Congress not told of swap because Taliban threatened to kill Bergdahl if it leaked
This news is just now breaking and this is all the info on it now. If this is true, does this change the situation a lot or anything?
The President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution not every law the Legislative branch pumps out regardless of its constitutionality. Whether or not his actions violate an unconstitutional law is irrelevant.
Little bit of advice...if you debate against the strawman created within your mind based on your prejudices towards those who identify as "conservative", as opposed to debating against things I actually say, you're going to have a bad time.
No where did I suggest the President must uphold every law pumped out by the Legislative branch. No where did I say that the president shouldn't forgo action he feels is unconstitutional.
Here's what I've said.
First, the President of the United States has no power under our form of government to revoke or rescind a law due to being "unconstitutional". From a legal and governmental standard, the President's opinion regarding the constitutionality of a law is irrelevant to the notion of whether or not said law REMAINS A LAW. The President declaring something as unconstitutional has zero impact as to whether or not that law remains on the books.
So in this instance, whether or not Obama feels this law is consitutiontal or not, it is still THE LAW. It is the law until Congress votes to revoke it or the Courts overturn it. The President can choose not to ENFORCE it, but that doesn't cause the law to cease to exist.
Second, action taken that does not adhere to the law is a violation of the law. It might be a "justified" violation, it might be a violation that will be ignored, or it might be a violation that results in penalty......but in ALL cases it is still a violation.
The Administration took action in violation of the law because they believe that law to be unconstitutional and thus they believe they're justified in violating it; but none of that changes that it was a violation of the law.
Like I said, violating an unconstitutional law is irrelevant.
No law is unconstitutional until the SCOTUS finds it so. The President does not have the authority to decide whether a law is constitutional.eace
Like it or not, the office of the President has done so for 192 years and it makes sense.
Where in the world did you get that idea?eace
Presidents have issued signing statements regarding their views on the Constitutionality of certain portions of law and their intent either not to enforce it or do so in a way which is contrary to the law, but which they view to be Constitutional, since James Monroe. Every President since has exercised this authority and, so far, it has remained unchallenged.
Well, not exactly.
What exactly are you disagreeing with?
They were rarely substantive until RWR...
...and have been condemned by the ABA..
SCOTUS has dismissed them when they have figured in cases.eace
The very first one was in regards to the President's view of the constitutionality of a provision of law.
Which only means they may have disagreed with the President's conclusion; not his authority to issue them.
Like I said, violating an unconstitutional law is irrelevant.
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?