected President, then I would be required to veto any Defense Budget that funded the US Air Force until we passed a Constitutional Amendment to permit an Air Force.

Couldn't it just go back to being part of the Army?

Chester Copperpot
11-16-2014, 10:39 PM
Anybody who takes the Oath of Office has a personal responsibility and obligation to not do anything that they feel is a violation of the Constitution, quite regardless of what SCOTUS says or doesn't say. Otherwise the Oath would direct loyalty to SCOTUS rather than the Constitution.

+1

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:39 PM
And this just goes to show that there isn't exactly a universal understanding of the Constitution. I believe the Air Force is allowed via the necessary and proper clause, simply because introducing new equipment doesn't change the actual power.

:eek:

I...

I don't know what to say to that.

That demonstrates one of the most profound lack of understanding of the Constitution i have ever seen on RPFs.

the Necessary and proper Clause confers no new powers. Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:40 PM
Why would he be the sole determiner when it comes to what laws are Constitutional and what laws aren't Constitutional?

He wouldn't be. Each and every person who takes that oath must make that determination. He is one of those. Something that's unconstitutional doesn't become constitutional just because the Supreme Court says so.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:40 PM
I actually think this is completely reasonable if you believe in a works-based system in any form. If Rand were to enforce all of the laws on the books, that would result in FAR more evil than Ted Bundy single-handedly was capable of. Heck, even as someone who rejects works-based salvation and who believes that motives matter somewhat, something like this might be enough for me to presume that he isn't a saved man if he were to do so.

If you see political issues as moral ones, rather than utilitarian ones, Gunny is right.

I don't know whether he'll enforce all of the laws or not, but that's what the Constitution requires. So it basically comes down to a question of whether the Constitution should be enforced, or whether these laws are so immoral that the Constitution should just be ignored.

Chester Copperpot
11-16-2014, 10:40 PM
Or course he doesnt have to enforce them....

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:41 PM
Couldn't it just go back to being part of the Army?

Yes, and in fact that's precisely what i would suggest happen -- that the AF is funded via the Army until such a time as we can pass an amendment. Now Congress take this budget back and fund the AF through the Army so I can sign the bill.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:42 PM
I don't know whether he'll enforce all of the laws or not, but that's what the Constitution requires. So it basically comes down to a question of whether the Constitution should be enforced, or whether these laws are so immoral that the Constitution should just be ignored.

The Constitution does not require the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. That's absurd. that's beyond absurd.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:42 PM
What do you think happens when you swear to God and then violate your oath?

I don't think there's any particular sin that disqualifies someone from being a Christian. No one is perfect. We as Christians are saved by grace by what Jesus did for us on the cross. You're promoting an extreme form of legalism. Basically you're suggesting that every President who doesn't entirely agree with your political views is going to hell.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:43 PM
He wouldn't be. Each and every person who takes that oath must make that determination. He is one of those. Something that's unconstitutional doesn't become constitutional just because the Supreme Court says so.

Correct. Otherwise, don't take the Oath.

The Oath is there for a reason. It's not just decoration.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:43 PM
I don't think there's any particular sin that disqualifies someone from being a Christian. No one is perfect. We as Christians are saved by grace by what Jesus did for us on the cross. You're promoting an extreme form of legalism. Basically you're suggesting that every President who doesn't entirely agree with your political views is going to hell.

What do you think happens when you swear to God and then violate your oath?

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:43 PM
What do you think happens when you swear to God and then violate your oath?

The president doesn't have to take an oath, he is given a choice between an oath and an affirmation.

Feeding the Abscess
11-16-2014, 10:44 PM
There is literally nothing in Rand's public profile that suggests he will do anything of the sort. For christ's sake, he's outwardly saying he agrees with the EPA and environmental regulations, going so far to call them good and necessary. To think he's going to govern as an anarchist - or even a moderately strict constitutionalist - is absurd beyond belief.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:44 PM
Why would he be the sole determiner when it comes to what laws are Constitutional and what laws aren't Constitutional?

That's why the Constitution requires the President swear an oath to God. Not God via the Supreme Court. The Constitution never granted Judicial review in any case, so that point is moot.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:45 PM
The Constitution does not require the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. That's absurd. that's beyond absurd.

Article II Section 3 is beyond clear that the President is required to enforce all of the laws on the books. Now, certain laws may be so immoral that they shouldn't be enforced. There may be certain situations where it's imperative that a President ignore a law because it violates basic principles of morality. But to do so would still clearly violate Article II Section 3 of the Constitution.

Chester Copperpot
11-16-2014, 10:46 PM
The president doesn't have to take an oath, he is given a choice between an oath and an affirmation.
um WHAT?

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:46 PM
What do you think happens when you swear to God and then violate your oath?

I don't believe in works salvation, that you can't make it to heaven if you commit certain sins.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:46 PM
The president doesn't have to take an oath, he is given a choice between an oath and an affirmation.

True enough, which would mitigate his responsibility before God, but it does not affect his moral obligation.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:48 PM
Article II Section 3 is beyond clear that the President is required to enforce all of the laws on the books.

It doesn't say, "on the books."

According to the Constitution unconstitutional laws aren't laws.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:48 PM
um WHAT?

Am I wrong about that?

ETA, I thought I was right. Here:

Before he enters the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_8:_Oath_or_affirmation

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:48 PM
Article II Section 3 is beyond clear that the President is required to enforce all of the laws on the books. Now, certain laws may be so immoral that they shouldn't be enforced. There may be certain situations where it's imperative that a President ignore a law because it violates basic principles of morality. But to do so would still clearly violate Article II Section 3 of the Constitution.

Article 2 3 says no such thing. "all the laws on the books" is not in the Constitution, you just made that part up and claimed it was Constitutional. I expected better from you.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:49 PM
According to the Constitution unconstitutional laws aren't laws.

Lol. What section is that? The Constitution certainly doesn't give the President the sole power to determine which laws are Constitution and which aren't.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:49 PM
It doesn't say, "on the books."

According to the Constitution unconstitutional laws aren't laws.

Correct. According to the CONSTITUTION, unconstitutional laws are not laws. Whether they are "on the books" or not.

If Rand is going to enforce laws that he, personally believes are unconstitutional, then he's better off not running.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:50 PM
Lol. What section is that? The Constitution certainly doesn't give the President the sole power to determine which laws are Constitution and which aren't.

Article 6.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:50 PM
Article 2 3 says no such thing. "all the laws on the books" is not in the Constitution, you just made that part up and claimed it was Constitutional. I expected better from you.

It says that he has to faithfully execute the laws. It doesn't include any exceptions.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:51 PM
I don't believe in works salvation, that you can't make it to heaven if you commit certain sins.

So why is it Jesus Christ was so adamant that we never ever swear to God if it's not that big a deal?

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 10:51 PM
That's a very valid question.

But I think any notion that Rand would actually not enforce any unconstitutional laws is far beyond reasonable expectations.

I agree with Gunny's points on principle. But, I'm not under the impression that Rand is going to use executive order to kill SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and the like. I don't know exactly how much to expect. I'm not under the impression that Rand can get us back to the constitution in four years. The question is, is that even his goal? What's the long term plan? I hate having to strategize. I find bashing the State and those who support it much more enjoyable. But I'm willing to strategize if someone can explain the long term goals.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:51 PM
It says that he has to faithfully execute the laws. It doesn't include any exceptions.
And the Constitution says that laws which do not persue from the Constitution are not laws.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:52 PM
I agree with Gunny's points on principle. But, I'm not under the impression that Rand is going to use executive order to kill SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and the like. I don't know exactly how much to expect. I'm not under the impression that Rand can get us back to the constitution in four years. The question is, is that even his goal? What's the long term plan? I hate having to strategize. I find bashing the State and those who support it much more enjoyable. But I'm willing to strategize if someone can explain the long term goals.

You take your faith more seriously than most, so maybe you can answer me. What do you think happens when you swear to God and then violate your oath?

erowe1
11-16-2014, 10:52 PM
Lol. What section is that? The Constitution certainly doesn't give the President the sole power to determine which laws are Constitution and which aren't.

The Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court the power to say that something unconstitutional is constitutional. If it's unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional, no matter who says otherwise.

To answer your question, it's in the supremacy clause, Article 6, Clause 2.

For the record, I don't personally believe that the Constitution really is the law of the land. But it does claim to be.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 10:54 PM
And the Constitution says that laws which do not persue from the Constitution are not laws.

Well, I think you're going to be disappointed. I think you would've been disappointed in a Ron Paul Presidency as well. He would've done what he had power to do, like bring all of our troops home from overseas. But he wouldn't have simply ignored every law that he didn't like or felt was unconstitutional.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:56 PM
Well, I think you're going to be disappointed. I think you would've been disappointed in a Ron Paul Presidency as well. He would've done what he had power to do, like bring all of our troops home from overseas. But he wouldn't have simply ignored every law that he didn't like or felt was unconstitutional.

Then he would have been in violation of his Oath if he did not at least make a good faith effort to obey it, and it would have been better had he never served.

CPUd
11-16-2014, 10:56 PM
Voters are not going to understand this philosophy, where laws are unconstitutional because someone other than the SCOTUS say so. They are beginning to embrace other ideas, but it may take a while for them to come around to this.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:57 PM
My goodness. Some people around here sure do take "Oaths to God" awful lightly. :(

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:58 PM
Voters are not going to understand this philosophy, where laws are unconstitutional because someone other than the SCOTUS say so. They are beginning to embrace other ideas, but it may take a while for them to come around to this.

The problem is that 'voters' are not involved in the Oath. That is between the individual and God ALONE.

