General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe new gotcha question should be:
"Do you consider it a valid action to ignore a Supreme Court ruling you feel does not agree with your interpretation of the Constitution, or do you believe that such disagreement must wait for the enactment of legislation in Congress?"
Yes, I know - it contains more than one multi-syllable word and deals with the civics principles that the clowns failed in high school. But they have made the idea of nullification central to their modus operandi. People who deign to govern are actually proposing that it's perfectly legitimate to ignore a law when one believes it disagrees with their political or religious tenets.
We have seen this idea running rampant with the latest adherent from Kentucky, who has been supported by a large number of the clown bus. I think that the very fact that it is even given consideration is further reason for calling the public mental health authorities on what has become of the former Republican Party.
For more on 'nullification', see:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/who-will-fight-supreme-court-on-marriage
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/29/texas-republican-proposes-union-nullification.html
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/are-you-comfortable-local-officials-defying-court-order
IDemo
(16,926 posts)As a former instructor of mine was fond of saying: Everyone agree? Anybody disagree? Questions, comments, concerns?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)One only has to look at examples like how DC refuses to comply with court rulings against it regarding gun control and when they do its in such an obstructionist manner so as to make it as hard as possible to exercise a right.
Or, for that matter, the Obama administrations use of prosecutorial discretion in not seeking to go after certain classes of undocumented immigrants- that's certainly choosing to ignore a law based on political beliefs.
Most of my right wing friends would throw those examples right back if you on this one.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)Both in how often it's used and whether "it" even applies. Nullification has become the soup of the day for the Right, for everybody from Alabama Supreme Court justices to presidential candidates, to county clerks.
A president may choose to not enforce particular laws when deciding how to allocate scarce resources or based on his view of the best public policy. Few object, for example, when the Department of Justice does not prosecute those who possess small amounts of marijuana, even though they violated the federal Controlled Substance Act. There are countless federal laws that go unenforced. In 1800, then congressman and later Chief Justice John Marshall stated, the president may direct that the criminal be prosecuted no further because it is the exercise of an indubitable and constitutional power.
The presidents broad prosecutorial discretion has been repeatedly recognized by the courts. In 2013, Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit, appointed by George W. Bush, offered a strong defense: The president may decline to prosecute certain violators of federal law just as the president may pardon certain violators of federal law, Judge Kavanaugh wrote. The president may decline to prosecute or may pardon because of the presidents own constitutional concerns about a law or because of policy objections to the law, among other reasons.
This prosecutorial discretion is even greater in immigration because the treatment of foreign citizens is inextricably intertwined with the nations foreign affairs, an area especially under the presidents control. For example, the Supreme Courts decision in 2010 to overturn large parts of Arizonas restrictive immigration law, SB1070, was premised on the executive branchs need for discretion in the immigration context. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, the Court wrote, adding that [t]he dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nations foreign policy with respect to these and other realities. In a similar 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, the Supreme Court voided a Pennsylvania system of alien registration because experience has shown that international controversies of the gravest moment, sometimes even leading to war, may arise from real or imagined wrongs to anothers subjects inflicted, or permitted, by a government.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120328/obama-immigration-executive-action-why-it-will-be-legal
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I do that a lot.
ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)At least you admit it's a gotcha question.
Yes, I know - it contains more than one multi-syllable word and deals with the civics principles that the clowns failed in high school. But they have made the idea of nullification central to their modus operandi. People who deign to govern are actually proposing that it's perfectly legitimate to ignore a law when one believes it disagrees with their political or religious tenets.
Would that statement work for you if applied to the Democratic contenders? Please don't tell me the Democrats are brilliant and understand multi-syllabic words and civics lessons so it wouldn't bother you.
How do you think someone in the middle feels about this type of elitism?
IDemo
(16,926 posts)We're not talking about an obscure area of governance, but of the fundamental principle of living in a nation which adheres to the rule of law. It's not at all a complex topic.
And yes, I do believe that most Democrats have a pretty good understanding of multi-syllabic words and civics. I honestly don't see the middle as recoiling at this as a debate question.
ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)I'm not talking about the question. I'm talking about this rationalization:
Yes, I know - it contains more than one multi-syllable word and deals with the civics principles that the clowns failed in high school.
Your response to that is:
And yes, I do believe that most Democrats have a pretty good understanding of multi-syllabic words and civics. I honestly don't see the middle as recoiling at this as a debate question.
So the converse is true and Republicans do have a problem with those things? That is what I mean by elitism. This concept that your ideas are the only right ones if only everyone else would admit that and believe the same thing.
The original question is a gotcha question because the questioner will have two follow up questions depending how the first questions are answered, those questions are the gotcha.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)We should acknowledge that there are no right or wrong positions, only differences of opinion which should be juggled like equally weighted balls. Except, no. The main reason most of us are here is that we have decided that the policies and political philosophy of the Democratic Party are much more in alignment with the Constitution and fair government than those of the Right Wing. And a good deal of that comes from an understanding of basic civics.
ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)I agree with most of that post. No one here, myself included, is going to vote for Trump or Cruz, maybe Jeb though as he's so dreamy but have you ever considered talking to people not in this echo chamber? If you take the same tactic with people in the middle, they aren't going to be so impressed.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)"maybe Jeb though as he's so dreamy"??????????? AS IF YOU EVER READ THAT HERE.
MAYBE ON F.R.
ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)I always post contrarily, I'm doing it now.
Why snide is my middle name. Please take that up with my parents.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)How would they pronounce Corpsman?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)children learning?"
You don't want to play THAT game, either.
ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)My real purpose is what?
If I posted a question in this time's lexicon, it would be a post of a screen capture of a tweet saying that this one picture destroys...
I posted a simple question in response to your answer which was this:Um, yeah, Clinton and Sanders and Biden et al. would have no reading comprehension difficulties.
Democrats have no problem reading and by inference reading aloud yet Obama read 'corpsman' instead of 'corman'. Is that the reading comprehension you spoke of before?
If your entire argument to undecideds is that Democrats are smart, then the next question is prove it. Are you trying to convince me, I'm already convinced as are all of our fellow Democrats and so are the Republicans so who's left to convince? Who holds sway over our countries future? The undecideds.
See, I'm a humanitarian.