Ok V.B. I am gonna go slow on this one for you.....The President is vested under the constitution with what is called "executive powers." Its right there first line of Article II. That means that the president was granted under the Constitution those authorities that were traditionally wielded by executives. This is fairly easily to document in history, while the Articles of Confederation were in play they lacked an independent chief executive and instead the Continental Congress exercised the executive powers. Executive privilege was then and is now considered part of those powers much the same as emergency powers were.
Do I agree that its honorable or the best way for a president act by withholding information from the Congress, no. Does it violate his duty be the best leader possible for the Country, probably. Should he release the the records to Congress unless it in some endangers national security, hell yes!
Next point, your attack on Scalia is just that of another confused lefty. Scalia is simply doing what I did just now for you slowly. Correctly applying and upholding the Constitution. This idea of an evolving Constitution is just what Scalia calls it, idiotic. Its not an evolving document to be interpreted and wield by judges as it suites them it. If needs changing to stay in step in the Country thats what amendments are for. We have 27 amendments the last one was ratified in 1992. Our system of government was not set up for it to be a living document, to allow it to be so destroy the checks and balances set forth within the Constitution itself. There is a reason that the powers were separated across three branches. It was to keep unelected Judges from legislating from the bench, to keep the Legislature from deciding everything, and to keep a president from becoming a king.
But meanwhile, VB, you and your partisan Dem friends or Republicon enemies and hateful partisan conflict mongering are the real threat to our Liberty. Its not Scalia we should be afraid of, its the partisan politicians that trample our Constitution that we should worry about. And don't whine about Bush v. Gore, Gore threw that one into the Courts, they filed the lawsuit. Instead blame the Republicrats that have long failed to fix the electoral college because it suits their partisan needs not to.
proudrepublican
· 1 year ago
"In 2000, virtually half the voters in the country concluded that the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore had voted for purely partisan reasons to deny the Democrats of Florida a chance to have their votes legally recounted so as to dispel the cloud of suspicion over election procedures in a state governed by George Bush’s brother, and conducted by a Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who was co-chair of George Bush’s Florida election campaign. Bush had won the election in Florida by only 1,784. There was a legally mandated recount, which reduced Bush’s lead to 327.
Vice President Gore requested a further legal manual recount of ballots in four Florida Counties where ballot mishandling, if not election fraud, was suspected. The Supreme Court denied Gore’s legal request."
I am not sure where to start other then look at your own comments he wanted to manual recount in certain counties, democrat counties, because he knew Bush won! Even after the media worked with Gore and his folks to call Florida for him before the polls closed never before heard of until that day, where is your outrage about that?
"largely along partisan and ideological lines."
What does this mean? How is something "largely" partisan? Either it is or it isn't you can't be half pregnant.
You can try to pick anything you want to draw a pre-determined conclusion which is what you ahve done. How come you are not writting about Chriss Dodd and his cronies having Bank of America write the Mortgage Relief Act that was passed by those guys and only helped them. They, BofA, was hurting so much that after they got OUR tax dollars they bought Meryl Lynch! There are even emails from them talking about how to write the law and that crisis is costing us billions and people are loosing their homes, how come no story from you gripping about that? Maybe because just like Obama and the rest of that crowd you could care less about the country and your first loyalty is to your Liberal Left Wing Party!!!! :)
505alien
· 1 year ago
thomasjames cites Article II introductory clause of "executive power" (not powers) as constitutional grounds for the president and his administration to withholding information. thomasjames continues about the clause writing, "That means that the president was granted under the Constitution those authorities that were traditionally wielded by executives." This is simply wrong. The US Constitution was extremely innovative for 1786, and its provisions were in fact to limit "those authorities that were traditionally wielded by executives."
The term executive privilege is no where to be found in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has upheld the power stating the executive branch can resist encroachment from the judicial and legislative branches. The Court derived executive privilege from the the separation of powers doctrine (which again is not just Article II) thomasjames writes that the executive privilege "was then and is now" similar, but this is again wrong. Thomas Jefferson cited executive privilege when the court demanded his correspondence with Aaron Burr who was on trial for Treason. Chief Justice John Marshall issued an order demanding the letter stating the president was not exempt from turning over evidence and a criminal trial. When Jefferson said disclosing the letter was a matter of endanger public safety and national security, Chief Justice Marshall responded saying that was for the courts to decide. Jefferson turned over the correspondence to the courts.