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 10:58 PM
I don't know whether he'll enforce all of the laws or not, but that's what the Constitution requires. So it basically comes down to a question of whether the Constitution should be enforced, or whether these laws are so immoral that the Constitution should just be ignored.

If you are correct here, that proves two things IMO:

1. Supporting constitutionalism is utterly pointless. Even as an ancap I am annoyed by this conclusion, but if the constitution is really this useless, it should be lit aflame.

2. You'd literally be saying the President has to break the constitution to enforce the constitution. This makes no sense.

Mind you, you may be right, but if you are, the constitution is no more useful than a piece of crap.

I don't think there's any particular sin that disqualifies someone from being a Christian. No one is perfect. We as Christians are saved by grace by what Jesus did for us on the cross. You're promoting an extreme form of legalism. Basically you're suggesting that every President who doesn't entirely agree with your political views is going to hell.

I think every modern President is going to hell unless they repent. There, I said it.

The Bible says murderers and manstealers don't go to heaven.

Am I saying that a person cannot engage in an act that qualifies as such and still be saved? No. King David did.

Am I suggesting that a true Christian cannot habitually and continually live in such a lifestyle and go to heaven even while never repenting of years and years living in such a manner? Yeah, I think so, and I think limiting that to that is a VERY minimalist interpretation of the book of James.

Am I saying that not murdering and manstealing are prerequesites to salvation? No, I'm saying that not living such a lifestyle is an inevitable RESULT of being saved.

Am I saying that everyone who SUPPORTS government murder and manstealing are not Christians? No, I won't say that. Ignorance can be a valid mitigating factor. God looks at the heart. Its still no joke, and I'd have no moral qualms about churches excommunicating such.


Article 2 3 says no such thing. "all the laws on the books" is not in the Constitution, you just made that part up and claimed it was Constitutional. I expected better from you.
Really, the debate here is over whether the Constitution is worth anything.

Natural Citizen
11-16-2014, 10:59 PM
But I'm willing to strategize if someone can explain the long term goals.

None of these folks have a good enough grasp on the longterm itself. Much less goals. That's just a fact. Much of the strategy that we see comes with short term benefits but with long term failure. There are numerous examples of this all over the forum. Numerous. What that means is that we have folks who just lack a firm vision of scope all together. Of course, I'm saying this with regard to many of our elected ones. Junior is just in the mix, I suppose. Sanctioning Russia was a fine example of knee jerking without a vision of long term repercussion in exhange for short term benefit.

Now that may be considered off topic for the purpose of this thread but not really. Not in the scheme of it all.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 10:59 PM
Then he would have been in violation of his Oath if he did not at least make a good faith effort to obey it, and it would have been better had he never served.

Mind you, given Ron's record in Congress, i am 99.99999% certain that he would have made a good faith effort to obey the Constitution.

Shoot, he even advocated a winding down of SS and Medicaid. More controversial topics one cannot find.

So TC you are wrong that I would have been disappointed in a Ron paul Presidency.

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 11:00 PM
You take your faith more seriously than most, so maybe you can answer me. What do you think happens when you swear to God and then violate your oath?

I think its a serious sin against God. I don't think its impossible for a Christian to do such a thing, but I believe its a serious sin.

There is literally nothing in Rand's public profile that suggests he will do anything of the sort. For christ's sake, he's outwardly saying he agrees with the EPA and environmental regulations, going so far to call them good and necessary. To think he's going to govern as an anarchist - or even a moderately strict constitutionalist - is absurd beyond belief.

I don't think there's any way he will govern as an anarchist. "moderately strict constitutionalist" seems like a more reasonable standard. I'd love to see a thread on that particular point, actually. Would Rand stand up to the standard of "moderately strict constitutionalist" (however defined.)

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:02 PM
If you are correct here, that proves two things IMO:

1. Supporting constitutionalism is utterly pointless. Even as an ancap I am annoyed by this conclusion, but if the constitution is really this useless, it should be lit aflame.

2. You'd literally be saying the President has to break the constitution to enforce the constitution. This makes no sense.

Mind you, you may be right, but if you are, the constitution is no more useful than a piece of crap.

He is not right.


I think every modern President is going to hell unless they repent. There, I said it.

I certainly do not disagree with that.


The Bible says murderers and manstealers don't go to heaven.

Don't forget that Moses was a murderer.


Am I saying that a person cannot engage in an act that qualifies as such and still be saved? No. King David did.

Am I suggesting that a true Christian cannot habitually and continually live in such a lifestyle and go to heaven even while never repenting of years and years living in such a manner? Yeah, I think so, and I think limiting that to that is a VERY minimalist interpretation of the book of James.

Am I saying that not murdering and manstealing are prerequesites to salvation? No, I'm saying that not living such a lifestyle is an inevitable RESULT of being saved.

Am I saying that everyone who SUPPORTS government murder and manstealing are not Christians? No, I won't say that. Ignorance can be a valid mitigating factor. God looks at the heart. Its still no joke, and I'd have no moral qualms about churches excommunicating such.


Really, the debate here is over whether the Constitution is worth anything.

That may be another debate, but it is not the debate taking place in this thread.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 11:02 PM
:eek:

I...

I don't know what to say to that.

That demonstrates one of the most profound lack of understanding of the Constitution i have ever seen on RPFs.

the Necessary and proper Clause confers no new powers. Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?

Which is why I said technology doesn't create any new power.

Chester Copperpot
11-16-2014, 11:02 PM
Am I wrong about that?

ETA, I thought I was right. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_8:_Oath_or_affirmation

Arent these just synonymous terms? Youre saying somebody can call it an "affirmation" so it not an oath?

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 11:02 PM
Mind you, given Ron's record in Congress, i am 99.99999% certain that he would have made a good faith effort to obey the Constitution.

Shoot, he even advocated a winding down of SS and Medicaid. More controversial topics one cannot find.

So TC you are wrong that I would have been disappointed in a Ron paul Presidency.

See, technically, not cutting off funding immediately, no matter how many people would die, is a violation of the constitution, and taking your logic to its logical conclusion, would mean Ron Paul would have gone to hell had he been elected.

I'm really wrestling with this. Heck, I'm not even really wrestling with whether I'd push the magic red button that abolishes SS and medicare/medicaid immediately. I would. But I don't really expect anyone else to try that except me.

I guess the question is: is merely "trying" to uphold the oath good enough? Or is it a lie if you try and fail?

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:03 PM
I think its a serious sin against God. I don't think its impossible for a Christian to do such a thing, but I believe its a serious sin.

Good answer. I think the best answer is something like, "I don't know, but from what Jesus Christ said it's got to be really, REALLY bad."

CPUd
11-16-2014, 11:03 PM
The problem is that 'voters' are not involved in the Oath. That is between the individual and God ALONE.

Then what concern is it to us?

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 11:04 PM
Don't forget that Moses was a murderer.



#1- Moses' would qualify as a "one time act" as described before, not a lifestyle.

#2- I actually agree with Chuck Baldwin on this point. Moses did not commit moral murder. He committed an act that was legally considered murder, but was morally acceptable.



That may be another debate, but it is not the debate taking place in this thread.[/QUOTE]

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 11:04 PM
Good answer. I think the best answer is something like, "I don't know, but from what Jesus Christ said it's got to be really, REALLY bad."

I agree. I do think its possible for someone to do it and still go to heaven. However, I think anyone who does it and doesn't repent should be excommunicated from their church.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:05 PM
See, technically, not cutting off funding immediately, no matter how many people would die, is a violation of the constitution, and taking your logic to its logical conclusion, would mean Ron Paul would have gone to hell had he been elected.

No, no it's not. Ending social security overnight kills people. Ending social security over 20 years saves people. Either way social security is ended, and the Constitution is obeyed.


I'm really wrestling with this. Heck, I'm not even really wrestling with whether I'd push the magic red button that abolishes SS and medicare/medicaid immediately. I would. But I don't really expect anyone else to try that except me.

I guess the question is: is merely "trying" to uphold the oath good enough? Or is it a lie if you try and fail?

Yes, trying is good enough. It actually says so right in the Oath.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:05 PM
Shoot, he even advocated a winding down of SS and Medicaid. More controversial topics one cannot find.

So TC you are wrong that I would have been disappointed in a Ron paul Presidency.

Ron Paul would not have winded down SS and Medicaid unilaterally, which is what you're advocating. He believes in separation of powers.

Chester Copperpot
11-16-2014, 11:05 PM
A Ron Paul presidency would have been awesome to me.... He would have started shutting down complete departments overnight.. including the IRS...probably would have been the only time govt got smaller since Jackson shut down the central bank in 1836

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:06 PM
Then what concern is it to us?

We (are supposed to as Americans) elect people we believe will honor their Oath.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:07 PM
Ron Paul would not have winded down SS and Medicaid unilaterally, which is what you're advocating. He believes in separation of powers.

He also believes in obeying the Constitution and honoring his Oath. Unlike you, I do not believe that he would have just abandoned his 30 years of Constitutional obedience just because he was President.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:08 PM
Arent these just synonymous terms? Youre saying somebody can call it an "affirmation" so it not an oath?

No. The Constitution gives the option because they aren't synonyms. Oaths have to swear by something religious. Affirmations are just promises grounded in the person's own faithfulness.

Oath: I swear by such-and-such that I will do A.
Affirmation: I promise to do A.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:09 PM
Arent these just synonymous terms? Youre saying somebody can call it an "affirmation" so it not an oath?

They are not quite but almost synonymous. An Oath is a higher order commitment. It's like a covenant, where you basically agree to die if you disobey it. An affirmation basically means the same thing without the agreeing to die part.

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 11:11 PM
No, no it's not. Ending social security overnight kills people.

