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.
The understanding of the seperate parts of the US Government:
The federal government of the United States is the central government entity established by the United States Constitution, which shares sovereignty over the United States with the governments of the individual U.S. states.[/SIZE]
The federal government has three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial
Through a system of separation of powers and the system of "checks and balances," each of these branches has some authority to act on its own, some authority to regulate the other two branches, and has some of its own authority, in turn, regulated by the other branches.
Mr. Obama needs to understand that just as he is the leader of the government, and of his branch of government, the United States constitution, the document that grants him his authority of office of presidency,- this same constitution grants specific and very powerful authority to the supreme court and the Judicial branch of government.
Mr. Obama needs to come to the realization, that as much as he does not like the law, he MUST respect it- especially in his capacity as our President. And until he does mature and come to this realization, perhaps Mr. Obama should step down.
I'm addressing this to Joe as the OP but it applies to just about every other post on this thread. Your understanding of our system of laws is quite flawed. And I say that as a supporter of the Supreme Court decision striking down major parts of McCain-Feingold.
The purpose of McCain-Feingold (merely a law not a constitutional amendment) was to limit the role of money in political campaigns. It was challenged in the lower courts on First amendment grounds (Freedom of Speech). The case went all the way to the Supreme Court which ruled that the law violated or went against the plaintiffs' right to freedom of speech. In other words Congress went too far. In trying to regulate money it ended up regulating speech--which it can't do under the First Amendment. When a law contravenes the Constitution the law is invalid and must be struck down.
What does that mean for the future of campaign finance reform? Well, Congress could let the matter lie. Or it can take another stab at crafting a bill (which Obama would undobtedly sign if it is approved by Congress) that regulates campaign finance in a way that passes constitutional muster. I believe that is what Dems in Congress intend to do. So lawyers will pour over the Supreme Court decision to see where it leaves wiggle room for Congressional action. I have no doubt that lawyers will find such wiggle room (that's what lawyers do) and Congress will make another attempt to limit money in campaigns. Undoubtedly this new law, as well, will be challenged in court and may end up on the Supreme Court docket three of four years from now. At which time the Court will again be asked to decide whether Congress exceeded its authority in passing that legislation.
Bottom line there really is no separation-of-powers issue here, Joe.
I think the President has an obligation to speak out about Supreme Court rulings he finds problematic. The system of balances actually requires there be tension between the branches in order for it to operate at its best.
And I think McCain-Feingold had problems that the courts did need to address.
And I think campaign finance has a long ways to go before it's not subject to undue influences.
President Obama, who swore to uphold the Constitution, does not like the Constitution; I believe he will, given the opportunity, look for ways to change it to his liking. He has indicated on several occasions that there are parts of the Constitution that he believes should be changed. Now, the way I see it, one can either uphold the Constitution, or work to change it. I don't think one can honestly do both concurrently. At least, I don't see how. The fact that he thinks parts of it should be changed is troublesome to me.
Anyway, I have a lot to learn about the Constitution, and plan to tune in to this free online seminar this Saturday, Jan. 30, 9AM - 3PM EST.
"Reviving the Constitution"
Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for
Constitutional Studies and Citizenship Hillsdale Constitution Town Hall
I'm addressing this to Joe as the OP but it applies to just about every other post on this thread. Your understanding of our system of laws is quite flawed. And I say that as a supporter of the Supreme Court decision striking down major parts of McCain-Feingold.
The purpose of McCain-Feingold (merely a law not a constitutional amendment) was to limit the role of money in political campaigns. It was challenged in the lower courts on First amendment grounds (Freedom of Speech). The case went all the way to the Supreme Court which ruled that the law violated or went against the plaintiffs' right to freedom of speech. In other words Congress went too far. In trying to regulate money it ended up regulating speech--which it can't do under the First Amendment. When a law contravenes the Constitution the law is invalid and must be struck down.
What does that mean for the future of campaign finance reform? Well, Congress could let the matter lie. Or it can take another stab at crafting a bill (which Obama would undobtedly sign if it is approved by Congress) that regulates campaign finance in a way that passes constitutional muster. I believe that is what Dems in Congress intend to do. So lawyers will pour over the Supreme Court decision to see where it leaves wiggle room for Congressional action. I have no doubt that lawyers will find such wiggle room (that's what lawyers do) and Congress will make another attempt to limit money in campaigns. Undoubtedly this new law, as well, will be challenged in court and may end up on the Supreme Court docket three of four years from now. At which time the Court will again be asked to decide whether Congress exceeded its authority in passing that legislation.
Bottom line there really is no separation-of-powers issue here, Joe.
Thank You Sir. what you say rings clear and true. Much obliged!
This is the definition I get for Rabbi, tooling around the Web:
Rabbi-
spiritual leader of a Jewish congregation; qualified to expound and apply Jewish law
a Hebrew title of respect for a Jewish scholar or teacher
You have a lot to say on the subject of the Supreme Court decision Joe and I wish you had more respect for the traditions of Judaism because I don't think rolling around in P&OC with political pundits is seemly behavior for such a title but that's me. If allowed, the big money corporations are going to destroy this country while they attempt to destroy each other. Mr. Obama does not like the ruling and has said so, good on him. Bush thought Iraq was a good idea, clearly it was not. Anyone who said otherwise was branded a traitor in an attempt to silence them Mostly it worked. Now look. You are just worried that when someone as powerful as Obama fails to line up behind a load of caca it will send the wrong message to the faithful. Sorry pal, you and your kind want to take America down and you want cooperation and assistance on every front. Is that reasonable? Realistic? Get real.
H
There is but one reason I chose to start this thread in the political arena and not say, in "names," or say, "Religion."
As well, I have no idea how any of what was posted had anything of what to do with religion.
FYI, some of the very best political minds are those of spiritual leaders. While Im sure you do have your own opinions on that matter, your core opinion shined staright between your words.
I would recommend a two-fold step so as to help ythose with such a disposition interact and integrate into the free American society as we know it. Please do not be offended, as it is for the benefit of all those with a difficulty respecting an authority, or a "title" for that matter, that they have a bias for.
One: seek counseling for managment of understanding, and reactions.
Two: Try starting a forum dedicated for anti-semitism. At least all will understand a true intent.
Thank You for reminding the religious of how much hatred is seemingly freelancing in all places.
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.
Thank You Sir.
God bless
