Do You Support this Political Philosophy of the US

Mar 9, 2014 18:05:24 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Whereas I remain uncertain as regarding your proposal for unanimity in SCOTUS decisions--I do not oppose that idea; I am simply noncommital at this time--I certainly do agree with you as concerning the matter of "standing" for bringing forth a case.  One example that currently leaps to mind is Presidnt Obama's usurpation of Congress' powers:  It remains unclear whetner the courts would declare that Congress does (or does not) have proper "standing" to take this matter to court.  And that is most unfortunate. 

I'm not exactly sure of what "usurpation of Congress' powers" is being implied as I'm unware of that happening.

Just my opinion but I believe the Supreme Court would address the fact that the Congress itself has the means of dealing with the "usurpation of Congress' powers" through the impeachment process. Congress has the means at it's own disposal to deal with a president that disregards and violates the law so I doubt the Court would give Congress standing in a lawsuit against the president.  

There were two recent Supreme Court cases where "standing" was addressed both of which related to same-sex marriage and the Supreme Court decisions were very different.

In Hollingsworth v. Perry the Supreme Court ruled that two citizen groups defending Califorinia Prop 8 did not have "standing" and vacated the decision by the 9th District Court of Appeals as well as voiding the arguments of the Defendants presented before the 9th District Court. Fundamentally it left the case where the Plaintiff's case was unopposed because the State of California had refused to defend the State Constitutional amendment. It established a default judgment for the Plaintiff's resulting in the striking down of the State Constitutional amendment based upon the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The federal court was required to accept the Plaintiff's case and provide the relief they sought because there was "no defense" against their case.

In United States v. Windsor the Supreme Court questioned the "standing" of House Republicans in defending the DOMA Section 3 when the DOJ refused to defend it after the compelling arguments presented in the lower Courts that it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court requested independent legal analysis of whether the House Republicans should be granted "standing" to defend the law. In the end the Supreme Court allowed "standing" even though the House Republicans didn't apparently have "standing" because there was a national interest in the Supreme Court hearing the case. It could not simply let the lower court ruling stand as it would have established that DOMA Section 3 was unconstitutional but only in one Federal District and not unconstitutional in the other federal districts of the Courts.

It is all very interesting to think about but the issue of "standing" is important and my proposal addresses a problem that we know exists. At least the "Court" would be compelled to establish "Who" has standing if it was to dismiss a case due to a lack of standing. If the Court cannot define who has standing then it would be required to address the case. It may or may not be who we think should have standing but at least the law or action could be addressed and litigated.

As for "unanimous consent" by the Supreme Court consider the following.

Legal Tender Currency (i.e. Federal Reserve Notes) would be unconstitutional.

Social Security, Medicare, and all other forms of federal welfare assistance directly to the People of the United States would be unconstitutional.

The encroachment upon intra-state commerce by the Federal government would not have occurred. There would be no federal minimum wage laws, probably no federal drug prohibitions laws, and many other laws based upon the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.

Obamacare would be unconstitutional.

Anti-Abortion laws would all be unconstitutional.

The list could be almost endless on the laws that would be struck down based upon a requirement for "unanimous consent" by the Supreme Court on issues of Constitutionality and it would ensure the greatest possible liberty for the People and the smallest possible and least intrusive government in the United States. It would certainly blow much of the political agenda of both the Democratic Party and Republican Party out of the water and would do so about equally. The politcal agenda of both Democrats and Republicans today rely heavily upon prior Supreme Court decisions where laws and actions of government were upheld by split decisions but are of dubious Constitutionality.

Mar 10, 2014 13:20:20 GMT iolo said:

Mar 9, 2014 12:01:42 GMT ShivaTD said:

"Morality" is subjective based upon opinion whereas the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" are identifiable based upon objective criteria.

That is just silly. If these alleged rights were objective, they would be observed. They aren't.

I might suggest referring to a dictionary for proper understanding of how words are used in a sentence sometimes.

Objective - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

Inalienable Rights can be identified based upon the simple criteria that they are "inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, do not conflict with the rights of another person, nor do they create an involuntary obligation on another person." 

This is a rather simple criteria that is not subject to personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations.