If we are moral absolutists, why does it matter? The results don't matter. Only the ethics behind the action itself. Stealing is wrong. Social security is funded by theft. Therefore, it should be cut off, immediately. Also, its unconstitutional and the oath is to uphold the constitution, including amendment ten, so there you go. This is literally the easiest issue in the world, constitutionally speaking. No politician, not even Ron Paul, got it right. Do I blame him for this? No, of course not. But I think its still a failure to follow the constitution, technically. The results don't matter.



Ending social security over 20 years saves people. Either way social security is ended, and the Constitution is obeyed.


20 years? Why not 200? Or 2,000? If a politician made that they intended to end SS in that timeframe, would you take them seriously? Mind you, "20" is objectively better since its only one generation, but I don't see how anything but immediate abolition is constituional.




Yes, trying is good enough. It actually says so right in the Oath.

Then, if Rand really believes he has to enforce unconstitutional laws, that could be seen as doing "the best he can." Mind you, I wouldn't really be interested in supporting him in that case.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:12 PM
He also believes in obeying the Constitution and honoring his Oath. Unlike you, I do not believe that he would have just abandoned his 30 years of Constitutional obedience just because he was President.

Good grief, he doesn't believe that the Constitution requires him to just ignore every law that he doesn't like. He wouldn't have acted like a dictator as President. This entire argument is just ridiculous. I regret even creating this thread.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:13 PM
Good grief, he doesn't believe that the Constitution requires him to just ignore every law that he doesn't like. He wouldn't have acted like a dictator as President. This entire argument is just ridiculous. I regret even creating this thread.

The crucial point isn't whether or not he likes the laws, it's whether or not they are constitutional.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:13 PM
Good grief, he doesn't believe that the Constitution requires him to just ignore every law that he doesn't like. He wouldn't have acted like a dictator as President. This entire argument is just ridiculous. I regret even creating this thread.

Obeying the Constitution is not acting like a dictator. That's absurd. You have raised that same argument previously, and it gets more absurd every time you say it.

Crashland
11-16-2014, 11:13 PM
They are not quite but almost synonymous. An Oath is a higher order commitment. It's like a covenant, where you basically agree to die if you disobey it. An affirmation basically means the same thing without the agreeing to die part.

Really? I really don't take the "If I'm lying then God strike me down right now!" line as a serious agreement to die if you disobey.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:14 PM
Obeying the Constitution is not acting like a dictator. That's absurd. You have raised that same argument previously, and it gets more absurd every time you say it.

Ignoring every law you don't like and ignoring Congress is absolutely acting like a dictator, and Ron Paul never believed in that. He believed in separation of powers and opposed a powerful executive branch.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 11:14 PM
My goodness. Some people around here sure do take "Oaths to God" awful lightly. :(

No, I think it's more that people don't believe that if they don't follow the Constitution to your personal liking then they are going to hell. Others disagree with strategy and the nature and structure of the Constitution itself.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:16 PM
Really? I really don't take the "If I'm lying then God strike me down right now!" line as a serious agreement to die if you disobey.

Then what does it mean?

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 11:17 PM
Ignoring every law you don't like and ignoring Congress is absolutely acting like a dictator, and Ron Paul never believed in that. He believed in separation of powers and opposed a powerful executive branch.

I see nothing wrong with ignoring unconstitutional laws, nor do I really see any dangers with the idea unless the President starts interfering with STATE laws.

No, I think it's more that people don't believe that if they don't follow the Constitution to your personal liking then they are going to hell. Others disagree with strategy and the nature and structure of the Constitution itself.

I think most Americans are "Christian" because of civic religion, and thus aren't really saved, and are thus going to Hell. One of the very easiest ways to prove that to me is to make one's life and legacy off murdering and manstealing. I'm not going quite as far as Gunny here regarding the particulars but I agree with the seriousness of the point.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:17 PM
Ignoring every law you don't like and ignoring Congress is absolutely acting like a dictator, and Ron Paul never believed in that. He believed in separation of powers and opposed a powerful executive branch.

Why do you keep changing what Gunny is saying? You keep saying "every law you don't like," rather than, "every law that violates the Constitution."

r3volution 3.0
11-16-2014, 11:17 PM
Of course he will.

Virtually everything the government does is unconstitutional. Dept. Defense, Dept. State, Dept. Treasury, the judiciary, the patent office, the post office, customs, the IRS - keep those and close down everything else. That's what it would mean to stop enforcing unconstitutional laws.

Obviously Rand would never do that, he'd be instantly impeached and we'd by hung by lynch mobs.

Crashland
11-16-2014, 11:18 PM
Then what does it mean?

It's an agreement to allow something to happen which you and everyone else knows won't happen, if you are lying.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:19 PM
I see nothing wrong with ignoring unconstitutional laws, nor do I really see any dangers with the idea unless the President starts interfering with STATE laws.

Well, guess what? You're going to end up with a progressive/socialist President who believes that the Constitution requires them to interfere in state laws. You're basically advocating giving unlimited powers to the President.

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 11:20 PM
The crucial point isn't whether or not he likes the laws, it's whether or not they are constitutional.

I'd actually ideally say that even constitutional bad laws should be ignored. Rand "should" pardon every single tax evader even though the income tax is "constitutional." Its a perfectly valid use of the pardoning power. The same pardons should be given to those who "murder" abortion doctors or who "murder" police when the officer committed the first act of aggression*, or any other crime in which the person in question did not violate NAP, regardless of the constitutional status of "the law."

Do I expect Rand to go that far? Heck no. Ron wouldn't have gone that far either. If Rand governs as a "moderately strict constructionist", as Feeding the Abscesses says he won't, I would be absolutely thrilled. There's a pretty big difference between what Rand, or even Ron, would actually do, and what is ideal. I'm fine with that as long as we're moving in the right direction, but its still a good thing to discuss.

Crashland
11-16-2014, 11:21 PM
Well, guess what? You're going to end up with a progressive/socialist President who believes that the Constitution requires them to interfere in state laws. You're basically advocating giving unlimited powers to the President.

I suppose it would be up to the Congress to impeach the president if he was thought to be exceeding his authority.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:22 PM
If we are moral absolutists, why does it matter? The results don't matter. Only the ethics behind the action itself. Stealing is wrong. Social security is funded by theft. Therefore, it should be cut off, immediately. Also, its unconstitutional and the oath is to uphold the constitution, including amendment ten, so there you go. This is literally the easiest issue in the world, constitutionally speaking. No politician, not even Ron Paul, got it right. Do I blame him for this? No, of course not. But I think its still a failure to follow the constitution, technically. The results don't matter.

It is also immoral to promise people that they will have support and then not support them, therefore you have to choose between immoral theft and immoral homicide by depraved indifference. As a moral absolutist, you still have to choose one thing that is bad or another thing that is bad, and if there is no third option then you have to judge the two choices before you.

If you try to end SS overnight it will be a disaster, some something (probably even worse) will replace it. Therefore by trying to end SS overnight you have in fact created a monstrosity 10x worse than SS. That would not be fulfilling your obligation to obey the Constitution.

If you legitimately want to obey the Constitution, and ending SS is required to obey the Constitution, then you have to end SS in a way that it stays ended. If that means ending it slowly, then that means ending it slowly.


20 years? Why not 200? Or 2,000? If a politician made that they intended to end SS in that timeframe, would you take them seriously? Mind you, "20" is objectively better since its only one generation, but I don't see how anything but immediate abolition is constituional.

Why not 20 minutes?

it's not about a number or a time span, it's about ending it in a way that it stays ended. if you end it instantly, it will not stay ended, so you just violated your Oath.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:22 PM
It's an agreement to allow something to happen which you and everyone else knows won't happen, if you are lying.

Some people say that.

But for others, who take swearing to God more seriously, the Constitution gives the option of making an affirmation, rather than an oath.

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 11:22 PM
Well, guess what? You're going to end up with a progressive/socialist President who believes that the Constitution requires them to interfere in state laws. You're basically advocating giving unlimited powers to the President.

I don't think issueing pardons and telling the Federal DOJ not to prosecute is "unlimited power." Presidents still can't make up their own laws (admittedly, my suggestion to pardon vigilantes comes close. You could make an argument that that would be impeachable, but I'd test it anyway. But then, I'm me. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I don't expect Rand to be one. I just expect him to be a constitutionalist.) I don't see how any of this lets a President do anything about state laws.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:22 PM
Of course he will.

Virtually everything the government does is unconstitutional. Dept. Defense, Dept. State, Dept. Treasury, the judiciary, the patent office, the post office, customs, the IRS - keep those and close down everything else. That's what it would mean to stop enforcing unconstitutional laws.

Obviously Rand would never do that, he'd be instantly impeached and we'd by hung by lynch mobs.

Yeah, good point. Maybe I should've been more specific and asked, "are there certain laws that Rand won't enforce as President?" Does Rand hate something like the Patriot Act so much that he won't enforce it? My point of view is basically that to refuse to enforce such a law is a violation of Article II Section 3, but to enforce such a law is also a violation of the principles of basic morality. So it seems like a dilemma.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:23 PM
Well, guess what? You're going to end up with a progressive/socialist President who believes that the Constitution requires them to interfere in state laws. You're basically advocating giving unlimited powers to the President.

Every time you make the argument that obeying the Constitution is equivalent to a President with unlimited authority, it become more absurd.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:23 PM
I'd actually ideally say that even constitutional bad laws should be ignored.

Absolutely.

For that matter, ideally the Constitution itself should be ignored entirely. But that might be off topic.

Crashland
11-16-2014, 11:23 PM
Some people say that.

