Welcome to our Post-Constitutional America.

**Hocus Pocus** · 07-11-13, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by iravedic

Article I of the Constitution authorizes. The 1st executive order was issued by George Washington. Which ones in particular do you take issue with?

Not really sure of your point here with respect to obamacare - the executive branch has always had the power to direct the activities of it's agencies. If I take your meaning correctly a better example would be the DOJ position on medical marijuana. Many of the laws passed and signed into law are not enforced - nothing new there, and again in place since the very beginning of the country.

They are all subject to review in the courts, based upon the standards laid out. Violations do occur but can and are addressed by the courts regularly.

There are a number of issues with the NDAA which will likely be addressed by the Courts, both here and internationally. The interaction with international law is more problematic.

You can argue about activist courts all you want - they have been a fixture of our system since the country was founded. It's just that right now they are making decisions you personally disagree with. These court actions are regularly overturned by the legislature.

The 10th amendment is one of the most litigated and best defined provisions in Constitution - it is hardly 'ignored'. Again, the States rights vs Federalism argument has been going on since the beginning.

By whom? The 2nd amendment is more than alive and well. And frankly, the expansive reading of 'rights' granted by the 2nd amendment by the likes of the NRA is much broader than any reading of Article III which authorizes courts, and broader than the reading of most other clauses.

See above.

You fail to understand how the country actually has always worked. A law is not in fact unconstitutional until a court says so - until that time it is in fact the Law and by definition is consistent with the Constitution. You may not like it, you may think they got it wrong, and that it violates your reading of the Constitution - but the very document you are relying on establishes these provisions and framework.

There are many rulings I do not like (see Citizens United) - that doesn't change the fact that it is the law. See I live and work in the real world where Laws matter, if I don't agree I know that there are legal avenues available to address what I perceive to be an issue. I also have my individual vote, and I use that too. I'm not nearly as cynical as you appear to be about the state of our country. I do not believe that Courts are out there advancing their own personal political agendas for financial gain or otherwise - the Legislative branch has the corner on that market.

I enjoyed your post.

**deathgodusmc** · 07-12-13, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by Alundil

Honestly, I don't know how to respond to this other than:

You don't get to decide what the Constitution means or how it's interpreted for the other ~300 million people it applies to.
That said, you're of course allowed to disagree with some/all interpretations of it.
That said it doesn't change the fact that other people are equally entitled to have their own pet interpretations of the Constitution that may align with your interpretation or run askew of it in any number of ways.

Presuming (and openly to boot) that someone doesn't "give a shit about the facts at hand" simply because they see/experience things differently than you do is the height of hubris. You're not arguing facts as the common definition of the word. You're arguing a subjective interpretation based on your own biases and notions (note I use those terms without negative connotation and simply to capture "ideals, environment, experience", etc). What you see as facts aiming in one direction, someone (everyone?) else will see slightly differently. Therefore, that means that your facts are not, in fact, facts at all since "Facts" require objectivity and verifiability.

As for the second paragraph.....

?
It is the "bailiwick" of the Supreme Court to review laws brought before them. If said review happens to change (redefine) the interpretation/application of said law then the court is working exactly as it was intended to work (WAD) regardless of whether any one individual (you) agrees or disagrees. It's their job to do so as the Founders intended and set forth. Wishing it were otherwise won't change that in the slightest.

Why cant he decide what it means for the 300 million people? Thats exactly what we have other people doing. Facts dont have to be verifiable or objective. That being said he is talking about a written document and the words do speak for themselves. So how is he wrong? If say the second amendment says no law will infringe on the right to keep and bear arms and we now have so many laws on the books that do nothing but infringe on that right it would seem he nailed whats going on regardless of what someone elses opinion on it is. If said court was doing everything by the letter of our founding documents we would have a lot less court cases and a lot less laws.

**-Lazarus-** · 07-12-13, 01:58 AM

Prison Planet.com » Man Refuses To Comply With Internal Checkpoint; Border Patrol Smashes Their Way Into Vehicle

More tyranny. Granted the guy was non-compliant on purpose and expected the abuse he got. But, so was Rosa Parks.

**-Lazarus-** · 07-12-13, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by iravedic

Article I of the Constitution authorizes. The 1st executive order was issued by George Washington. Which ones in particular do you take issue with?

Here, from one year ago, is an article with good examples from our current President:

Strassel: Obama's Imperial Presidency - WSJ.com

Need another example? Executive Overreach | National Review Online

I'd wager that George Washington didn't issue executive orders in order to avoid congress altogether as Obama regularly does, or refuse to enforce laws he didn't agree with. And again, no one gives a shit.

Originally Posted by iravedic

Not really sure of your point here with respect to obamacare - the executive branch has always had the power to direct the activities of it's agencies. If I take your meaning correctly a better example would be the DOJ position on medical marijuana. Many of the laws passed and signed into law are not enforced - nothing new there, and again in place since the very beginning of the country.

Does Obama Have Authority To Delay ObamaCare Mandate? | Independent Journal Review

Where a previous president might have asked for a legislative fix if a mandate was proving too onerous for business, the Obama administration put out a couple of blog posts saying that, in listening to the business community, it (arbitrarily) decided (on its own) not to enforce a key part of the 3-year-old health law for another year.

