- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
If Republicans win in 2012 and the new President decides that he believes the Health Care Law that was passed is unconstitutional, do you think it is acceptable and alright for him to have the Justice Department refuse to defend the law in court cases allowing it to be challenged in court without any proper defense of its legality being put forward by the state?
I'd have to say, out of respect to our system of checks and balances, I could not support it (damn it)."I want the question answered based simply on itself and your feelings in a general sense as to how the various branches of government should work.
Two, the poll is not necessarily asking for your PERSONAL opinion...IE would you agree with the principle of the action...but on a governmental procedural action",
I'm so against the health care bill, my honest impulse was to vote yes in an "ends justifies the means" kind of idea. After reading your OP though, specifically this; I'd have to say, out of respect to our system of checks and balances, I could not support it.
So here's the question:
If Republicans win in 2012 and the new President decides that he believes the Health Care Law that was passed is unconstitutional, do you think it is acceptable and alright for him to have the Justice Department refuse to defend the law in court cases allowing it to be challenged in court without any proper defense of its legality being put forward by the state?
So, where's your vote?As I understand it, such an action is legal, and as such if the president had solid evidence that a challenge to the law was highly likely to succeed, then yes, there is nothing wrong with not defending it.
Here's the question, for liberals and conservatives alike.
To preface this I'd like request two things:
First, that I ask you to answer under the hypothetical that the Obama Administration did not come out and say that they would not defend DOMA in court. IE, I don't want the conservatives on here saying "Absolutely, if they did it we should to". I want the question answered based simply on itself and your feelings in a general sense as to how the various branches of government should work.
Two, the poll is not necessarily asking for your PERSONAL opinion...IE would you agree with the principle of the action...but on a governmental procedural action. The govermental version of "I don't agree with what he's saying, but I agree with his right to say it". I'm not asking if you'd agree that it SHOULD be done, but rather should it be allowable.
So here's the question:
If Republicans win in 2012 and the new President decides that he believes the Health Care Law that was passed is unconstitutional, do you think it is acceptable and alright for him to have the Justice Department refuse to defend the law in court cases allowing it to be challenged in court without any proper defense of its legality being put forward by the state?
If Republicans win in 2012 and the new President decides that he believes the Health Care Law that was passed is unconstitutional, do you think it is acceptable and alright for him to have the Justice Department refuse to defend the law in court cases allowing it to be challenged in court without any proper defense of its legality being put forward by the state?
I don't think your analogy is the same. It isn't about prosecutors having discretion, if anything, this takes away discretion by saying, no, you can't enforce this law because I disagree with it. If the DA in your jurisdiction came out and said, "I disagree with our DWI laws, so I'm barring anyone in my office from prosecuting them." Would you support that?Okay.
Well.
My understanding is that the President is in charge of the Justice Department, just like the President is in charge of a lot of departments. Congress has fobbed a lot of authority off on the executive branch, and it does not exist in a vacuum -- there is a chain of command.
Assistant DAs have to take orders from DAs, and so on up the food chain.
My answer is the same.
I don't think your analogy is the same. It isn't about prosecutors having discretion, if anything, this takes away discretion by saying, no, you can't enforce this law because I disagree with it. If the DA in your jurisdiction came out and said, "I disagree with our DWI laws, so I'm barring anyone in my office from prosecuting them." Would you support that?
No, I wouldn't support it, but that's his prerogative and I'd express my disagreement with how he exercises it in the next election.
Well look at the poll question again. It's whether you would support the action, not whether you agree that it's within his prerogative. So how do you reconcile your vote with this post? Could it be because you just agree with Obama on the DOMA thing so you're engaging in some result oriented rationalization?No, I wouldn't support it, but that's his prerogative and I'd express my disagreement with how he exercises it in the next election.
Well look at the poll question again. It's whether you would support the action, not whether you agree that it's within his prerogative. So how do you reconcile your vote with this post? Could it be because you just agree with Obama on the DOMA thing so you're engaging in some result oriented rationalization?
If Republicans win in 2012 and the new President decides that he believes the Health Care Law that was passed is unconstitutional, do you think it is acceptable and alright for him to have the Justice Department refuse to defend the law in court cases allowing it to be challenged in court without any proper defense of its legality being put forward by the state?
To Clarify...
I'm not asking if its legal or not.
And I'm not asking if you would agree with its use specifically to the Health Care Law.
But if you agree with the use of the tactic in general. Essentially, do you condone or think such a tactic is acceptable. Mind you, there's things at times people find unacceptable that are completely legal (and vise versa), and its COMPLETELY legitimate to state "Its legal, so I'm okay with it being used". But I'm not necessarily expecting people to say "yes, I think its okay to use this tactic" simply because that tactic is legal.
I have a hard time picturing an example of a law that you would agree with but, yet, recognize it's uncontitutionality. Can you give an example?The purpose of being able to do this is to not have to waste resources fighting a for a law that is almost certain to go down. That is why it is being used here, and it is perfectly acceptable to use the ability as it is intended This includes even for laws I might like but would not pass constitutional muster.
Obama's decision is just as political as the one in Zyph's example.Now, the problem with your example is that it is not a law that is clear cut on constitutionality. Experts cannot agree, the judges who have rules on it so far have not agreed. The constitutionality of the health care reform bill is very much up in the air. For that reason it is probably a bad example.
The question however is not about having no prosecutors that will defend the law TED, but having the POTUS dictating to the Justice Department that they will not defend it, regardless of the feeling of the prosecutors. I understand your point, but that is not what this thread is asking about.
I have a hard time picturing an example of a law that you would agree with but, yet, recognize it's uncontitutionality. Can you give an example?
Obama's decision is just as political as the one in Zyph's example.
Here's the question, for liberals and conservatives alike.
To preface this I'd like request two things:
First, that I ask you to answer under the hypothetical that the Obama Administration did not come out and say that they would not defend DOMA in court. IE, I don't want the conservatives on here saying "Absolutely, if they did it we should to". I want the question answered based simply on itself and your feelings in a general sense as to how the various branches of government should work.
Two, the poll is not necessarily asking for your PERSONAL opinion...IE would you agree with the principle of the action...but on a governmental procedural action. The govermental version of "I don't agree with what he's saying, but I agree with his right to say it". I'm not asking if you'd agree that it SHOULD be done, but rather should it be allowable.
So here's the question:
If Republicans win in 2012 and the new President decides that he believes the Health Care Law that was passed is unconstitutional, do you think it is acceptable and alright for him to have the Justice Department refuse to defend the law in court cases allowing it to be challenged in court without any proper defense of its legality being put forward by the state?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?