HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » For the Strict Constructi...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:40 PM

For the Strict Constructionist

My sister's always thinking. From my email ...




I just re-read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and we need some strict construction! For example, in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and in the Sixteenth Amendment, it states very clearly that Congress shall "lay and collect" taxes -- but NOWHERE does it say Congress can cut taxes!!!!

And there's a lot more interesting stuff there -- Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall protect each state against domestic violence. Amendment XIV, Section 3 neatly takes care of crazy sheriffs who say they won't enforce gun regulation.

But my fave is Article II, Section 3: The President has the power to adjourn Congress, in Case of Disagreement between the two Houses, "to such time as he shall think proper."




She may be on to something.

11 replies, 846 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply For the Strict Constructionist (Original post)
Scuba Feb 2013 OP
Flashmann Feb 2013 #1
patrice Feb 2013 #3
Flashmann Feb 2013 #4
patrice Feb 2013 #5
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2013 #6
Flashmann Feb 2013 #7
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2013 #8
Flashmann Feb 2013 #10
galileoreloaded Feb 2013 #2
Flashmann Feb 2013 #11
WillyT Feb 2013 #9

Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:01 PM

1. Article II, Section 3

The President has the power to adjourn Congress, in Case of Disagreement between the two Houses, "to such time as he shall think proper."


Let me imagine,for a moment,that the President would avail himself of that provision,and ask 2 questions..


Would he then be able to use Executive Orders to accomplish things the two Houses could/would not,even though those "solutions wouldn't have the permanency of law?

If so,and if he did so,would that then not set dangerous precedents for future occupants of the Oval Office?











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flashmann (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:06 PM

3. The appropriate response to the situations you pose is a much more responsible & perpetually engaged

ACTIVE electorate, instead of the dishonest, un-informed, lazy, ir-responsible, power-clique based stuff that we have going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:12 PM

4. ACTIVE electorate

Yes I agree with every word you say....

While I'm sure I can answer my second question,myself,I'm still curious about the first.....Only for my own curiosity and not to stir any pots......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flashmann (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:17 PM

5. My own personal legal wizard passed on a few years ago. We would be having a great time

with your question right now. He was a Leftie Libertarian, my spouse, and LOVED the law. I'm a Liberal Democrat, btw, very liberal.

It's a very interesting question, I cant' answer it and hope it gets addressed with respect here at DU.

Thank you very much for being considerate about stirring "pots" around here, Flashmann!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flashmann (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:48 PM

6. At first blush ...

The answers would be:

Yes and Absolutely!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 05:57 PM

7. Good enough!!

And thanks....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flashmann (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:01 PM

8. To flesh out my thoughts on the matter ...

It is the resonsibility of the Executive Branch to effectuate laws and policy, i.e., to keep things running and make things work. Without a Congress, nothing would get done to address arising concerns ... In which case the Executive Office could/should act to fill the void.

However, (and touching on the second question) there is a term for the Executive acting in lieu of Congress ... Dictator! That's why it's a BAD, BAD idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 09:55 AM

10. Much as I suspected

I wasn't looking for a detailed,nuanced dissertation..

The crux of my curiosity was whether the President could enact policy through executive order,with the Houses in adjournment,as with recess appointments,even though he ordered the adjournment..Very scarey thought......

I think you answered nicely...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:03 PM

2. How does article 14 section 3 address crazy sherrifs? Equal protection?

 

help me out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:28 PM

11. Disappointing.....

I was eager to see your questions answered too......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:02 PM

9. K & R !!!




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread