Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Jim, playing devils advocate here and I haven't read all the posts so I may be taking something out of context.
If you and I (or the Pres. and Congress) have a different interpretation of the Constitution, what happens?
Isn't it ultimately up to the SC to decide if something is legal via the Constitution or not? However, you can't go to them and say "We're thinking of passing this law, is it legal?"
|
A very fair, thoughtful post (no sarcasm, I mean it).
"If you and I (or the Pres. and Congress) have a different interpretation of the Constitution, what happens?"
They negotiate, pass laws, and those laws are subject to review by the Supreme Court to see if they are constitutional.
"Isn't it ultimately up to the SC to decide if something is legal via the Constitution or not?"
Yes.
But the POTUS shouldn't do something that's blatantly unconstitutional, such as forcing people to abandon their religious beliefs to further one party's agenda.
I would imagine that all Presidents have done things that some folks feel are unconstitutional. Sometimes it's a judgement call, it's not always obvious. Maybe it's rarely obvious.
But it's terrifying to me, that anyone would suggest that we just pretend it says something other than what it says, depending on the times. If we evolve over time, and we want to change the constitution to reflect that, we can amend it - it's not carved in stone. But if a POTUS or Congress can't get the support for an amendment, I don't want them ignoring the parts of the Constitution they don't happen to like. I feel Obama does this regularly. But I admit it's hard for me to be objective because I cannot stand anything about him.
Happy New Year Paul!
Threaded Mode