While I understand the intricacies of today's case differ from that of yesteryear, the precedent set by the framer has no doubt been violated in recent times. While I disagree with thomasjames historical perspective, I believe we agree that the spirit of executive privilege has been violated by the current administration.
Many administrations have claimed executive privilege to withhold information from the courts, Congress, and the public. Bush and Chaney, however, have extended executive privilege far beyond the founders intent into a realm that is unconstitutional. The Bush administration has straight-up ignored Supreme Court decisions. (Look into the Boumediene v. Bush and Massachusetts v. EPA if you interested) The Bush administration has violated the precedent of judicial supremacy laid in the 1806 case of Marbury v. Madison which held that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
thomasjames quotes Scalia calling the concept of the Constitution as a living document as "idiotic." During the last seven and half years, the Constitution under gone more changed in the post-Civil War period than any other time. This change has obviously not come from an amendment, and the vast majority has not come from bench. It has come from the executive branch which feels like it is above precedent and current Supreme Court decisions. If conservatives consider the concept of a "living document" as "idiotic," why are the "conservatives" of the Bush administration altering the Constitution through non-traditional, illegal processes?
I think Thomas Paine may have the most concise opinion of executive privilege when he wrote in Common Sense: "In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
proudrepublican's comment regarding the timeliness of Price's piece shows a lack of understanding for the long-term trajectory of the country. The Constitution is the blueprint for US government, but it is also the source of American identity. With the Supreme Court being the guardians of the Constitution, the question of will be the next Supreme Court Justice is timeless (or at least as long the Constitution is functioning). Using one of the few explicit powers granted in Article II, the next president will most likely appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices who will decide crucial cases determining the direction our country goes.
proudrepublican's brainstorm of more pertinent issues Price should consider contains errors. The money the government is spending to bailout private firms is not "OUR tax dollars." The Bush administration spent all of our tax dollars long ago. The money the government is spending is coming from HUGE loans from Japan and China that we will pay off far into the future. If you are so concerned with the government bailouts of AIG and Lehman Brothers, I would highly recommend that you write Senator John McCain and ask him about them. Why? McCain was the Chairperson of the Senate Commerce Committee, and he oversaw the deregulation of Federal Laws regarding these corporations. What happened one the companies we deregulated? The companies drove themselves into the ground, and we are all left to pay for it.
proundrepublican's final comment that says the Obama crowd "could care less about the country" is outrageous. Price's article clearly demonstrates concern for the country, and while you may disagree with his opinion, do not believe for one moment that you love this country any more than other Americans. We may have different opinions of what we think our government should do, how it should operate, and where the country should go, but these difference do not divide us into categories of those who love the country and those who "could care less" about it. When partisan labels are tossed around, the true issues are not discussed, and the stakes are forgotten in talking points. The country suffers the most.
thomasjames
· 1 year ago
"thomasjames quotes Scalia calling the concept of the Constitution as a living document as “idiotic.” During the last seven and half years, the Constitution under gone more changed in the post-Civil War period than any other time. This change has obviously not come from an amendment, and the vast majority has not come from bench. It has come from the executive branch which feels like it is above precedent and current Supreme Court decisions. If conservatives consider the concept of a “living document” as “idiotic,” why are the “conservatives” of the Bush administration altering the Constitution through non-traditional, illegal processes?"
Hey alien do you have any proof for this self serving argument. You say under the last seven and half years "the Constitution under gone more changed (sic) in post-Civil War period than any other time." Can you back that up at all, it sounds an awful lot like your opinion or perhaps some other liberal writers. Even if what you say is true which I truly believe its not, the Court may have shifted to interpreting the Constitution as it was written, that does not change the fact that if we want something outside of what was originally written that we as a people should not pursue an amendment instead of liberal activist judges that dominated the later half of the 1900's to accomplish change.
I disagree with your interpretation of the Executive Vesting Clause and you claim what Bush-Cheney have done is unconstitutional, but I would have to say what other Presidents such as Truman did with the Executive power (excuse me for adding the "s" earlier) is far more outrageous. Lincoln's expansion of executive power during the Civil War set the precedent for everything after that and his use of the power far exceeds Bush-Cheney. But enough I already agreed that Bush used his Executive power in a manner that showed poor leadership and lack of transparency that is saddening.
Further going back Marbury v. Madision that decision could not stand without originalism. Without originalism there can be no constitutionally limited government and no judicial review.
