You mean give away to people currently down on their luck, or unable to find a job right now? Something that can happen to any one of us, and is a nail in the side of the economy, which needs a maximum amount of workers?
No it is not. It is his duty to, "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". However as stated before an unconstitutional law is not a law, and is viod the moment it is signed, unless affirmed by the SCOTUS. Ultimately the POTUS' job is to uphold the constitution. the President may not prevent a member of the executive branch from performing a ministerial duty lawfully imposed upon him by Congress. Notice that it uses the word lawfully.
What I posted is not opinion, it is US court Jurisprudence. No one said the SCOTUS does not get the end decision and that if you violated a law that you thought was unconstitutional, but was not, you cannot be punished. The SCOTUS gets the final determination, not lower courts. You are misrepresenting what I said completely. I am not obligated to follow the law, but I run that risk if it is upheld.
No, I'm pretty sure he was accurately paraphrasing Obama's declaration that he did not need to wait for the legislature to pass bills before he took executive actions to do whatever he wanted to do to further his agenda.
So I am pretty sure that in bold does not add up...
What state do you live in? If you buy it in TN, and you live in NC you are required to claim that purchase on your taxes at the end of the year and pay state tax on that purchase. Same with Virginia and a host of other states. In fact I dont know any that charge the tax that does not require it.
Did you skip the day in civics where they went over how the 3 branch system works? It is not in the executive branch's purview to determine what laws are constitutional-- that belongs solely to the judicial branch. The executive is charged with enforcing the law, running our military, and executing foreign policy-- nothing more.
A president who decides to ignore some laws and pretend thats executive discretion is on incredibly shakey ground; it undermines the whole foundation of the legislative branch's power. You seem to think its OK to just put the powers of both the judicial and legislative branches squarely in the president's hand, at which point you have created a dictatorship.
You are correct, it is congresses job to prove that the law is constitution. Under the Us courts jurisprudence the president is not obligated to obey any laws believed to be unconstitutional regardless of if a court has ruled them to be unconstitutional see:16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: If you have some jurisprudence that counters this I would love to see it.
Not really.. If law A is unconstitutional, and law B is not, then picking to enforce law B but not law A is the proper thing to do to enforce the constitutional rule of law we have.
No, it is correct, and the proper thing to do is to not enforce it, as to enforce a law you know to be unconstitutional, regardless of if it is ruled so, would be the actual violating your constitutional duty.
Incorrect, unconstitutional laws are not valid legal laws. If a law is unconstitutional it is void from the moment it is passed, not from the moment the courts rule it so.
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
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. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
Incorrect. Your sales tax is due in the state that you reside, not the state the purchase takes place in, and your car tax in particular is going to go to your county, under registration.
No they get mad at them when a ruling does not go their way, such as rulings holding gay marriage bans unconstitutional, even though it is definitively discrimination .
So you dont want cops and prosecutors to have discretion on things, such as if you can be let off with a warning when you get a speeding ticket? The SCOTUS job is to rule in unconstitutional, but US law states that you have no legal requirement to uphold/follow illegal laws/orders. Or in your civics class did the people in the SCOTUS cases still go to jail after they invalidated the law?
OK, so you get, on average, shorter by a foot a year for 5 years then you grow 3 foot on the 5th, you are still on a downward decline base don the slope of the curve, just not as much of a downward slope.
They claim it is the hottest ever recorded, and use the x+20th century to illustrate the point. Their cliam is that from the 18th, when the data was recorded to now we are at a global maximum, however for the 20th century we are also at a local maximum..
the other issue is we care about what it is doing on a long scale, but not entire earth long. If the hottest temp was 2k C on earth that is good to know, but trying to determine if we are working our way there now using that datapoint would not help us.
That is your opinion of what it was about. The vast majority of those seem to want him to get congress to act, because you know congress has their own petition side for them to use. In fact you may be sad to here that there is nothing in the petition that asks for him to sign an executive order or rule that states cannot do this.. I know it is hard to believe.
Since when has law, state or otherwise, stopped Obama? Constitution? Nah...He knows better...Obamacare mandates? ( his own fucking law)...nah...its an election year.
seems like prosecutional discretion to me
Drug laws? Nah we won't enforce em.
heard of prohibition? To me drug laws are the same as it, they should be prohibition, so I like to think of him not enforcing them because they are unconstitutional.
Seriously. No matter what side of the isle you're on and if you like the laws or not, the fact that he picks and chooses what to enforce completely undermines the whole idea of "rule of law". The man is the biggest crony Ive ever seen.
Not really.. If law A is unconstitutional, and law B is not, then picking to enforce law B but not law A is the proper thing to do to enforce the constitutional rule of law we have.
Can you cite the problem ones? I am genuinly interested. The only one people ever seem to want to cite is the ACA delay one, which seems like prosecutional discretion to me.
I wish more people would get this. All those who blame "activist judges" for ruling unconstitutional laws unconstitutional just because it was voted on by a direct democracy on the ballot make me weep in bed for this country.
HE was asked to say it, HE did not actually say it. The point of the article is that they wish HE would have strongly asked CONGRESS to intervene, not create an executive order.
It is actually interstate commerce which congress has a say in under the commerce clause. Also most states charge you sales tax via your EOY tax forms for out of state purchases.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not stolen, without that money it would be very much harder for you to do your labor. What with no roads,reliable electric grid, phone service.
You cannot get welfare if you are in that situation... But keep on thinking that.
You mean give away to people currently down on their luck, or unable to find a job right now? Something that can happen to any one of us, and is a nail in the side of the economy, which needs a maximum amount of workers?
