[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is one of those Spencerian sentences that has no discernable meaning but sounds like it does.

At first glance I thought this was a question, then I realized it was an assertion.

I thought it was pretty obvious. Perhaps you should read up on your Frum.

We are Americans. Do you like the U.S.A.? Perhaps you would prefer a Canadian parliamentary system and a Canadian constitution?

I've done a lot of business in Canada, at least in the eastern half. I've always found Canadians to be gracious, even handed, polite and have a frugality about them that is to be admired.

And the chicks in Ottawa are pretty hot.

Also there's Rush.

Given their politics the notion that they could even birth a person like Frum is note worthy.

But what if no one takes it to the courts? The fact that it's being mentioned must make the SCOTUS a bit nervous. There is no provision under the judicial power granted to it in the Constitution which gives the Court standing here. Its power extends to cases of law and equity involving a list of items in which Congress's determination on recess is not mentioned nor implied. Further, Article 1, section 7 states "Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United Sates . . ." clearly giving Congress the power to decide for itself on questions of adjournment. It can decide for itself when it is in recess.

The power of the Federal Government has been growing out of proportion to that which it was given in the Constitution, and, along with that federal expansion, the power of the POTUS has been growing even more. It was intended by the Founders that Congress, especially the House of Representatives, would be the strongest arm of federal power, with the judicial being the weakest. Strong Presidents have been able through "bully pulpit" demagoguery to force their will on a weakening Congress and thus becoming the strongest branch of government--almost to the point of being responsible for, and looked to for, solving most of the nation's problems, even to defining what the problems are. The Court, through the pretense of "interpretation," has given itself an even more powerful mode of legislation than was granted to Congress. It doesn't have to get elected. Only five judges are required to pass it's mandates. The Congress has become the step-child fighting for its rightful place.

So now we have a President who has taken one more of Congress's prerogatives, and the proposed solution is to let the Court step in and take a piece as well? Do we really want the rise of a monarchic type executive and a judiciary that legislates by opinion rather than merely adjudicates according to law to further weaken the Peoples elected representatives? And all in order to avoid contentions? I say, in the great tradition of American politics, let them sqauble. Let them fight, and delay, and obfuscate, and make it EXTREMELY difficult to pass legislation after legislation (was it 40,000 bills that were passed last year?), and agency after agency. The Federal Government is getting farther and farther away from us, and it is creating a larger and larger unelected bureaucracy which administers more and more portions of our lives, finances, businesses, health . . . It was CLEARLY not meant to be so.

But the British and their Canadian fellow travelers, according to some here, know better. It's like we're about to fight the Revolution all over again. The Tories versus the Rebels. We've had our tea party, now . . . in the original revolution the Tories and the King had the upper hand, but dogged perseverence and stupid British military decisions allowed the Rebels victory . . . and a new republic with a unique system of government was born . . . a system that granted and required individual effort, responsibility, and a virtuous faithfulness to its declared values and to a constant defense of its Constitution. How far we have departed from those requirements, is how far we are from that republic. The Tories would be happy.

I like Frum's analysis because as usual he's willing to go after everyone to tell it like it is. This may not go to the courts, but I'll bet it probably will. You've nailed it in stating that the SCOTUS might be nervous...because this is a gray area and precisely the reason it should be in the debate.

If anything Bush increased the power of the Executive Branch during the last 8 years. Given the partisan climate is Obama doing the same or remiss in his duty if he doesn't?

Wouldn't even surprise me if this becomes an issue during the general election.

-spence