|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 133 responses total. |
bru
|
|
response 82 of 133:
| 
Feb 19 02:47 UTC 2006 |
It isn't unconstitutional until a court rules it is unconstitutional. Who
is going to take it to court? And perhaps it is not unconstitutional? Has
such an executive order been done before?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 83 of 133:
|
Feb 19 03:05 UTC 2006 |
re #82:
> It isn't unconstitutional until a court rules it is unconstitutional.
I don't believe for a second that you'd take that attitude regarding
a law you were strongly opposed to, such as a gun control law.
|
tod
|
|
response 84 of 133:
|
Feb 19 03:59 UTC 2006 |
re #82
Who
is going to take it to court?
Sad but true. The Congress is a bunch of sheep
|
marcvh
|
|
response 85 of 133:
|
Feb 19 04:55 UTC 2006 |
Bru's position has been considered and explicitly rejected in
jurisprudence.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the
form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the
time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so
branding it."
|
cyklone
|
|
response 86 of 133:
|
Feb 19 05:22 UTC 2006 |
This of course proves once again that bap is not really as interested in
facts and logic as he has claimed (and will surely claim again in the
future). Here's a hint bap: Trying to convince us you carefully consider
an issue sounds a bit hollow in light of your ignorant or deliberate
misstatements of fact.
|
bru
|
|
response 87 of 133:
|
Feb 19 13:03 UTC 2006 |
That may be true Marc, but a court still has to come out and say "this is
Unconstitutional". You and I saying it will not make it so. It is that way
with many laws, and even with many legal actions.
If a police Officer places you under arrest, it is because he believes you
have broken the law. But it is the Court that decides if you are guilty.
It is also a court that will determine if it was a legal arrest.
Same with this presidential order. It was issued because the president
believes he has the authority and the need to make such an order. It is a
court that will determine if it is constitutional, or if you prefer, it is
up to a court to rule that it is unconstitutional.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 88 of 133:
|
Feb 19 15:06 UTC 2006 |
>> It was issued because the president believes he has the authority <<<
Hmm i am not sure , but should not he KNOW if he had the authority. If he
THINKS he has the authority , should he just go on and do it ?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 89 of 133:
|
Feb 19 17:39 UTC 2006 |
That's the unfortunate situation with doing things which exceed your
authority, or create the appearance of doing so. When a legislature
passes an unconstitutional law, or a president signs an illegal
executive order, or a military officer issues an illegal order, or a
policeman gives a civilian an illegal order then the recipient is faced
with conflicting duties. In general he has a duty to obey orders/laws,
but for this particular one he has a duty to ignore it. This is not a
good situation for anybody to be in, but the blame rests squarely on the
shoulders of the person who made the illegal order/law.
|
cross
|
|
response 90 of 133:
|
Feb 19 19:00 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 91 of 133:
|
Feb 19 21:52 UTC 2006 |
Agreed. It is either a lawful Constitutional order or it is not. You and
I may say it is Unconstitutional, but we have no way to enforce our opinion
unless you want to rise up and overthrow the government by force, or, let the
court system handle it.
As I asked, does anybody know if any previous presidents have issued a similar
order? Is it something they are required to do to facilitate the ligal
transfer of power should the president no longer be able to perform his
duties?
Any Constitutional lawyers present?
|
cross
|
|
response 92 of 133:
|
Feb 19 22:56 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 93 of 133:
|
Feb 21 01:17 UTC 2006 |
I don't believe for a second that you'd take that attitude regarding
a law you were strongly opposed to, such as a gun control law.
I don't disagree for a second.
|
gull
|
|
response 94 of 133:
|
Feb 23 03:21 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:72: The federal government will still be able to control the
issue even if abortion law is ostensibly returned to the states. Even
if attempts to regulate it directly, as is done with drug policy, are
rebuffed by the courts, the government could still threaten to block all
federal funding to states that permit abortion.
|
klg
|
|
response 95 of 133:
|
Feb 23 03:24 UTC 2006 |
Johnny/ie The way the country currently works, if the US Sup Ct rules
that according to the US constitution the regulation of abortion were a
state matter, then it isn't likely that the US Congress could pass a law
regulating abortions that the US Sup Ct would find constitutional, now,
is there??????
I love it when you folks go nuts over loony conspiracy theories. It
makes our job of showing your inanity so much easier.
|
bru
|
|
response 96 of 133:
|
Feb 23 04:03 UTC 2006 |
The supreme court ruled today that you can sue the Post Office, can abortion
be far behind
|
marcvh
|
|
response 97 of 133:
|
Feb 23 04:33 UTC 2006 |
What if the Supreme Court upholds the federal law banning partial birth
abortions, and thereby affirms that abortion can be restricted at the
federal level?
|
tod
|
|
response 98 of 133:
|
Feb 23 06:55 UTC 2006 |
re #96
You mean abortions available at ATMs and online? AWESOME! *thumbs up*
|
jep
|
|
response 99 of 133:
|
Feb 23 13:46 UTC 2006 |
South Dakota is on the verge of passing a bill to ban almost all
abortion in the state. The lone exception is for cases when the
mother's life is in danger.
Planned Parenthood has promised a lawsuit if the bill is passed and
signed by the governor.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 100 of 133:
|
Feb 23 15:32 UTC 2006 |
Which is what the people behind the law want- they are hoping to take it
to the Supreme Court with the goal of having Roe v. Wade essentially
overturned.
|
jep
|
|
response 101 of 133:
|
Feb 23 16:19 UTC 2006 |
Yep.
They ought to wait to see if Bush gets to appoint another justice. It
doesn't look too likely to me that the current Supreme Court is going
to reverse Roe vs. Wade.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 102 of 133:
|
Feb 23 16:30 UTC 2006 |
I honestly hope they don't. That particular law doesn't even provide
exceptions for a woman who was raped.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 103 of 133:
|
Feb 23 16:33 UTC 2006 |
will it bring in new business where you can bribe docs to certify that the
mothers life was in danger ?
|
keesan
|
|
response 104 of 133:
|
Feb 23 16:58 UTC 2006 |
If that passes South Dakota is likely to lose rather than gain population as
most people move somewhere else.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 105 of 133:
|
Feb 23 17:21 UTC 2006 |
I find it very unlikely that more than 50% of the population of SD will
move away. SD already has an abortion rate much lower than the national
average, and already has very few (2 last I looked) providers of
abortion services. Under this law they would just have to drive further,
to Fargo or Minneapolis.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 106 of 133:
|
Feb 23 17:30 UTC 2006 |
re #104, 105: 50%? I find it pretty unlikely that more than .50%
of South Dakotans would move out of the state because of such a law.
|