To be honest we still submit for a draft, it is selective service and it is compulsory for males. There is just not a draft to take use of it atm
According to Marshall it is the SCOTUS that makes that final call.
No it is not. It is his duty to, "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". However as stated before an unconstitutional law is not a law, and is viod the moment it is signed, unless affirmed by the SCOTUS. Ultimately the POTUS' job is to uphold the constitution. the President may not prevent a member of the executive branch from performing a ministerial duty lawfully imposed upon him by Congress. Notice that it uses the word lawfully.
What I posted is not opinion, it is US court Jurisprudence. No one said the SCOTUS does not get the end decision and that if you violated a law that you thought was unconstitutional, but was not, you cannot be punished. The SCOTUS gets the final determination, not lower courts. You are misrepresenting what I said completely. I am not obligated to follow the law, but I run that risk if it is upheld.
No, I'm pretty sure he was accurately paraphrasing Obama's declaration that he did not need to wait for the legislature to pass bills before he took executive actions to do whatever he wanted to do to further his agenda.
So I am pretty sure that in bold does not add up...
What state do you live in? If you buy it in TN, and you live in NC you are required to claim that purchase on your taxes at the end of the year and pay state tax on that purchase. Same with Virginia and a host of other states. In fact I dont know any that charge the tax that does not require it.
Did you skip the day in civics where they went over how the 3 branch system works? It is not in the executive branch's purview to determine what laws are constitutional-- that belongs solely to the judicial branch. The executive is charged with enforcing the law, running our military, and executing foreign policy-- nothing more.
A president who decides to ignore some laws and pretend thats executive discretion is on incredibly shakey ground; it undermines the whole foundation of the legislative branch's power. You seem to think its OK to just put the powers of both the judicial and legislative branches squarely in the president's hand, at which point you have created a dictatorship.
You are correct, it is congresses job to prove that the law is constitution. Under the Us courts jurisprudence the president is not obligated to obey any laws believed to be unconstitutional regardless of if a court has ruled them to be unconstitutional see :16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256: If you have some jurisprudence that counters this I would love to see it.
Not really.. If law A is unconstitutional, and law B is not, then picking to enforce law B but not law A is the proper thing to do to enforce the constitutional rule of law we have.
No, it is correct, and the proper thing to do is to not enforce it, as to enforce a law you know to be unconstitutional, regardless of if it is ruled so, would be the actual violating your constitutional duty.
Incorrect, unconstitutional laws are not valid legal laws. If a law is unconstitutional it is void from the moment it is passed, not from the moment the courts rule it so.
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
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. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
http://www.constitution.org/us...
The executive branch is under no obligation to uphold laws that are believed to be unconstitutional
Incorrect. Your sales tax is due in the state that you reside, not the state the purchase takes place in, and your car tax in particular is going to go to your county, under registration.
No they get mad at them when a ruling does not go their way, such as rulings holding gay marriage bans unconstitutional, even though it is definitively discrimination .
So you dont want cops and prosecutors to have discretion on things, such as if you can be let off with a warning when you get a speeding ticket? The SCOTUS job is to rule in unconstitutional, but US law states that you have no legal requirement to uphold/follow illegal laws/orders. Or in your civics class did the people in the SCOTUS cases still go to jail after they invalidated the law?
OK, so you get, on average, shorter by a foot a year for 5 years then you grow 3 foot on the 5th, you are still on a downward decline base don the slope of the curve, just not as much of a downward slope.
You can breath it, you just cannot process it to make energy. Breathing is the act of taking air into the system
They claim it is the hottest ever recorded, and use the x+20th century to illustrate the point. Their cliam is that from the 18th, when the data was recorded to now we are at a global maximum, however for the 20th century we are also at a local maximum..
the other issue is we care about what it is doing on a long scale, but not entire earth long. If the hottest temp was 2k C on earth that is good to know, but trying to determine if we are working our way there now using that datapoint would not help us.
That is your opinion of what it was about. The vast majority of those seem to want him to get congress to act, because you know congress has their own petition side for them to use. In fact you may be sad to here that there is nothing in the petition that asks for him to sign an executive order or rule that states cannot do this.. I know it is hard to believe.
Since when has law, state or otherwise, stopped Obama? Constitution? Nah...He knows better...Obamacare mandates? ( his own fucking law)...nah...its an election year.
seems like prosecutional discretion to me
Drug laws? Nah we won't enforce em.
heard of prohibition? To me drug laws are the same as it, they should be prohibition, so I like to think of him not enforcing them because they are unconstitutional.
Seriously. No matter what side of the isle you're on and if you like the laws or not, the fact that he picks and chooses what to enforce completely undermines the whole idea of "rule of law". The man is the biggest crony Ive ever seen.
Not really.. If law A is unconstitutional, and law B is not, then picking to enforce law B but not law A is the proper thing to do to enforce the constitutional rule of law we have.
Can you cite the problem ones? I am genuinly interested. The only one people ever seem to want to cite is the ACA delay one, which seems like prosecutional discretion to me.
It depends, my city does not pay for paving streets, all roads are owned by the state.
I wish more people would get this. All those who blame "activist judges" for ruling unconstitutional laws unconstitutional just because it was voted on by a direct democracy on the ballot make me weep in bed for this country.
HE was asked to say it, HE did not actually say it. The point of the article is that they wish HE would have strongly asked CONGRESS to intervene, not create an executive order.
It is actually interstate commerce which congress has a say in under the commerce clause. Also most states charge you sales tax via your EOY tax forms for out of state purchases.
I think the point of this was for the president to say that no one gets to say who sells what, when, where and how.