Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, pretend like Article II: Section 3 doesn't exist if you like. Of course it does exist and it not only empowers, but obliges the US president to see to it that all Federal laws are enforced.
I do not pretend it does not exist. But I refuse to pretend it means something it doesn't. The Take Care Clause is not the President's carte blanche power to do as he sees fit to make sure that everyone else follows the law. It never has been. In fact, it is an obligation, not a source of power. That's why it is listed under Section 3, which is about the President's Responsibilities, not the President's Powers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Wrong. I'm wondering if you misunderstand something. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling is "the law". The President is obligated to enforce these rulings because it is a ruling from the highest federal court and the president is charged with executing federal laws. Taking care that the laws be faithfully executed applies to a court decision as well as to a statute.
In any event, when it comes down to it, not only did Jackson not enforce this ruling, he sent the army to force the Indians to move.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling interprets the law. What it "is" is a decision resolving a dispute between two or more parties to a lawsuit. The lawsuit Jackson spoke of was between Georgia and a man named Samuel Worcester, who had been arrested by Georgia. The Court ordered Georgia to free Worcester, because its criminal law exceeded the State's jurisdiction. The federal government was not a party to the lawsuit, and was under no obligation as a result of the decision in that case.
The removal of Indians was not the result of this case. It was carried out under the Indian Removal Act, which passed in 1830, and was largely built on a foundation that dated back decades. Jackson signed the Removal Act into law and Took Care that it was followed.
I do not pretend it does not exist. But I refuse to pretend it means something it doesn't. The Take Care Clause is not the President's carte blanche power to do as he sees fit to make sure that everyone else follows the law. It never has been. In fact, it is an obligation, not a source of power. That's why it is listed under Section 3, which is about the President's Responsibilities, not the President's Powers.
Oh? Could you please list those presidential responsibilities found in the Constitution which you assume the president is denied the power to execute? Then we would have a meaningful distinction between powers and responsibilities.
Oh? Could you please list those presidential responsibilities found in the Constitution which you assume the president is denied the power to execute? Then we would have a meaningful distinction between powers and responsibilities.
The President's powers are granted by Congress, save for the inherent powers of the Executive and the powers listed in Art. II Sec. 2. Plus the veto power, stemming from the Presentment Clause of Article I.
The President's powers are granted by Congress, save for the inherent powers of the Executive and the powers listed in Art. II Sec. 2. Plus the veto power, stemming from the Presentment Clause of Article I.
Nothing in Congress' statutes or the President's powers obligated Jackson to free a man convicted by the State of Georgia.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling interprets the law. What it "is" is a decision resolving a dispute between two or more parties to a lawsuit. The lawsuit Jackson spoke of was between Georgia and a man named Samuel Worcester, who had been arrested by Georgia. The Court ordered Georgia to free Worcester, because its criminal law exceeded the State's jurisdiction. The federal government was not a party to the lawsuit, and was under no obligation as a result of the decision in that case.
The removal of Indians was not the result of this case. It was carried out under the Indian Removal Act, which passed in 1830, and was largely built on a foundation that dated back decades. Jackson signed the Removal Act into law and Took Care that it was followed.
I usually am not this blunt. However, I would really suggest before you opining on something like this that you might want to take a course in constitutional law. I've taken several. Judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution and statutes are the law. Its not a point that anyone who knows anything about these subjects would choose to debate.
The case may have been from the state of Georgia, but it it involved fundamental issues under the Constitution and under federal law. Those issues include the authority of Congress to make treaties with the Indian nations. They include the fact that states cannot regulate Indian territory because of principles of federalism established under the Constitution. In short, the court held the Indian Removal Act unconstitutional because of language in the United States Constitution.
Jackson was required to enforce this ruling because of language under Article 2 Section 3. I'm perfectly willing to debate this. However, if your arguments reject or don't acknowledge basic constitutional law its really a waste of time.
The President's powers are granted by Congress, save for the inherent powers of the Executive and the powers listed in Art. II Sec. 2. Plus the veto power, stemming from the Presentment Clause of Article I.
That of course is not an answer to my question. It is a dodge. There is no such thing as a power the president has which isn't his of her responsibility to execute if needed, and there is no such thing as a responsibility the president is expected to execute for which he or she does not have the power.
Is this part of the change Obama promised? Has this rebranding something that has been going on throughout history? You get the feeling that the greatest nation in the world is not liked by the people making these decisions. This destruction of statues, etc. in America by those who made this nation what it is today sounds like a revolution and I see no good coming from it. We are not only losing statues; we are losing freedoms of religion and speech and a move toward communism.
I think I prefer a president's picture on our money to a historical character. My husband tells me this will not happen until 2030. Thank God. The way we are going, there will not be a USA in 2030.
I usually am not this blunt. However, I would really suggest before you opining on something like this that you might want to take a course in constitutional law. I've taken several. Judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution and statutes are the law. Its not a point that anyone who knows anything about these subjects would choose to debate.
The case may have been from the state of Georgia, but it it involved fundamental issues under the Constitution and under federal law. Those issues include the authority of Congress to make treaties with the Indian nations. They include the fact that states cannot regulate Indian territory because of principles of federalism established under the Constitution. In short, the court held the Indian Removal Act unconstitutional because of language in the United States Constitution.
Jackson was required to enforce this ruling because of language under Article 2 Section 3. I'm perfectly willing to debate this. However, if your arguments reject or don't acknowledge basic constitutional law its really a waste of time.
If you were knowledgeable about constitutional law, you might want to read the case before expounding on it. It deals with Georgia's authority to assert its criminal law. It had nothing to do with the Indian Removal Act. It had nothing to do with the federal government. Before you try to debate, you should at least know what the topic is. Read Worcester v. Georgia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
That of course is not an answer to my question. It is a dodge. There is no such thing as a power the president has which isn't his of her responsibility to execute if needed, and there is no such thing as a responsibility the president is expected to execute for which he or she does not have the power.
In Worcester v. Georgia, there was no responsibility the President was expected to execute. There was an order directing Georgia to act by releasing Samuel Worcester. Jackson was required to do nothing.
Is this part of the change Obama promised? Has this rebranding something that has been going on throughout history? They have changed paper money before. They added "In God We Trust" to paper money in 1957, just a few years after adding "Under God" to the pledge of allegiance. How did you feel about those changes?
You get the feeling that the greatest nation in the world is not liked by the people making these decisions. So you're a mind reader . . . can you bend spoons too? Maybe you can provide examples of leaders who have loved America - I'm sure we could have some fun with that.
This destruction of statues, etc. in America by those who made this nation what it is today sounds like a revolution and I see no good coming from it. We are not only losing statues; we are losing freedoms of religion and speech and a move toward communism. We are far closer to unbridled capitalism than communism.
I think I prefer a president's picture on our money to a historical character. My husband tells me this will not happen until 2030. Thank God. The way we are going, there will not be a USA in 2030. How have we survived with Hamilton on the $10 and Franklin on the $100? Oh the horror . . .
Well, they all make more sense than to change what is already established.
We know people don't like what the country is because they seem so interested in destroying our country's history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