Attorney General Meese in speech in 1985 stated:
"Where the language of the Constitution is specific, it must be obeyed. Where there is a demonstrable consensus amoung the Framers and ratifiers as to a principle stated or implied by the Constitution, it should be followed. Where there is ambiguity as to the precise meaning or reach of a constitutional provision, it should be interpreted and applied in a manner so as to at least not contradict the text of the Constitution itself."
So if means we need another Scalia that follows that originalist theory then by all means, that is better than a Brennan that votes his own conscience instead of what the Constitution says.
505alien
· 1 year ago
Fair enough, it is my opinion regarding the amount of executive influence on the constitution during the current administration, but when in history has the executive ignored Supreme Court rulings, ignored judicial and congressional subpoena, and run a domestic surveillance from the Vice-President's Office? The administration also attempted to overturn 200 years of precedent by claiming the Vice-President's Office is not part of the executive OR the legislative branch. Did I forget about that fourth branch? Or is the VP's Office outside of the government? Wait, maybe it is just that it is above government. What about the use of private email accounts to prevent "paper trails" and block government oversight?
Scalia seems to have strayed from that "originalist theory" in Boumediene v. Bush when he voted to deny the writ of habeas corpus. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” I think you would agree.
And back to Price's article, what is wrong with a recount in democracy? Is it not important to get the most important process in our government right?
All Comments
Do I agree that its honorable or the best way for a president act by withholding information from the Congress, no. Does it violate his duty be the best leader possible for the Country, probably. Should he release the the records to Congress unless it in some endangers national security, hell yes!
Next point, your attack on Scalia is just that of another confused lefty. Scalia is simply doing what I did just now for you slowly. Correctly applying and upholding the Constitution. This idea of an evolving Constitution is just what Scalia calls it, idiotic. Its not an evolving document to be interpreted and wield by judges as it suites them it. If needs changing to stay in step in the Country thats what amendments are for. We have 27 amendments the last one was ratified in 1992. Our system of government was not set up for it to be a living document, to allow it to be so destroy the checks and balances set forth within the Constitution itself. There is a reason that the powers were separated across three branches. It was to keep unelected Judges from legislating from the bench, to keep the Legislature from deciding everything, and to keep a president from becoming a king.
But meanwhile, VB, you and your partisan Dem friends or Republicon enemies and hateful partisan conflict mongering are the real threat to our Liberty. Its not Scalia we should be afraid of, its the partisan politicians that trample our Constitution that we should worry about. And don't whine about Bush v. Gore, Gore threw that one into the Courts, they filed the lawsuit. Instead blame the Republicrats that have long failed to fix the electoral college because it suits their partisan needs not to.
Vice President Gore requested a further legal manual recount of ballots in four Florida Counties where ballot mishandling, if not election fraud, was suspected. The Supreme Court denied Gore’s legal request."
I am not sure where to start other then look at your own comments he wanted to manual recount in certain counties, democrat counties, because he knew Bush won! Even after the media worked with Gore and his folks to call Florida for him before the polls closed never before heard of until that day, where is your outrage about that?
"largely along partisan and ideological lines."
What does this mean? How is something "largely" partisan? Either it is or it isn't you can't be half pregnant.
You can try to pick anything you want to draw a pre-determined conclusion which is what you ahve done. How come you are not writting about Chriss Dodd and his cronies having Bank of America write the Mortgage Relief Act that was passed by those guys and only helped them. They, BofA, was hurting so much that after they got OUR tax dollars they bought Meryl Lynch! There are even emails from them talking about how to write the law and that crisis is costing us billions and people are loosing their homes, how come no story from you gripping about that? Maybe because just like Obama and the rest of that crowd you could care less about the country and your first loyalty is to your Liberal Left Wing Party!!!! :)
The term executive privilege is no where to be found in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has upheld the power stating the executive branch can resist encroachment from the judicial and legislative branches. The Court derived executive privilege from the the separation of powers doctrine (which again is not just Article II) thomasjames writes that the executive privilege "was then and is now" similar, but this is again wrong. Thomas Jefferson cited executive privilege when the court demanded his correspondence with Aaron Burr who was on trial for Treason. Chief Justice John Marshall issued an order demanding the letter stating the president was not exempt from turning over evidence and a criminal trial. When Jefferson said disclosing the letter was a matter of endanger public safety and national security, Chief Justice Marshall responded saying that was for the courts to decide. Jefferson turned over the correspondence to the courts.
While I understand the intricacies of today's case differ from that of yesteryear, the precedent set by the framer has no doubt been violated in recent times. While I disagree with thomasjames historical perspective, I believe we agree that the spirit of executive privilege has been violated by the current administration.