But for others, who take swearing to God more seriously, the Constitution gives the option of making an affirmation, rather than an oath.

Interesting that those who take religious oaths the most seriously, and also those who take religious oaths the least seriously, might both be inclined to take the affirmation option as opposed to the oath.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:24 PM
Yeah, good point. Maybe I should've been more specific and asked, "are there certain laws that Rand won't enforce as President?" Does Rand hate something like the Patriot Act so much that he won't enforce it? My point of view is basically that to refuse to enforce such a law is a violation of Article II Section 3, but to enforce such a law is also a violation of the principles of basic morality. So it seems like a dilemma.

You have to ignore the Article 6 Supremacy Clause to posit that Article 2 requires the enforcement of unconstitutional laws.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:24 PM
I don't think issueing pardons and telling the Federal DOJ not to prosecute is "unlimited power." Presidents still can't make up their own laws (admittedly, my suggestion to pardon vigilantes comes close. You could make an argument that that would be impeachable, but I'd test it anyway. But then, I'm me. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I don't expect Rand to be one. I just expect him to be a constitutionalist.) I don't see how any of this lets a President do anything about state laws.

Of course the President has the power to pardon. I didn't suggest otherwise. I think as Taft Fan pointed out earlier, the President has the power not to prosecute when they don't have enough resources to prosecute everything. And most of the time they don't have enough resources to enforce all the laws.

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 11:24 PM
It is also immoral to promise people that they will have support and then not support them, therefore you have to choose between immoral theft and immoral homicide by depraved indifference. As a moral absolutist, you still have to choose one thing that is bad or another thing that is bad, and if there is no third option then you have to judge the two choices before you.

If you try to end SS overnight it will be a disaster, some something (probably even worse) will replace it. Therefore by trying to end SS overnight you have in fact created a monstrosity 10x worse than SS. That would not be fulfilling your obligation to obey the Constitution.

If you legitimately want to obey the Constitution, and ending SS is required to obey the Constitution, then you have to end SS in a way that it stays ended. If that means ending it slowly, then that means ending it slowly.



Why not 20 minutes?

it's not about a number or a time span, it's about ending it in a way that it stays ended. if you end it instantly, it will not stay ended, so you just violated your Oath.

I agree with the point you're making by any measure of pragmatism whatsoever. Ron's policy is wise and would work, while my policy is utterly stupid by any pragmatic metric. But by an objective standard of morality, I would not consider ending SS overnight to be "homicide by depraved indifference." Its not depraved in the slightest to say "yes, some people promised to steal money in order to feed and clothe you, but we aren't going to do that now." Mind you, I agree with you COMPLETELY about the pragmatic results. In fact, if I were to run for President on a constitutional minarchist platform, I'd try the same thing. But, from an absolute POV, I think the morally right thing to do is to end it immediately if at all possible, even if a lot of people die.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:25 PM
Every time you make the argument that obeying the Constitution is equivalent to a President with unlimited authority, it become more absurd.

Every time you make the argument that the President is the sole determiner of what is Constitutional and can simply ignore Congress and the Supreme Court, it becomes more absurd.

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 11:26 PM
Of course the President has the power to pardon. I didn't suggest otherwise. I think as Taft Fan pointed out earlier, the President has the power not to prosecute when they don't have enough resources to prosecute everything. And most of the time they don't have enough resources to enforce all the laws.

OK, than the solution here is obvious, constitutionally.

1. We are 17 trillion dollars in debt. We don't actually have the power to prosecute anything. So, the Feds should not prosecute anything. And, for those of you who fear "anarchy" if this happens, fear not. I am not saying that the state governments shouldn't prosecute anything, just the Federal government.

2. Pardon anyone who violates any law in which there is no victim.

Just by doing those things, if any President would have the balls to do it, we could go from an authoritarian democracy to a minarchy in a matter of days.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:26 PM
Why do you keep changing what Gunny is saying? You keep saying "every law you don't like," rather than, "every law that violates the Constitution."
I was letting that go, but it was irking me too lol.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 11:26 PM
You have to ignore the Article 6 Supremacy Clause to posit that Article 2 requires the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. And you might as well repeal Articles 1 and 3 so that the President can make determinations of what laws should be enforced or not.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:27 PM
Every time you make the argument that the President is the sole determiner of what is Constitutional and can simply ignore Congress and the Supreme Court, it becomes more absurd.

If you really believe that obeying the Constitution and honoring the Oath is absurd, then why are you even here?

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 11:27 PM
Every time you make the argument that the President is the sole determiner of what is Constitutional and can simply ignore Congress and the Supreme Court, it becomes more absurd.

It doesn't make POTUS the "sole" determiner. He can't invent new laws. Just ignore bad ones. At the end of the day, I think there's a moral duty to leave the innocent alone no matter what. If that's unconstitutional, fine. Accept the consequences later.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:27 PM
And you might as well repeal Articles 1 and 3 so that the President can make determinations of what laws should be enforced or not.

Repeal the Constitution to obey the Constitution? Is that you George Bush?

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:28 PM
Every time you make the argument that the President is the sole determiner of what is Constitutional and can simply ignore Congress and the Supreme Court, it becomes more absurd.

He's not the sole determiner. But when it's the Constitution versus Congress and the Supreme Court, don't you agree that the President's oath obligates him to follow the Constitution, in order to be a check against the other branches that are violating it?

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:28 PM
It doesn't make POTUS the "sole" determiner. He can't invent new laws. Just ignore bad ones. At the end of the day, I think there's a moral duty to leave the innocent alone no matter what. If that's unconstitutional, fine. Accept the consequences later.

It's NOT unconstitutional except in TC's and Taft's fevered imaginations.

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 11:28 PM
Repeal the Constitution to obey the Constitution? Is that you George Bush?

I guess I'm George Bush to, since I don't believe in "government." I like erowe1's alternate constitution better, it doesn't let the government do anything;)

Crashland
11-16-2014, 11:29 PM
The sticky point here is who gets to decide whether a law is constitutional. It's often a matter of interpretation. We all know how twisted that interpretation can be sometimes. So we have a president right now who does a whole lot of things that in his mind are constitutional.

Christian Liberty
11-16-2014, 11:29 PM
It's NOT unconstitutional except in TC's and Taft's fevered imaginations.

I agree.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 11:29 PM
Repeal the Constitution to obey the Constitution? Is that you George Bush?

Not making a suggestion, just taking what you say to it's logical conclusion.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:29 PM
And you might as well repeal Articles 1 and 3 so that the President can make determinations of what laws should be enforced or not.

That's not what he said. He said that the Constitution, not the President, is the determiner of what laws should be enforced or not. The president's duty is to follow the Constitution.

Similarly, if the President violates the Constitution, it is the duty of Congress, each member of which also swore to uphold the Constitution, to do what it can to uphold the Constitution notwithstanding the President's intent to do the opposite.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:30 PM
He's not the sole determiner. But when it's the Constitution versus Congress and the Supreme Court, don't you agree that the President's oath obligates him to follow the Constitution, in order to be a check against the other branches that are violating it?

The President has an oath to follow the Constitution, which means that he should veto every single bill that is unconstitutional. But he doesn't have the power to simply ignore every law that he personally feels is unconstitutional. He has the power to veto unconstitutional laws passed by Congress, not ignore them.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:30 PM
Every time you make the argument that the President is the sole determiner of what is Constitutional and can simply ignore Congress and the Supreme Court, it becomes more absurd.

And yes, EVERY individual who swears the Oath has an obligation to not do whatever they believe is unconstitutional. Otherwise they have just lied to God. Which is really bad.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:31 PM
The President has an oath to follow the Constitution, which means that he should veto every single bill that is unconstitutional. But he doesn't have the power to simply ignore every law that he personally feels is unconstitutional. He has the power to veto unconstitutional laws passed by Congress, not ignore them.

You have been directed to Article 6 half a dozen times in this thread. Have you bothered to read it?

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:32 PM
Not making a suggestion, just taking what you say to it's logical conclusion.

No, repealing the Constitution is not the logical conclusion of obeying the Constitution. Y'all have lost your ever-lovin minds.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:32 PM
The sticky point here is who gets to decide whether a law is constitutional. It's often a matter of interpretation. We all know how twisted that interpretation can be sometimes. So we have a president right now who does a whole lot of things that in his mind are constitutional.

Every person who takes that oath has a duty to interpret the Constitution honestly. They can't just defer to someone else who claims that the Constitution says something that, when they themselves read it, they honestly believe it says the opposite.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:32 PM
That's not what he said. He said that the Constitution, not the President, is the determiner of what laws should be enforced or not. The president's duty is to follow the Constitution.

Similarly, if the President violates the Constitution, it is the duty of Congress, each member of which also swore to uphold the Constitution, to do what it can to uphold the Constitution notwithstanding the President's intent to do the opposite.

This. time a million.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:32 PM
Every person who takes that oath has a duty to interpret the Constitution honestly. They can't just defer to someone else who claims that the Constitution says something that, when they themselves read it, they honestly believe it says the opposite.

This too.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:33 PM
And yes, EVERY individual who swears the Oath has an obligation to not do whatever they believe is unconstitutional. Otherwise they have just lied to God. Which is really bad.

Then if a President felt that Article II Section 3 of the Constitution compelled them to enforce all the laws on the books, they would just be honoring their oath of office by enforcing all of the laws.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:33 PM
The President has an oath to follow the Constitution, which means that he should veto every single bill that is unconstitutional. But he doesn't have the power to simply ignore every law that he personally feels is unconstitutional. He has the power to veto unconstitutional laws passed by Congress, not ignore them.

Does he have the power to pardon people who are convicted of breaking those laws?

