Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (304906)	10/21/2006 3:02:32 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571016

Its simply impossible for the executive branch to function and remain within its constitutional limits without interpreting the constitution. No it isn't. If the exective branch is acting unconstitutionally, the courts will catch it. In fact, half the problems we have now is that the executive branch is insisting on interpreting the constitutionality of a number of laws and they are getting it wrong....that's why the courts are having to step in. This Gonzales guy is not a very good attorney one way or the other......of course that comes as no surprise. The president couldn't exercise his legitimate powers without having an opinion of what those powers are. The Supreme Court has final say, but the supreme court, or even the lower courts are never consulted on most issues, and do not issue guidance before a decision. The USSC has more than final say.....its the branch that has been commissioned to do the interpreting. Read the Federalist Papers.......they explain this much better than I do. They only accept cases challenging laws or government actions. So the president doesn't and can't go to the USSC every time he wonders if he has the constitutional authority to take a certain action. Trust me, if the president does something that is believed to be unconstitutional there are attorneys who will run to the USSC faster than you can say the word, unconstitutional. Its worked that way for years. The court only settles disputes after they arise, but the disputes typically happen after an executive or legislative decision. The only way for the government to function would be either to ignore the constitution, and just do whatever they want until the supreme court tells them they can't, which would be far from ideal, or to have the supreme court make the policy decisions, which would be ridiculous. That's what Bush has been doing in Guantanamo to date. It hasn't bothered him at all to run with the ball when there have been legal experts saying his behavior was unconstitutional. He didn't wait for the courts to say something. And now that they have he has done an end run around the courts in order to get his way. Why is that? Do you understand how corrupted you all are? You only show concern with the Constitution when its interfering with something you all want to do badly and so you decide to do the interpreting in order to allow you to continue to do that wrong thing that is unconstitutional. Then you come up with some spin to justify why you doing something wrong. You are no better than Cheney or Rove. You don't believe in democracy.....that's all BS. You believe in your own ideology and how you can implement that ideology and nothing else..........whether its legal or not, whether its democratic or not; whether it makes sense or not. I am tired of these discussions. We see you for what you all are. And we're going to the ballot box on 11/7. Hopefully, we will stop this unlawful juggernaut.