Oregon "militia" standoff.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

They negotiate, pass laws, and those laws are subject to review by the Supreme Court to see if they are constitutional.I agree but I'm still trying to figure out the whole executive action/order thing. I'm prob. 99% against the Pres. having the right to impose something by executive action and it seems like it is one of those things when your guy is Pres, you like it and when the other guy is Pres. you don't like it.

"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.

I think my response to this is a broad statment basically the same as above. If my guy is in, I prob. don't think an executive action/order is unconstitutional. If my guy isn't in, I prob. think it is unconstitutional.

Thanks and have a great 2016!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I think my response to this is a broad statment basically the same as above. If my guy is in, I prob. don't think an executive action/order is unconstitutional. If my guy isn't in, I prob. think it is unconstitutional.

Thanks and have a great 2016!

Agreed, I probbaly wouldn't be complaining as much if Bush used executive order to do something I agreed with. Human nature, I guess.

Have a great 2016 too, Paul.