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:34 PM
Does he have the power to pardon people who are convicted of breaking those laws?

Yes.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:35 PM
Really? I really don't take the "If I'm lying then God strike me down right now!" line as a serious agreement to die if you disobey.

That statement is really not an oath though.

Crashland
11-16-2014, 11:35 PM
Every person who takes that oath has a duty to interpret the Constitution honestly. They can't just defer to someone else who claims that the Constitution says something that, when they themselves read it, they honestly believe it says the opposite.

Whoa, dang. Stealing the lines right out of my brain, from the one person I least expected. +rep

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:36 PM
Then if a President felt that Article II Section 3 of the Constitution compelled them to enforce all the laws on the books, they would just be honoring their oath of office by enforcing all of the laws.

Right. But they would be wrong about what the Constitution says. If all the members of Congress took their oaths of office seriously, then they would impeach any president who enforced all the laws on the books on the grounds of his violating the Constitution.

You keep using the word "feels."

Why do you think Constitutionality is about feeling?

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 11:36 PM
No, repealing the Constitution is not the logical conclusion of obeying the Constitution. Y'all have lost your ever-lovin minds.

Once again, the issue is who does what. If you think the President should make the decision on which laws the country needs, then we might as well get rid of Congress and the courts.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:37 PM
If I were President, what I would do with something like federal drug laws is enforce the laws, but then immediately pardon anyone who was arrested as a result. It would then become such a waste of time and money to enforce the laws that Congress would have to agree to repeal the laws.

Crashland
11-16-2014, 11:38 PM
The vibe I am getting from Gunny and erowe and crew, is that the president has a duty to enforce only the laws that he honestly feels are constitutional. If that means ignoring laws that he feels are unconstitutional, then so be it, and the only checks on his interpretive power would be up to the Congress to impeach him, or the voters to vote him out of office.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:39 PM
Yes.

He can pardon those breakers of laws on the books? But he can't not prosecute them in the first place?

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:39 PM
Then if a President felt that Article II Section 3 of the Constitution compelled them to enforce all the laws on the books, they would just be honoring their oath of office by enforcing all of the laws.

Then that President needs to go back and read the Constitution. Particularly Article 6, which says that unconstitutional laws are not laws. This is why we are working to elect people who will obey the Constitution, and who actually understand it.

The Constitution is neither vague nor confusing. It is clear and direct. It does not say whatever the heck someone wants it to say, it says what it says, in black and white.

If a President believed what you believe about the Constitution, then it would be clear that that President does not understand the Constitution, and he should not be reelected, because he is not doing what he is required to do.

He may think that is a "good faith effort" so he would not be in violation of his oath, just ignorant and incompetent for the duties of President. In which case he should never have been President.

Crashland
11-16-2014, 11:40 PM
Right. But they would be wrong about what the Constitution says. If all the members of Congress took their oaths of office seriously, then they would impeach any president who enforced all the laws on the books on the grounds of his violating the Constitution.

You keep using the word "feels."

Why do you think Constitutionality is about feeling?

Because whether something is constitutional is usually not a black and white issue. It's usually an opinion of sorts

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:40 PM
He can pardon those breakers of laws on the books? But he can't not prosecute them in the first place?

Yes, that's correct. Unless Congress simply hasn't appropriated enough money for him to be able to enforce all the laws.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:42 PM
The vibe I am getting from Gunny and erowe and crew, is that the president has a duty to enforce only the laws that he honestly feels are constitutional. If that means ignoring laws that he feels are unconstitutional, then so be it, and the only checks on his interpretive power would be up to the Congress to impeach him, or the voters to vote him out of office.

Yes. I would also up the ante to only the laws that are moral. Just because the Constitution says that the president can steal, in reality he still can't. His duty in that case is not only to not enforce unconstitutional laws, but also to not enforce constitutional ones. He should pardon, and refuse to prosecute, everyone who does not pay their taxes, and not just income taxes, but every other kind of tax as well. And that's just one example.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:42 PM
Then that President needs to go back and read the Constitution. Particularly Article 6, which says that unconstitutional laws are not laws. This is why we are working to elect people who will obey the Constitution, and who actually understand it.

The Constitution is neither vague nor confusing. It is clear and direct. It does not say whatever the heck someone wants it to say, it says what it says, in black and white.

If a President believed what you believe about the Constitution, then it would be clear that that President does not understand the Constitution, and he should not be reelected, because he is not doing what he is required to do.

He may think that is a "good faith effort" so he would not be in violation of his oath, just ignorant and incompetent for the duties of President. In which case he should never have been President.

As TaftFan suggested, you might as well advocate abolishing Congress and the Supreme Court, given your views. The President can just ignore them and do what he wants to do, according to what you're saying.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 11:42 PM
Because whether something is constitutional is usually not a black and white issue. It's usually an opinion of sorts

SUCH as whether an Air Force is constitutional.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:42 PM
The vibe I am getting from Gunny and erowe and crew, is that the president has a duty to enforce only the laws that he honestly feels are constitutional. If that means ignoring laws that he feels are unconstitutional, then so be it, and the only checks on his interpretive power would be up to the Congress to impeach him, or the voters to vote him out of office.

Correct.

And unlike TC's argument that this would make him have unlimited authority, an obligation to NOT do things is a RESTRICTION on his authority.

Unlimited authority means DOING things he's not allowed to do. Limited authority means NOT doing things he's not allowed to do.

The Oath requires the President NOT do what he believes is unconstitutional. In other words, LIMITING his own authority.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:43 PM
Because whether something is constitutional is usually not a black and white issue. It's usually an opinion of sorts

I would say sometimes rather than usually.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:43 PM
As TaftFan suggested, you might as well advocate abolishing Congress and the Supreme Court, given your views. The President can just ignore them and do what he wants to do, according to what you're saying.

Because obeying the Constitution means abolishing Congress. :rolleyes:

Do you even read the words you type?

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:44 PM
SUCH as whether an Air Force is constitutional.

Show me in the Constitution where it authorizes an Air Force. Chapter and verse please.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:44 PM
As TaftFan suggested, you might as well advocate abolishing Congress and the Supreme Court, given your views. The President can just ignore them and do what he wants to do, according to what you're saying.

There you go again.

What Gunny has been saying has not been about what the president wants but about whether or not something is unconstitutional.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:46 PM
Correct.

And unlike TC's argument that this would make him have unlimited authority, an obligation to NOT do things is a RESTRICTION on his authority.

Unlimited authority means DOING things he's not allowed to do. Limited authority means NOT doing things he's not allowed to do.

The Oath requires the President NOT do what he believes is unconstitutional. In other words, LIMITING his own authority.

Then you get a President who believes that the Constitution requires that everyone has the right to free health care, free cars, free housing, and the President issues an executive order giving everyone all those things. After all, if that President really feels the Constitution says that, then they must uphold their oath of office. I don't see why you can't see that the view that you're advocating is extremely dangerous, that you're essentially just giving the President unlimited authority to do whatever he wants to do. You're promoting a dictatorship, whether you want to admit it or not.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 11:46 PM
Show me in the Constitution where it authorizes an Air Force. Chapter and verse please.

The necessary and proper clause. Airplanes are equipment and a natural extension of the power to raise and maintain armies. The Air Force is an army that uses the air.

Using your logic, we need to pass a constitutional amendment for machine guns and tanks.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:46 PM
Once again, the issue is who does what. If you think the President should make the decision on which laws the country needs, then we might as well get rid of Congress and the courts.

Why do you and TC insist on shoving your words into my mouth?

PTOOY!

I am not obligated to think inside of your box.

Crashland
11-16-2014, 11:46 PM
The vibe I am getting from Gunny and erowe and crew, is that the president has a duty to enforce only the laws that he honestly feels are constitutional. If that means ignoring laws that he feels are unconstitutional, then so be it, and the only checks on his interpretive power would be up to the Congress to impeach him, or the voters to vote him out of office.


Correct.

And unlike TC's argument that this would make him have unlimited authority, an obligation to NOT do things is a RESTRICTION on his authority.

Unlimited authority means DOING things he's not allowed to do. Limited authority means NOT doing things he's not allowed to do.

The Oath requires the President NOT do what he believes is unconstitutional. In other words, LIMITING his own authority.


That's very interesting, although it would be quite a political risk in the current environment with the congress being so radically different. You don't want to end up getting impeached on the second day in office for truly following your heart in everything you do.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:47 PM
There you go again.

What Gunny has been saying has not been about what the president wants but about whether or not something is unconstitutional.

You're in favor of giving the President the sole power to determine whether or not something is unconstitutional. That means that Congress and the Supreme Court would be completely irrelevant. Power wouldn't be divided up equally. The President would have all the power.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:48 PM
You're in favor of giving the President the sole power to determine whether or not something is unconstitutional.

That's the opposite of what I said.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:49 PM
The necessary and proper clause. Airplanes are equipment and a natural extension of the power to raise and maintain armies. The Air Force is an army that uses the air.

Using your logic, we need to pass a constitutional amendment for machine guns and tanks.

Again, I said before, the necessary and proper clause does not confer any new powers.

You are making a progressive liberal argument with the Necessary and proper Clause.

the Necessary and Proper clause ONLY grants those powers necessary and proper to fulfill the enumerated obligations in Article 1 section 8.

I will ask again, like I did the last time you said that nonsense, have you even read the Federalist Papers?

The people who WROTE the Constitution call your interpretation of the necessary and proper clause wrong.

Who should I believe, you, or the people who WROTE the Constitution?