Many administrations have claimed executive privilege to withhold information from the courts, Congress, and the public. Bush and Chaney, however, have extended executive privilege far beyond the founders intent into a realm that is unconstitutional. The Bush administration has straight-up ignored Supreme Court decisions. (Look into the Boumediene v. Bush and Massachusetts v. EPA if you interested) The Bush administration has violated the precedent of judicial supremacy laid in the 1806 case of Marbury v. Madison which held that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
thomasjames quotes Scalia calling the concept of the Constitution as a living document as "idiotic." During the last seven and half years, the Constitution under gone more changed in the post-Civil War period than any other time. This change has obviously not come from an amendment, and the vast majority has not come from bench. It has come from the executive branch which feels like it is above precedent and current Supreme Court decisions. If conservatives consider the concept of a "living document" as "idiotic," why are the "conservatives" of the Bush administration altering the Constitution through non-traditional, illegal processes?
I think Thomas Paine may have the most concise opinion of executive privilege when he wrote in Common Sense: "In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
proudrepublican's comment regarding the timeliness of Price's piece shows a lack of understanding for the long-term trajectory of the country. The Constitution is the blueprint for US government, but it is also the source of American identity. With the Supreme Court being the guardians of the Constitution, the question of will be the next Supreme Court Justice is timeless (or at least as long the Constitution is functioning). Using one of the few explicit powers granted in Article II, the next president will most likely appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices who will decide crucial cases determining the direction our country goes.
proudrepublican's brainstorm of more pertinent issues Price should consider contains errors. The money the government is spending to bailout private firms is not "OUR tax dollars." The Bush administration spent all of our tax dollars long ago. The money the government is spending is coming from HUGE loans from Japan and China that we will pay off far into the future. If you are so concerned with the government bailouts of AIG and Lehman Brothers, I would highly recommend that you write Senator John McCain and ask him about them. Why? McCain was the Chairperson of the Senate Commerce Committee, and he oversaw the deregulation of Federal Laws regarding these corporations. What happened one the companies we deregulated? The companies drove themselves into the ground, and we are all left to pay for it.
proundrepublican's final comment that says the Obama crowd "could care less about the country" is outrageous. Price's article clearly demonstrates concern for the country, and while you may disagree with his opinion, do not believe for one moment that you love this country any more than other Americans. We may have different opinions of what we think our government should do, how it should operate, and where the country should go, but these difference do not divide us into categories of those who love the country and those who "could care less" about it. When partisan labels are tossed around, the true issues are not discussed, and the stakes are forgotten in talking points. The country suffers the most.
Hey alien do you have any proof for this self serving argument. You say under the last seven and half years "the Constitution under gone more changed (sic) in post-Civil War period than any other time." Can you back that up at all, it sounds an awful lot like your opinion or perhaps some other liberal writers. Even if what you say is true which I truly believe its not, the Court may have shifted to interpreting the Constitution as it was written, that does not change the fact that if we want something outside of what was originally written that we as a people should not pursue an amendment instead of liberal activist judges that dominated the later half of the 1900's to accomplish change.
I disagree with your interpretation of the Executive Vesting Clause and you claim what Bush-Cheney have done is unconstitutional, but I would have to say what other Presidents such as Truman did with the Executive power (excuse me for adding the "s" earlier) is far more outrageous. Lincoln's expansion of executive power during the Civil War set the precedent for everything after that and his use of the power far exceeds Bush-Cheney. But enough I already agreed that Bush used his Executive power in a manner that showed poor leadership and lack of transparency that is saddening.
Further going back Marbury v. Madision that decision could not stand without originalism. Without originalism there can be no constitutionally limited government and no judicial review.
Attorney General Meese in speech in 1985 stated:
"Where the language of the Constitution is specific, it must be obeyed. Where there is a demonstrable consensus amoung the Framers and ratifiers as to a principle stated or implied by the Constitution, it should be followed. Where there is ambiguity as to the precise meaning or reach of a constitutional provision, it should be interpreted and applied in a manner so as to at least not contradict the text of the Constitution itself."
So if means we need another Scalia that follows that originalist theory then by all means, that is better than a Brennan that votes his own conscience instead of what the Constitution says.
Scalia seems to have strayed from that "originalist theory" in Boumediene v. Bush when he voted to deny the writ of habeas corpus. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” I think you would agree.
And back to Price's article, what is wrong with a recount in democracy? Is it not important to get the most important process in our government right?