Failure by law enforcement to enforce a law, and the President of the United States enacting policy avoiding or refusing to enforce laws in direct violation of his duties under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution are two very different things.

Originally Posted by iravedic

The 10th amendment is one of the most litigated and best defined provisions in Constitution - it is hardly 'ignored'. Again, the States rights vs Federalism argument has been going on since the beginning.

http://www.ipi.org/docLib/20120521_Citizens_Guide.PDF

It's regularly ignored. Congress regularly mandates all kinds of things reserved for the states and ignores the 10th amendment.

Originally Posted by iravedic

By whom? The 2nd amendment is more than alive and well. And frankly, the expansive reading of 'rights' granted by the 2nd amendment by the likes of the NRA is much broader than any reading of Article III which authorizes courts, and broader than the reading of most other clauses.

What the heck are you talking about? What exactly does the NRA promote that is too broad an interpretation of the second amendment?

Originally Posted by iravedic

You fail to understand how the country actually has always worked. A law is not in fact unconstitutional until a court says so - until that time it is in fact the Law and by definition is consistent with the Constitution. You may not like it, you may think they got it wrong, and that it violates your reading of the Constitution - but the very document you are relying on establishes these provisions and framework.

There are many rulings I do not like (see Citizens United) - that doesn't change the fact that it is the law. See I live and work in the real world where Laws matter, if I don't agree I know that there are legal avenues available to address what I perceive to be an issue. I also have my individual vote, and I use that too. I'm not nearly as cynical as you appear to be about the state of our country. I do not believe that Courts are out there advancing their own personal political agendas for financial gain or otherwise - the Legislative branch has the corner on that market.

First of all, you know as well as I do that the intent of the founders was not for congress to purposely make laws that would have to be struck down later by the Supreme Court. And yet, we have laws like that being created more than ever nowadays. But we still vote in the same assholes that are making these screwed up laws, or Presidents who completely violate the public trust and their constitutional responsibility.

Second of all, if laws matter, then why earlier did you say with cavalier attitude that laws are regularly unenforced? Kind of a "Whoop de doo Basil" way of looking at it if laws matter isn't it?

**MaFioSo** · 07-13-13, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Heck no man, this was the topic, not the other discussion... Check this out:

Steven L Anderson: Jury returns NOT GUILTY verdict on ALL counts in Pastor Anderson trial on 8/13/10

Absolutely awesome.

Apparently, the bible is the most efficient way to get through these checkpoints.

**Alundil** · 07-13-13, 01:43 PM

lol

**kANG** · 07-15-13, 07:31 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4z3...e_gdata_player

**-Lazarus-** · 07-26-13, 10:35 PM

Yup.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...hangegov.shtml

**-Lazarus-** · 08-05-13, 10:07 AM

Exclusive: U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans | Reuters

As a practical matter, law enforcement agents said they usually don't worry that SOD's involvement will be exposed in court. That's because most drug-trafficking defendants plead guilty before trial and therefore never request to see the evidence against them. If cases did go to trial, current and former agents said, charges were sometimes dropped to avoid the risk of exposing SOD involvement.

Current and former federal agents said SOD tips aren't always helpful - one estimated their accuracy at 60 percent. But current and former agents said tips have enabled them to catch drug smugglers who might have gotten away.

So, this thing is wrong 40% of the time, illegally obtains information and if a defendant decides to go to trial rather than take a plea the charges are sometimes dropped to protect the program.

To me, it sounds like these guys are trolling for defendants using illegal methods, and figure that the ones who are really innocent will fight the charges in court. What the hell has happened to our law enforcement agencies?

**Alundil** · 08-05-13, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Yup.

Obama Promise To 'Protect Whistleblowers' Just Disappeared From Change.gov | Techdirt

TechDirt's tag lines play a bit loose and they don't follow-up very well it seems as that site and page is up again.

Of particular note was this quote from the above article:

...at the very same time Obama's administration is threatening trade sanctions against anyone who grants asylum to Ed Snowden.

The problem with that statement is that it's overly broad and the details are, purposely?, missing. Making it easy for the majority of people who don't bother to READ to miss the pertinent points (since they won't go looking for them in the first place).

From the above techdirt article:

The latest is that the Senate Appropriations Committee has supported a plan to instruct Secretary of State John Kerry to work with Congress in issuing sanctions against any country that grants Snowden asylum.

It's not unless you go through to the Reuters link to find that this was proposed and supported by Lindsey Graham.

Going on - it's even less about Snowden, per se, than it is about the Middle East, again.
From the Reuters article:

Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham said he introduced the amendment to try to get the attention of any country that might take in Snowden, not Russia in particular, although he noted Moscow has lined up against the United States on other issues, including the civil war in Syria."When it comes to Russia, it's just not about Snowden. They are allying with Iran, 100,000 Syrians have been killed, they are providing weapons to Assad that are getting in the hands of Hezbollah. And really enough's enough," said Graham, who has suggested the U.S. consider boycotting the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia.

All in all I'm a bit unimpressed with Techdirt's reporting so far as I've seen. Bad attention to detail and bad follow-up error reporting - plus misleading tag lines.