Crashland
11-16-2014, 11:49 PM
Yes. I would also up the ante to only the laws that are moral. Just because the Constitution says that the president can steal, in reality he still can't. His duty in that case is not only to not enforce unconstitutional laws, but also to not enforce constitutional ones. He should pardon, and refuse to prosecute, everyone who does not pay their taxes, and not just income taxes, but every other kind of tax as well. And that's just one example.

That would be very noble of the president, but if only allowing the laws that in his mind are moral means failing to enforce the constitution or doing something unconstitutional, then there is no recourse for the president getting the boot.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:49 PM
That's the opposite of what I said.

:rolleyes:

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:49 PM
That's the opposite of what I said.

It has to be cognitive dissonance. TC and Taft are both heavily distorting what we are saying, and it's quite annoying.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 11:49 PM
There you go again.

What Gunny has been saying has not been about what the president wants but about whether or not something is unconstitutional.

And in this hypothetical case, whether a law is constitutional is what the president wants. But the president may or may not be correct.
The Founders were against kings and that is why they viewed the legislative branch and closest to the people and the most important.

I posit that enforcing laws as Congress passes, constitutional are not, is part of the job description of the president. Enforcing such laws is not unconstitutional because the president did not pass them.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:51 PM
And in this hypothetical case, whether a law is constitutional is what the president wants. But the president may or may not be correct.
The Founders were against kings and that is why they viewed the legislative branch and closest to the people and the most important.

I posit that enforcing laws as Congress passes, constitutional are not, is part of the job description of the president. Enforcing such laws is not unconstitutional because the president did not pass them.

NOT doing something is a lot different than DOING something.

Unlimited authority is doing whatever you want. Limited authority is not doing what you believe is wrong.

You aren't a dictator for NOT doing something lmao. you are a dictator for DOING something.

Crashland
11-16-2014, 11:51 PM
Then you get a President who believes that the Constitution requires that everyone has the right to free health care, free cars, free housing, and the President issues an executive order giving everyone all those things. After all, if that President really feels the Constitution says that, then they must uphold their oath of office. I don't see why you can't see that the view that you're advocating is extremely dangerous, that you're essentially just giving the President unlimited authority to do whatever he wants to do. You're promoting a dictatorship, whether you want to admit it or not.

Then the president might get impeached and kicked out. That's the check and balance on his authority. Or at least, that's the argument I'm hearing.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:51 PM
That would be very noble of the president, but if only allowing the laws that in his mind are moral means failing to enforce the constitution or doing something unconstitutional, then there is no recourse for the president getting the boot.

I agree. But if he did what I just said, he'd be able to do irreparable harm to the regime in the time he had before getting the boot.

Granted, there are much faster ways of getting rid of presidents outside the legal channels.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:52 PM
The President has the authority under the Constitution to veto unconstitutional laws. He does not have the authority to simply ignore laws. The Constitution is absolutely clear that he has to enforce the laws that have been passed. I've suggested that he could lessen the negative affects of these laws by using his pardon power broadly, which would be a Constitutional option.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:53 PM
And in this hypothetical case, whether a law is constitutional is what the president wants. But the president may or may not be correct.
The Founders were against kings and that is why they viewed the legislative branch and closest to the people and the most important.

I posit that enforcing laws as Congress passes, constitutional are not, is part of the job description of the president. Enforcing such laws is not unconstitutional because the president did not pass them.

Don't bring the founders into this like they'd take your side. Everything Gunny's saying is the same thing they said. That was part of the propaganda they used to sell the Constitution.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 11:53 PM
Again, I said before, the necessary and proper clause does not confer any new powers.

You are making a progressive liberal argument with the Necessary and proper Clause.

the Necessary and Proper clause ONLY grants those powers necessary and proper to fulfill the enumerated obligations in Article 1 section 8.

I will ask again, like I did the last time you said that nonsense, have you even read the Federalist Papers?

The people who WROTE the Constitution call your interpretation of the necessary and proper clause wrong.

Who should I believe, you, or the people who WROTE the Constitution?

I don't believe allowing for new technologies creates any new power, as I stated. Similarly, new technologies (and ideas) are also protected under the Bill of Rights. The internet is still under free speech. Mormonism falls under freedom of religion. Rifles fall under the second amendment.

You seem to wish the necessary and proper clause didn't exist. Sorry. It does.

Again, using your arguments, we need amendments for tanks and machine guns. Airplanes are a technology just like those two things.

And yes, I have read the Federalist Papers.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:53 PM
Then you get a President who believes that the Constitution requires that everyone has the right to free health care, free cars, free housing, and the President issues an executive order giving everyone all those things. After all, if that President really feels the Constitution says that, then they must uphold their oath of office. I don't see why you can't see that the view that you're advocating is extremely dangerous, that you're essentially just giving the President unlimited authority to do whatever he wants to do. You're promoting a dictatorship, whether you want to admit it or not.

How in the ever-loving world is NOT doing something dictatorial? Is this Newspeak you are writing? Because it seems awfully Orwellian to me.

You have to violate the Constitution and if you don't you are a dictator?

Seriously, that's one of the craziest things I've ever heard.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:54 PM
Then the president might get impeached and kicked out. That's the check and balance on his authority. Or at least, that's the argument I'm hearing.

What if you had a President who believed that the Constitution doesn't actually give impeachment powers to Congress? Then he would just choose to stay in office even if Congress voted to impeach him.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:54 PM
The President has the authority under the Constitution to veto unconstitutional laws. He does not have the authority to simply ignore laws.
He does if they're unconstitutional.


The Constitution is absolutely clear that he has to enforce the laws that have been passed.
Only the constitutional ones. This is according to the Constitution itself.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:54 PM
The President has the authority under the Constitution to veto unconstitutional laws. He does not have the authority to simply ignore laws. The Constitution is absolutely clear that he has to enforce the laws that have been passed. I've suggested that he could lessen the negative affects of these laws by using his pardon power broadly, which would be a Constitutional option.

The President has the obligation to ignore unconstitutional laws. Otherwise he is in violation of Article 6 and his oath.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:55 PM
He does if they're unconstitutional.


Only the constitutional ones. This is according to the Constitution itself.

Correct. The Constitution itself says this, which TC keeps conveniently ignoring.

TaftFan
11-16-2014, 11:55 PM
The President has the authority under the Constitution to veto unconstitutional laws. He does not have the authority to simply ignore laws. The Constitution is absolutely clear that he has to enforce the laws that have been passed. I've suggested that he could lessen the negative affects of these laws by using his pardon power broadly, which would be a Constitutional option.

Excellent points. Why have the veto power if one can simply ignore the laws? Same thing with the pardoning power.

The structure of the Constitution proves Gunny and erowe to be incorrect. It reminds me of those who argue that Congress can do what it wants, despite the fact that the Founders included a set of limited powers. The logic doesn't work.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:56 PM
What if you had a President who believed that the Constitution doesn't actually give impeachment powers to Congress? Then he would just choose to stay in office even if Congress voted to impeach him.

Then Congress would send the DC police in to haul the guy off. Problem solved.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:56 PM
The President has the obligation to ignore unconstitutional laws. Otherwise he is in violation of Article 6 and his oath.

Then you're basically saying that a President would have to shut down 80% of the federal government on day 1 in order to honor his oath. I've literally never heard anyone promote such a view. It's just absurd.

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:56 PM
Excellent points. Why have the veto power if one can simply ignore the laws? Same thing with the pardoning power.

Have you even read the Constitution?

GunnyFreedom
11-16-2014, 11:57 PM
Then you're basically saying that a President would have to shut down 80% of the federal government on day 1 in order to honor his oath. I've literally never heard anyone promote such a view. It's just absurd.

Uhh, no. I've addressed this ridiculous point several times in this thread. Try again. This time with integrity.

Brett85
11-16-2014, 11:58 PM
Then Congress would send the DC police in to haul the guy off. Problem solved.

Why would you want to haul him off simply because he did what he thought he had to do to uphold his interpretation of the Constitution?

Crashland
11-16-2014, 11:58 PM
The President has the obligation to ignore unconstitutional laws. Otherwise he is in violation of Article 6 and his oath.

You keep saying this though, as if everyone can just look it up in the constitution and be in agreement that law x is constitutional and law y is unconstitutional. I would like to hear a response to TC's worst-case scenario where some crazy person is elected to become the President, and he starts not enforcing constitutional laws, and enforcing unconstitutional ones.

erowe1
11-16-2014, 11:59 PM
Why have the veto power if one can simply ignore the laws?

The president can veto any law for any reason.

But the duty not to enforce unconstitutional laws is specifically for unconstitutional laws, since they aren't really laws. Besides, if they were already passed and signed by previous presidents, then vetoing them is not possible.

fr33
11-17-2014, 12:01 AM
http://ericpetersautos.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Libertarian-leade-2.jpg

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:01 AM
I don't believe allowing for new technologies creates any new power, as I stated. Similarly, new technologies (and ideas) are also protected under the Bill of Rights. The internet is still under free speech. Mormonism falls under freedom of religion. Rifles fall under the second amendment.

You seem to wish the necessary and proper clause didn't exist. Sorry. It does.

You seem to have a problem reading basic English. The Necessary and Proper Clause confers no new powers, it simply enables the Congress to carry out the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8. The Necessary and Proper Clause is in the Constitution and it means what it actually SAYS, not whatever the hell you WANT it to say lmao!

I will ask a third time, have you ever read the federalist papers? because the people who actually WROTE the Constitution call your interpretation dead wrong.


Again, using your arguments, we need amendments for tanks and machine guns. Airplanes are a technology just like those two things.

LMAO, no. We do not need to Amend the Constitution to have an Army. :rolleyes: The US Constitution already allows for an Army.


And yes, I have read the Federalist Papers.

