Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on November 30, 2011, 12:24:49 PM
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-admin-seals-records-murdered-border-patrol-agent-implicated-fast-and-furious_610783.html
Not very "transparent."
Well, I guess the guilt of this administration is rather transparent. But that's about it.
-
Wouldn't it be nice if we really had an Opposition Party to stand up to the tyranny? A man can dream.
Obama knows what's buried in this case. He and Holder know full well what they were planning to do, and they know that if it's fully exposed it rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
This is one more in the thousand points of darkness winking out the light of America.
-
Cannot Congress do something to override this?
-
Impeachment.
Subpoena.
Inquiry.
They are, if they choose to be, the 2nd highest court in the land, only inferior to the Supreme Court... and capable of impeaching the SCOTUS if necessary.
And require no executive/prosecutorial favor to initiate proceedings... unlike criminal matters where feds/cops/bureaucrats fail to prosecute themselves.
-
We didn't come all this way without Congress's "help."
-
Impeachment.
Subpoena.
Inquiry.
They are, if they choose to be, the 2nd highest court in the land, only inferior to the Supreme Court... and capable of impeaching the SCOTUS if necessary.
And require no executive/prosecutorial favor to initiate proceedings... unlike criminal matters where feds/cops/bureaucrats fail to prosecute themselves.
The Supreme Court is inferior to Congress. Congress sets the number Justices and if Congress so desired they could give Chief Justice Roberts a card table on Pennsylvania Ave. and call that his court. Congress can ignore any ruling the Supreme Court makes.
-
The Supreme Court is inferior to Congress. Congress sets the number Justices and if Congress so desired they could give Chief Justice Roberts a card table on Pennsylvania Ave. and call that his court. Congress can ignore any ruling the Supreme Court makes.
I sit corrected. Couldn't remember which was superior. Though it makes sense for Congress to be superior since they are easier for the public to replace, and it's harder to get 500 people to agree on anything.
-
So what the article really means is that the Obama administration got a judge to seal the case right? I didn't think the Obama admin had the power themselves to seal the case.
-
Time for house spinelessrepublicans to vote for and copiously fund a special prosecutor.
-
The Supreme Court is inferior to Congress. Congress sets the number Justices and if Congress so desired they could give Chief Justice Roberts a card table on Pennsylvania Ave. and call that his court. Congress can ignore any ruling the Supreme Court makes.
This is the same sort of lawyering that leads people into believing that wages aren't income :(
The congress is subordinate to the constitution, which gives the supreme court it's existence and powers to decide certain matters of law. The congress can't ignore the constitution; consequently, it can't just ignore the court.
-
This is the same sort of lawyering that leads people into believing that wages aren't income :(
The congress is subordinate to the constitution, which gives the supreme court it's existence and powers to decide certain matters of law. The congress can't ignore the constitution; consequently, it can't just ignore the court.
True, COTUS > Congress. But, reading the COTUS, Congress > SCOTUS. It should be even greater, but SCOTUS has usurped much power starting with Marbary(sp?) v Madison.
-
True, COTUS > Congress. But, reading the COTUS, Congress > SCOTUS. It should be even greater, but SCOTUS has usurped much power starting with Marbary(sp?) v Madison.
Haha, yes, that argument is one of my favorites - a decision by one of the first supreme courts, accepted by the same government (same individuals even!) who wrote the constitution got it wrong as to how the constitution was intended to situate the court and the congress....rrright.
Marbury was the most logical outcome of there being a constitution at the time, which was to ensure that parliament didn't simply replace the king.
-
Impeachment.
Subpoena.
Inquiry.
They are, if they choose to be, the 2nd highest court in the land, only inferior to the Supreme Court... and capable of impeaching the SCOTUS if necessary.
And require no executive/prosecutorial favor to initiate proceedings... unlike criminal matters where feds/cops/bureaucrats fail to prosecute themselves.
The Supreme Court is inferior to Congress. Congress sets the number Justices and if Congress so desired they could give Chief Justice Roberts a card table on Pennsylvania Ave. and call that his court. Congress can ignore any ruling the Supreme Court makes.
Last time I checked, as a result of the checks and balances worked into the constitution, the judicial branch (which the SCOTUS is the head of) and congress (along with the executive branch) were co-equal branches of the government.
-
Last time I checked, as a result of the checks and balances worked into the constitution, the judicial branch (which the SCOTUS is the head of) and congress (along with the executive branch) were co-equal branches of the government.
Three branches are equal only in the sense that they are the three branches.
Congress has power over the executive and judiciary through legislation (including increasing/decreasing number) and impeachment powers.