Mar 11, 2014 15:30:13 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Mar 11, 2014 10:01:57 GMT ShivaTD said:

1. It is my understanding that President Obama and former President Bush both issued the about the same number of Executive Orders during the same time in office. Of course nothing implies that an Executive Order violates the law. In fact an Executive Order that violates the law can be struck down by a lawsuit (assuming someone has standing). I haven't seen any Obama Executive Orders that were a direct violation of the law and all have extensive historical precedent (e.g. delaying the penalties for employers that don't comply with the law by providing health insurance).

2. The Supreme Court would still refer the the Constitutional Powers of Congress even though Congress all too often corrupts and misuses it's powers. The Clinton impeachment was a clear case of the Democrats in the Senate ignoring the actual impeachment process as established by the US Constitution as they ignored the facts related to perjury and obstruction of justice which was the foundation for Impeachment by the House. 

3. It seems that everyone wants an "exception" to strict complaince with the US Constitution which is why our government has become so intrusive and large over time. Of course, from a Constitutional perspective, for the person to support Social Security means that they also support Obamacare because both are based upon the same Constitutional exception (i.e. the federal government providing for the general welfare of the "People" as opposed to being limited to providing for the general welfare of the "States").

It this very "let's make an exception in this case" that leads to the slow expansion and intrusion of government over time.

  

(1) It is quite midleading to simply compare the raw numbers: i.e the amount of executive orders issued by President Obama vis-a-vis the number of executive orders issued by other presidents.  The clear intent of this president is to circumvent the usual process--he has made it clear, time and again, that he will simply go around Congress if it does not bend to his will--and that makes for an entirely different sort of animal. 

And, even if the the courts were to grant Congress "standing," and therefore allow a lawsuit to proceed, President Obama would be out of office--long since--before it could wind its way through all the federal courts, and eventually be decided by SCOTUS. 

(2) You are certainly correct about the Senate's  ignori[ing] the facts" with regard to then-President Clinton.  But do you really suppose that anything has changed, in this regard, in the 15 years since? 

(3) My desire to continue receiving Social Security has nothing whatsoever to do with my wanting an "exception."  

During my working lifetime, I paid into the Social Security system through (mandatory) FICA taxes.  Why should I wish to see that go unremunerated?

If there is an imbalance between what the average person pays into Social Security and what he (or she) ultimately receives in benefits--even taking into account those who do not live long enough to receive any Social Security benefits--that can certainly be addressed without our abolishing Social Security.      

1) I believe that is a partisan opinion as I don't believe that is the case. While I don't agree with some of President Obama's executive orders (e.g. delaying the penalty for employers related to Obamacare) I don't find them to be a usurption of Congressional authority. I actually found former President Bush's invasion of Iraq when the prerequisites of the Iraq War Powers Act were ignored to be more nefarious than anything that President Obama has done.

As for a case having to work its way through to the Supreme Court that isn't necessarily the case. A lower Federal court can refuse a "stay" of it's decision which makes it's decision binding immediately. We can also note that the Congress has the power to create the "inferior" courts to the US Supreme Court and could create one that deals with issues of federal Constitutionality exclusively that would be a national court as opposed to being a part of the District Court system. In short there is a legislative option to deal with the problems of delays in many cases of Constitutionality. The problem is that Congress generally opposes the overturning of the laws of Congress or the actions of the President. They only want it to be expeditious if it's based upon partisanship.

2) I really blame the media for the Clinton fiasco. It was the media that gave traction to the Democrats claim that it was about sex and not about perjury and obstruction of justice. It was the media that allowed Senate Democrats to question whether the actions of Clinton warranted removal from office (that is decided by the House with it's impeachment). The media should have been hammering home the fact that the role of the Senate is to judge the evidence of the case related to the "indictment" and nothing more. The media let the Senate Democrats off the hook and allowed them to vote based upon partisanship as opposed to the facts of the case.    

3) Social Security is a social welfare program and no one has a vested interest in it. Congress can abolish Social Security tomorrow and the US government doens't own a single dime to anyone. Every dollar of taxes we've paid in was for the benefits being paid out and not a single dime of that belongs to us.