The you clearly need to read them again, because they vehemently disagree with you.

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:02 AM
Why would you want to haul him off simply because he did what he thought he had to do to uphold his interpretation of the Constitution?

Because Congress has the power to impeach. The President doesn't have to like it, it just is.

TaftFan
11-17-2014, 12:03 AM
The Air Force is an army! (facepalm!)

Crashland
11-17-2014, 12:06 AM
The Air Force is an army! (facepalm!)

I agree with this assessment. The only difference between the two is that an army operates on land, and an air force operates over land. We don't need a constitutional amendment to have armies dig tunnels and operate under land, so why do we need an amendment to have armies operate over land?

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:11 AM
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa33.htm


THE residue of the argument against the provisions of the Constitution in respect to taxation is ingrafted upon the following clause. The last clause of the eighth section of the first article of the plan under consideration authorizes the national legislature "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers by that Constitution vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof"; and the second clause of the sixth article declares, "that the Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made by their authority shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

These two clauses have been the source of much virulent invective and petulant declamation against the proposed Constitution. They have been held up to the people in all the exaggerated colors of misrepresentation as the pernicious engines by which their local governments were to be destroyed and their liberties exterminated; as the hideous monster whose devouring jaws would spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane; and yet, strange as it may appear, after all this clamor, to those who may not have happened to contemplate them in the same light, it may be affirmed with perfect confidence that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same, if these clauses were entirely obliterated, as if they were repeated in every article. They are only declaratory of a truth which would have resulted by necessary and unavoidable implication from the very act of constituting a federal government, and vesting it with certain specified powers. This is so clear a proposition, that moderation itself can scarcely listen to the railings which have been so copiously vented against this part of the plan, without emotions that disturb its equanimity.

What is a power, but the ability or faculty of doing a thing? What is the ability to do a thing, but the power of employing the means necessary to its execution? What is a LEGISLATIVE power, but a power of making LAWS? What are the means to execute a LEGISLATIVE power but LAWS? What is the power of laying and collecting taxes, but a legislative power, or a power of making laws, to lay and collect taxes? What are the proper means of executing such a power, but necessary and proper laws?

This simple train of inquiry furnishes us at once with a test by which to judge of the true nature of the clause complained of. It conducts us to this palpable truth, that a power to lay and collect taxes must be a power to pass all laws necessary and proper for the execution of that power; and what does the unfortunate and culumniated provision in question do more than declare the same truth, to wit, that the national legislature, to whom the power of laying and collecting taxes had been previously given, might, in the execution of that power, pass all laws necessary and proper to carry it into effect? I have applied these observations thus particularly to the power of taxation, because it is the immediate subject under consideration, and because it is the most important of the authorities proposed to be conferred upon the Union. But the same process will lead to the same result, in relation to all other powers declared in the Constitution. And it is expressly to execute these powers that the sweeping clause, as it has been affectedly called, authorizes the national legislature to pass all necessary and proper laws. If there is any thing exceptionable, it must be sought for in the specific powers upon which this general declaration is predicated. The declaration itself, though it may be chargeable with tautology or redundancy, is at least perfectly harmless.

But SUSPICION may ask, Why then was it introduced? The answer is, that it could only have been done for greater caution, and to guard against all cavilling refinements in those who might hereafter feel a disposition to curtail and evade the legitimate authorities of the Union. The Convention probably foresaw, what it has been a principal aim of these papers to inculcate, that the danger which most threatens our political welfare is that the State governments will finally sap the foundations of the Union; and might therefore think it necessary, in so cardinal a point, to leave nothing to construction. Whatever may have been the inducement to it, the wisdom of the precaution is evident from the cry which has been raised against it; as that very cry betrays a disposition to question the great and essential truth which it is manifestly the object of that provision to declare.

But it may be again asked, Who is to judge of the necessity and propriety of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union? I answer, first, that this question arises as well and as fully upon the simple grant of those powers as upon the declaratory clause; and I answer, in the second place, that the national government, like every other, must judge, in the first instance, of the proper exercise of its powers, and its constituents in the last. If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded. Suppose, by some forced constructions of its authority (which, indeed, cannot easily be imagined), the Federal legislature should attempt to vary the law of descent in any State, would it not be evident that, in making such an attempt, it had exceeded its jurisdiction, and infringed upon that of the State? Suppose, again, that upon the pretense of an interference with its revenues, it should undertake to abrogate a land tax imposed by the authority of a State; would it not be equally evident that this was an invasion of that concurrent jurisdiction in respect to this species of tax, which its Constitution plainly supposes to exist in the State governments? If there ever should be a doubt on this head, the credit of it will be entirely due to those reasoners who, in the imprudent zeal of their animosity to the plan of the convention, have labored to envelop it in a cloud calculated to obscure the plainest and simplest truths.

But it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land. But what inference can be drawn from this, or what would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to nothing. A LAW, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe. This results from every political association. If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a government, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed.

Though a law, therefore, laying a tax for the use of the United States would be supreme in its nature, and could not legally be opposed or controlled, yet a law for abrogating or preventing the collection of a tax laid by the authority of the State, (unless upon imports and exports), would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution. As far as an improper accumulation of taxes on the same object might tend to render the collection difficult or precarious, this would be a mutual inconvenience, not arising from a superiority or defect of power on either side, but from an injudicious exercise of power by one or the other, in a manner equally disadvantageous to both. It is to be hoped and presumed, however, that mutual interest would dictate a concert in this respect which would avoid any material inconvenience. The inference from the whole is, that the individual States would, under the proposed Constitution, retain an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise revenue to any extent of which they may stand in need, by every kind of taxation, except duties on imports and exports. It will be shown in the next paper that this concurrent jurisdiction in the article of taxation was the only admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this branch of power, of the State authority to that of the Union.

PUBLIUS

The Necessary and Proper clause only allows those laws to be passed that are necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8.

The Necessary and Proper Clause confers no new powers, whether you want it to or not.

Even ALEXANDER HAMILTON, big government royalist that he was, said this.

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:13 AM
The Air Force is an army! (facepalm!)

The Air Force would disagree with you. Vehemently.

You could just as easily have said "The Navy is an Army!" and stuck the section in the Constitution authorizing a Navy.

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:13 AM
I agree with this assessment. The only difference between the two is that an army operates on land, and an air force operates over land. We don't need a constitutional amendment to have armies dig tunnels and operate under land, so why do we need an amendment to have armies operate over land?

Is the Navy an Army that operates on the water?

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:14 AM
If the Navy is just a water-Army, then why bother addressing a Navy in the Constitution?

Maybe the Army is just a land-Navy?

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:17 AM
Traditional Conservative and TaftFan, you two really need this. I am being dead serious, and I am not trying to be a smart ass. You two are demonstrating an extreme lack of understanding of the US Constitution. This will help:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp-48d_jSb4

TaftFan
11-17-2014, 12:26 AM
The Air Force would disagree with you. Vehemently.

You could just as easily have said "The Navy is an Army!" and stuck the section in the Constitution authorizing a Navy.

The only practical distinction made is that the army is limited to two year authorizations at a time. Again, the necessary and proper clause was put in place to allow for new technologies and information which furthered the enumerated powers.

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:28 AM
The only practical distinction made is that the army is limited to two year authorizations at a time. Again, the necessary and proper clause was put in place to allow for new technologies and information which furthered the enumerated powers.
The Army Air Corps was Constitutional. The US Air Force is not. Until we can amend the Constitution to authorize a US Air Force, it needs to remain a part of the Department of the Army. The Necessary and Proper Clause confers no new powers.

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:31 AM
Tom Woods discusses the Necessary and Proper Clause:

http://library.mises.org/media/The%20Politically%20Incorrect%20Guide%20to%20Ameri can%20History%20Lecture%20Series/The%20Constitution%20Four%20Disputed%20Clauses%20T homas%20E%20Woods,%20Jr.mp3

Crashland
11-17-2014, 12:32 AM
The Army Air Corps was Constitutional. The US Air Force is not. Until we can amend the Constitution to authorize a US Air Force, it needs to remain a part of the Department of the Army. The Necessary and Proper Clause confers no new powers.

Isn't that just a technicality whether or not it is independent of the Army? All you would have to do is take the Army, change its internal structure so that it is divided into two command chains, and then rename one of the divisions to "US Air Force".

TaftFan
11-17-2014, 12:35 AM
Traditional Conservative and TaftFan, you two really need this. I am being dead serious, and I am not trying to be a smart ass. You two are demonstrating an extreme lack of understanding of the US Constitution. This will help:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp-48d_jSb4
I actually have it bookmarked.

I have seen nowhere in the Federalist Papers, which you continue to cite, that agrees with your view about vast presidential discretion when it comes to enforcing laws (yes, I am aware you don't consider them laws). You might as well call it executive review. It has much less grounding than judicial review, which I am skeptical of. The Founders feared a powerful executive the most, a powerful judiciary second, and a power legislative branch last.

TaftFan
11-17-2014, 12:36 AM
The Army Air Corps was Constitutional. The US Air Force is not. Until we can amend the Constitution to authorize a US Air Force, it needs to remain a part of the Department of the Army. The Necessary and Proper Clause confers no new powers.

The Constitution doesn't specify which and how many powers there should be to carry out the enumerated powers.

