Cycloptichorn wrote:Nah, not really; it's just you write things like 'noone can show where congress has a general power to regulate the presdient in the Constitution,' I point out exactly where it does, and you don't answer, because it makes mincemeat out of your argument.
Wrong. You pointed out that Congress has the power to make laws -- and what a newsflash that was, by the way -- but neither you nor DL articulated a general power to regulate the president. Congress could pass legislation all day long, but if it violates the Constitution, it is of no effect. The Congress has a very limited power to regulate the Executive Branch, but you cannot point to the Necessary & Proper clause as authority for your claim that the Legislative Branch has a general power to regulate the Executive Branch. Whatever power the Legislature has over the Executive exists by virtue of particular, narrow grants of Congressional power.
Does Congress have a general power to regulate the Judicial Branch too, in your opinion?
No, the Necessary & Proper Clause gives Congress the power ...
Quote:To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the department or officer thereof.
"... the foregoing powers" refers to the immediately preceding 17 powers in Art. 1, Sec. 8, none of which appear to me to be a power to regulate the Executive Branch.
And, in addition, the Necessary & Proper clause does not give the Congress the power to pass laws that impermissibly infringe upon the inherent powers of the Executive.
Cyclops wrote:I can't exactly figure out what your argument even is, btw; is it that Bush is justified in what he is doing? That the SC has said it is okay? That Congress cannot limit Bush in any way? Your tack shifts depending on how quickly your arguments are shown to be BS.
Bush is entitled to do what he's doing, so in that sense his actions are "justified," I guess. I maintain that the SC had an opportunity to proclaim the actions of President Wilson to be illegal, and chose not to do so (save for a Justices' comment in a dissenting opinion), so they have implicitily condoned his actions.
Cyclops wrote:You haven't pointed out how we are wrong, is the thing. You've advanced a different theory of Constitutional interpretation than the standard one, and one that conflicts with the actual wording of the Constitution itself.
I've advanced a theory that the President does not need to follow laws that are unconstitutional, and if he feels they are unconstitutional he can ignore them (at his peril), and that past Presidents have ignored laws they believed were unconstitutional (Wilson being just one of many), and the Supreme Court has commented upon Wilson's refusal to follow the law in the
Myers case and ruled that the law was unconstitutional in that case, and did not state they believed Wilson's actions were illegal, improper, unbecoming, unseemly, or untoward -- at least in the majority opinion. On the contrary, you and DL seem to want to rely on a dissenting-minority opinion, and proclaim that it is
I who is wrong.