Of course, like you, I'd hate to lose the benefits that I've paid for others to receive but we need to remember that we were "screwed" when the government took the money as taxes and not whether we're paid any benefits. As was indirectly noted those that die before ever collecting benefits were screwed out of every dollar they paid in taxes. That is one reason I oppose the raising of the Social Security full benefit age is because it's exclusively about Congress screwing more Americans. Congress wants to "save" Social Security by having more people die before collecting anything from it. Social Security doesn't have a spending problem, it has a funding problem.

But this is moot related to my proposition of "unanimous" consent by the Supreme Court. Even if Social Security was re-addressed by the Courts it could be brought into a "Constitutional" status possibly by changing it from a Federal program to a State program with the Federal government providing funding to the States as opposed to the individual person.

By way of analogy I find a serious problem with Medicare from a Constitutional standpoint because it is the Federal government providing benefits to the  person but that problem doesn't exist for Medicaid which is a State program and federal funding goes to the State and not the Person.  

With all of that said we'll both agree that there is a huge issue with partisanship in our government and that it is often based upon matters of dubious Constitutionality. If Congress and the President knew that they had to comply with the Constitution to the point that the laws and actions of government had to meet the strict criteria of "unanimous" consent of the Supreme Court we'd see far fewer partisan agendas because a major portion of the agenda of both Democrats and Republicans is based upon dubious Constitutionality.

BTW Have you ever considered the Constitutionality of the US Military? The US Marines are only Constitutional as a component of the US Navy and the US Air Force is only Constitutional as a component of the US Army as only the US Navy and US Army are authorized by the Constitution under Article I Section 8. They are not authorized as independent branches of the US Military. Just an interesting factoid.   

Mar 13, 2014 0:55:59 GMT pjohns1873 said:

As regarding most of the matters covered, above, it is probably best if we just agree to disagree. It is unlikely that either of us will persuade the other.

I will just say this, however, as concerning Social Security:  It is really not a matter of high principle with me, nearly so much as it is a matter of practicality.  Whereas I could scrape by without it, I would find it very difficult to save anything--I would just be treading water--and that is a most unhappy thought.  (Some would fare even worse, and be unable to make ends meet without it.) 

With regard to the US military (which strikes me as a rather interesting discussion), could you elaborate upon your view that the Air Force and the Marines are unconstitutional, unless taken as branches of the Army and Navy, respectively?

I don't know that we disagree very much in principle. We do agree on the issue of "standing"as we both see a serious problem with it and, as you mentioned, a requirement for "unanimous consent" by the Supreme Court to support a law or action is certainly worthy of consideration in trying to bring the US government in line with the US Constitution.

In truth I agree that Social Security as become a virtual necessity especially for low income workers that would have nothing without it (and have very little with it). The real issue is that when Congress created Social Security it didn't address the problem it identified but instead addressed a symptom of the problem it identified. In the 1930's Congress identified the problem that about 1/2 of Americans at "retirement" age hadn't accumulated enough personal assets to provide retirement income. Instead of addressing the lack of accumulation of personal assets it addressed the symptom of a lack of income. We can note that by the 1960's the same problem was once again identified because about 1/2 of the American people didn't have the personal assets to provide income to fund the purchase of private health insurance when they retired and, once agian, Congress addressed the symptom by creating Medicare. There's a simply fact and that is you can't fix a problem by only addressing the symptoms. That's why the "War on Poverty" isn't doing anything to reduce poverty because it's not doing anything to address low incomes.

The basis for the lack of Constitutional authorization for an independent US Marines and US Air Force is based upon the funding authorizations in Article I Section 8:

Funding for the Navy has no time constraints but funding for the Army is limted to two years. So is the US Air Force restricted to two year funding authorizations like the US Army or is it unlimited funding authorizations like the US Navy? The same is true for the US Marines. Is funding unlimited like the US Navy or restricted to two years like the US Army?

At  the time the US Constitution was written the Marines were a component of the US Navy and when the Air Force was created it was the Unites States Army Air Corps and was a component of the US Army. They had the inherent funding provisions based upon their parent military organizations. As independent branches the funding provisions are undefined today.

Not saying we should abolish the US Marines or the USAF but we should ratify a Constitutional amendment that defines the funding limitations or lack of limitations for each.