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:37 AM
Tom Woods discusses the Necessary and Proper Clause:

http://library.mises.org/media/The%20Politically%20Incorrect%20Guide%20to%20Ameri can%20History%20Lecture%20Series/The%20Constitution%20Four%20Disputed%20Clauses%20T homas%20E%20Woods,%20Jr.mp3

Go to 27:30 in the above MP3 for Tom Wood's treatment of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:39 AM
The Constitution doesn't specify which and how many powers there should be to carry out the enumerated powers.
Nobody on these forums claimed that it does. Stop putting your words into my mouth,

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:40 AM
Isn't that just a technicality whether or not it is independent of the Army? All you would have to do is take the Army, change its internal structure so that it is divided into two command chains, and then rename one of the divisions to "US Air Force".

It may be technical, but it affects budgeting, so it's also pertinent.

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:40 AM
I actually have it bookmarked.

I have seen nowhere in the Federalist Papers, which you continue to cite, that agrees with your view about vast presidential discretion when it comes to enforcing laws (yes, I am aware you don't consider them laws). You might as well call it executive review. It has much less grounding than judicial review, which I am skeptical of. The Founders feared a powerful executive the most, a powerful judiciary second, and a power legislative branch last.

Well, if you have it bookmarked, then clearly it's time to watch it again, because you are way, way off on the Constitution.

TaftFan
11-17-2014, 12:42 AM
Nobody on these forums claimed that it does. Stop putting your words into my mouth,I actually meant to write departments instead of powers. Whoops.

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:43 AM
I actually have it bookmarked.

I have seen nowhere in the Federalist Papers, which you continue to cite, that agrees with your view about vast presidential discretion when it comes to enforcing laws (yes, I am aware you don't consider them laws). You might as well call it executive review. It has much less grounding than judicial review, which I am skeptical of. The Founders feared a powerful executive the most, a powerful judiciary second, and a power legislative branch last.

And once again, you can stop putting your words into my mouth thankyouverymuch. Nobody is talking about "vast presidential discretion." I am saying "don't violate the Constitution." The two statements are not synonymous.

If you and TC have to shove your words into my mouth to make your points, then you probably need to reexamine the points you are trying to make.

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:44 AM
I actually meant to write departments instead of powers. Whoops.

That makes even less sense. The Constitution authorizes an Army and a Navy, therefore presto-change-o it auto-magically authorizes an Air Force?

TaftFan
11-17-2014, 12:52 AM
And once again, you can stop putting your words into my mouth thankyouverymuch. Nobody is talking about "vast presidential discretion." I am saying "don't violate the Constitution." The two statements are not synonymous.

If you and TC have to shove your words into my mouth to make your points, then you probably need to reexamine the points you are trying to make.

You are saying "don't violate the Constitution" as if everyone agrees on what violates the Constitution. Even those who agree with you may disagree with your methods. So in the end, in the hands of one individual, the discretion is incredibly vast.

Literally all of your arguments can be applied to the courts and judicial review, which I believe you oppose.

I believe Congress should have the most discretion determining what is constitutional.

Of course, one could argue that every branch (and everyone who takes an oath) should each decide what is constitutional, but that would disrupt the whole system. Department heads opposing presidents. Higher courts vs. lower courts. Congress vs. the Senate. Branches fighting other branches. At some point, there has to be some consensus.

Feeding the Abscess
11-17-2014, 12:53 AM
Show me in the Constitution where it authorizes an Air Force. Chapter and verse please.

It's right next to the authorization for quarantines.

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 12:56 AM
It's right next to the authorization for quarantines.

The power to regulate commerce with foreign nations actually IS in the Constitution.

Christian Liberty
11-17-2014, 12:56 AM
Then you're basically saying that a President would have to shut down 80% of the federal government on day 1 in order to honor his oath. I've literally never heard anyone promote such a view. It's just absurd.


Uhh, no. I've addressed this ridiculous point several times in this thread. Try again. This time with integrity.

Am I the only one who would be totally for that, if it were possible? Abolishing 80% of the government on day 1 would be incredible.

All this thread is showing me is how worthless politics is. I am seriously reconsidering my support for Rand. If Rand can't even figure out that the Federal government shouldn't enforce drug laws, what's the point?

TaftFan
11-17-2014, 12:57 AM
That makes even less sense. The Constitution authorizes an Army and a Navy, therefore presto-change-o it auto-magically authorizes an Air Force?

I am discussing departments. Nothing says the Army and Navy must be or can't be in one department together. Nothing says the Army and Navy must be or can't be in two departments separately. How exactly the executive branch is structured in regards to carrying out the enumerated powers is left to congressional discretion.

The discussion of whether the Air force has to be under the Army or independent is a matter of semantics and something the constitution doesn't specify one way or the other. And I don't want to go back and explain why new technologies and information are allowed by the N&P clause. Absolutely nothing Woods said contradicted my point. Constitutional originalists have had discussions on this and no serious one believes having an Air Force is unconstitutional. It betrays common sense to think so.

Feeding the Abscess
11-17-2014, 12:59 AM
The power to regulate commerce with foreign nations actually IS in the Constitution.

The framers used regulate to mean something very different from restricting trade and travel. If you're going to hammer TaftFan for liberal progressive interpretation of the constitution, get your own outlook in order. There's little worthwhile point in criticizing someone else when you do the same thing.

Christian Liberty
11-17-2014, 01:00 AM
The framers used regulate to mean something very different from restricting trade and travel. If you're going to hammer TaftFan for liberal progressive interpretation of the constitution, get your own outlook in order. There's little worthwhile point in criticizing someone else when you do the same thing.

Other than possibly you, everyone in this thread is "progressive" compared to me. I am perfectly OK with the conclusion that 80% of government be abolished literally overnight;)

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 01:03 AM
You are saying "don't violate the Constitution" as if everyone agrees on what violates the Constitution.

I have never in my life claimed that everyone agrees on what violates the Constitution.


Even those who agree with you may disagree with your methods. So in the end, in the hands of one individual, the discretion is incredibly vast.

Literally all of your arguments can be applied to the courts and judicial review, which I believe you oppose.

You seem to be confused as to the difference between positive action, doing something, and negative action, refusing to do something.

Refusing to do something is the opposite of unlimited authority.

Judicial Review is a positive action, a claim of authority that can lead to tyranny.

Refusing to do what is not Constitutional is the opposite is a claim to authority.


I believe Congress should have the most discretion determining what is constitutional.

Taking Article 6 and the oath together obligates an office holder to not do whatever they personally feel is unconstitutional, whether they are President, Judge, or Dog Catcher.


Of course, one could argue that every branch (and everyone who takes an oath) should each decide what is constitutional, but that would disrupt the whole system.

No, it would only disrupt tyrannical claims to unconstitutional authority, which thing OUGHT to be disrupted.


Department heads opposing presidents. Higher courts vs. lower courts. Congress vs. the Senate. Branches fighting other branches. At some point, there has to be some consensus.

You appear to be conflating 'not-doing something' with 'doing something.' If I were advocating the officer DO something you might have a point, but i am not. I am saying that they are obligated to NOT do anything they believe is unconstitutional.

there is a really big difference between doing things and not doing things.

TaftFan
11-17-2014, 01:04 AM
The framers used regulate to mean something very different from restricting trade and travel. If you're going to hammer TaftFan for liberal progressive interpretation of the constitution, get your own outlook in order. There's little worthwhile point in criticizing someone else when you do the same thing.
Thank you. Quarantines are far more of a stretch than an Air Force. They have nothing to do with new technology or information, and they completely different from economic commerce.

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 01:11 AM
The framers used regulate to mean something very different from restricting trade and travel. If you're going to hammer TaftFan for liberal progressive interpretation of the constitution, get your own outlook in order. There's little worthwhile point in criticizing someone else when you do the same thing.

"Commerce" has always included travel. I am going by what it actually SAYS, not by what I WANT it to say. :rolleyes:

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 01:20 AM
Thank you. Quarantines are far more of a stretch than an Air Force. They have nothing to do with new technology or information, and they completely different from economic commerce.

"Commerce" has always included the movement of people and goods. "Travel" meant something different in ~1760.

Feeding the Abscess
11-17-2014, 01:21 AM
"Commerce" has always included travel. I am going by what it actually SAYS, not by what I WANT it to say. :rolleyes:

Tell that to yourself. From this very thread, no less:


Again, I said before, the necessary and proper clause does not confer any new powers.

You are making a progressive liberal argument with the Necessary and proper Clause.

the Necessary and Proper clause ONLY grants those powers necessary and proper to fulfill the enumerated obligations in Article 1 section 8.

I will ask again, like I did the last time you said that nonsense, have you even read the Federalist Papers?

The people who WROTE the Constitution call your interpretation of the necessary and proper clause wrong.

Who should I believe, you, or the people who WROTE the Constitution?

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 01:31 AM
Tell that to yourself. From this very thread, no less:

I....am...telling it to myself. Travel is included in commerce by definition. I do not demand that others hod themselves to a different standard than i hold myself. You may not like my conclusions, but i am going by the actual meanings of the words that are written in the Constitution.

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2014, 01:36 AM
I am discussing departments. Nothing says the Army and Navy must be or can't be in one department together. Nothing says the Army and Navy must be or can't be in two departments separately. How exactly the executive branch is structured in regards to carrying out the enumerated powers is left to congressional discretion.

The discussion of whether the Air force has to be under the Army or independent is a matter of semantics and something the constitution doesn't specify one way or the other. And I don't want to go back and explain why new technologies and information are allowed by the N&P clause. Absolutely nothing Woods said contradicted my point. Constitutional originalists have had discussions on this and no serious one believes having an Air Force is unconstitutional. It betrays common sense to think so.
Uh, no. It is not a matter of semantics. Something either exists or it doesn't. If the Constitution doesn't authorize "A" then "A" is not authorized. 'really really wanting it' doesn't matter. If you want an independent Air Force that is not a part of the Army, then you have to have a Constitutional Amendment.