SCOTUS can decide on the constitutionality of legislation, but can also be impeached by congress
Neither SCOTUS nor the president can remove members of congress, only congress can.
Thus congress is the supreme power, subordinate ONLY to COTUS.
Hence "a republic ma'am, if you can keep it". The founding fathers recognized the danger of an overly powerful executive and an overly power judiciary
-
Last time I checked, as a result of the checks and balances worked into the constitution, the judicial branch (which the SCOTUS is the head of) and congress (along with the executive branch) were co-equal branches of the government.
This.
-
Haha, yes, that argument is one of my favorites - a decision by one of the first supreme courts, accepted by the same government (same individuals even!) who wrote the constitution got it wrong as to how the constitution was intended to situate the court and the congress....rrright.
Marbury was the most logical outcome of there being a constitution at the time, which was to ensure that parliament didn't simply replace the king.
What can stop the President from appointing two more judges?
Four more judges?
Sixteen more judges?
-
What can stop the President from appointing two more judges?
Four more judges?
Sixteen more judges?
Law.
-
Law.
Which one?
The Constitution does not set a number of justices. Currently it's nine. In the founding era it was six. During the Civil War it was ten. Congress has altered their numbers many a time, it can do so again if there's the will.
-
Which one?
The Constitution does not set a number of justices. Currently it's nine. In the founding era it was six. During the Civil War it was ten. Congress has altered their numbers many a time, it can do so again if there's the will.
You asked a question. And you are right that it has changed and Congress has to change the law.
Your question asked, What can stop the President from appointing two more judges?
Four more judges?
Sixteen more judges?
I answered. Simple question, simple answer.
-
Okay, I misunderstood your reply.
The point is, if the other two branches wish it, they can put a serious bind on the Supreme Court.
-
Okay, I misunderstood your reply.
The point is, if the other two branches wish it, they can put a serious bind on the Supreme Court.
Like that is bloody going to happen in our lifetimes.
-
What can stop the President from appointing two more judges?
Four more judges?
Sixteen more judges?
You both over-thought this one. "Advice and consent of the Senate." :laugh: But, yeah, the Constitution leaves Congress to set most of the rules for federal judiciary.
-
In other words, congress is subordinate really only to the constitution, as it can remove the personnel in the other branches, change the number of justices, and the executive (by constitutional definition) can only work within law created by congress. The founders knew this would dilute power as much as reasonably possible, which was their goal--side note, the reason impeachment powers are split (which house impeached and which house "tries") was the check and balance on congressional impeachment powers.
-
Which one?
The Constitution does not set a number of justices. Currently it's nine. In the founding era it was six. During the Civil War it was ten. Congress has altered their numbers many a time, it can do so again if there's the will.
During the "Great Depression" the Supreme Court declared the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional (as well as one other FDR program the name of which escapes me at the moment) and an angered FDR responded by threatening to "stuff" SCOTUS with liberal judges. He didn't get around to it; the popular revulsion of the masses was enough to discourage him, however, it is said that the high court got the idea and was more receptive to FDR's "programs" afterwards.
-
Do remember that Congress has little power that does not require the President to sign off or VETO.
In addition, the House at least is up for election more often.
-
Do remember that Congress has little power that does not require the President to sign off or VETO.
Up until it impeaches the POTUS and vice-POTUS, putting the Speaker into the POTUS position.
But I do see your point. And the above is extraordinarily unlikely to happen.
-
Up until it impeaches the POTUS and vice-POTUS, putting the Speaker into the POTUS position.
But I do see your point. And the above is extraordinarily unlikely to happen.
At which point the Speaker will no longer be a Congressman and will have separate interests.
Also, you are assuming that Congress would act as a unified body which they very rarely do. It requires a lot of Congressional support to actually impeach a President.
-
What can stop the President from appointing two more judges?
Four more judges?
Sixteen more judges?
That would be the congress.
And even if he dominates the legislative branch, the president still can't guarantee results in the supreme court. The chief justice has a great amount of influence over who does what work, and how the court decides cases.
-
Do remember that Congress has little power that does not require the President to sign off or VETO.
But note, the constitution requires EITHER sign OR veto, nothing else. Since congress can override a veto, this also makes the executive subordinate to the legislature.
-
But note, the constitution requires EITHER sign OR veto, nothing else. Since congress can override a veto, this also makes the executive subordinate to the legislature.
But that only works in any sense of actual reality if Congress in united.
-
The point rests: any one branch cannot really work while completely ignoring the will of the other two. They need to cooperate to at least some extent.
Also, a lot of the finer points of the current constitutional balance rest not on the constitution, but on tradition and/or Congress-passed law which Congress may alter.