Rubio: Amend the U.S. Constitution

[naturalmwa]

You could use the same argument against nations having their own laws. Why not just make a worldwide set of laws? Wouldn't you love for your vote on justice to count as much as a middle easterner who thinks people should be punished by the law for fornication?

What is just is determined by the community there. And different groups have different cultures and views about justice. Things that seem to us to be entirely unjust to others are very just and vice versa. While our culture on justice around the country isn't so different is it is between here and the middle east, it's worthwhile to note the differences. Some people in certain regions of the country find the death penalty to be a barbaric practice while other people in other regions of the country believe it should be the ordinary punishment for the worst crimes.

You sort of answer your own question. We are not a nation of different communities with different views on justice and we should not want to be. We are a nation with one view on justice and we should desire unity on that front. We got to the point where we couldn't agree on what justice was once before and that was bad. Special enclaves of special rights produces bad results empirically.

 

[naturalmwa]

You have too much faith in "the people." Pure democracy is just as sucky as pure capitalism.

Again, no one is talking about pure democracy here. Just a representative, constitutionally limited republic where the people's vote rather then geography determines the rules. Why do you have any faith at all in geography?

 

[pablow]

You sort of answer your own question. We are not a nation of different communities with different views on justice and we should not want to be. We are a nation with one view on justice and we should desire unity on that front. We got to the point where we couldn't agree on what justice was once before and that was bad. Special enclaves of special rights produces bad results empirically.

Huh? We are a nation of differing views of justice. Some states have the death penalty, but most do not. Some states have legalized marijuana, some have de-criminalized, etc. The Constitution has imposed a baseline of fundamental criminal procedure rights, but each state can offer more protections if it wishes. Each state has it's on view of length of penalties for crimes. On and on.

 

[naturalmwa]

Huh? We are a nation of differing views of justice. Some states have the death penalty, but most do not. Some states have legalized marijuana, some have de-criminalized, etc. The Constitution has imposed a baseline of fundamental criminal procedure rights, but each state can offer more protections if it wishes. Each state has it's on view of length of penalties for crimes. On and on.

And I'm arguing that's a bad thing. Inherently different standards of justice for the same behavior can't both be just.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

And I'm arguing that's a bad thing. Inherently different standards of justice for the same behavior can't both be just.

Exactly.

Having state and local units administer the law and the approved programs makes excellent sense. Having them each impose their preferred version of Sharia (or Christian or corporate or whatever) law makes no sense at all.

 

[TexMichFan]

Rubio should just win the election and do everything he wants through executive orders.

 

[naturalmwa]

Rubio should just win the election and do everything he wants through executive orders.

I'm sure he will start bombing Iran that way. I bet he will need help to get his new submarine fleet. Fortunately he will have congress and SCOTUS both in his corner. If you don't like big government, you would be wise to divide it. That means voting a D into the executive office.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Rubio should just win the election and do everything he wants through executive orders.

This might have been a good argument against the use of executive orders if it was raised when they first started becoming a problem. But they've been a part of the executive tool kit for way too long to easily smack them down now.

Congress just needs to step up and do its job instead of leaving room for executive rule through executive orders.

For all the bitching about Obama's executive orders, if you've been paying attention, it's very clear that Obama has been careful to limit those orders to what he thinks is permissible under the constitution and existing law. You may disagree with what he has chosen to do. And you may disagree with the assessment that he stayed in bounds, constitutionally. But it's clear the effort was made.

The more interesting question, to me, is whether he's just looking for clever loopholes that let him get away with dubious policy - like when Team Bush deceived us about WMD and determined that torture was OK, etc. - or whether he's genuinely avoiding abuse of executive power while still trying to accomplish his objectives.

Those of us who recognized that W was fitting the facts around the policy (in the words of the Downing Street Memo) need to pay attention that Obama isn't similarly abusing executive power.

Here's the problem.... As a liberal, I don't care all that much about his immigration or Obamacare or gun control orders - because I like what he's trying to do and I lost patience with GOP obstructionism and lies a long time ago. OTOH, conservatives have already demonstrated they can't be trusted to form rational judgments on these things - since they virulently defended Bush's abuses of executive authority.

Where does that leave us?

 

[TexMichFan]

This might have been a good argument against the use of executive orders if it was raised when they first started becoming a problem. But they've been a part of the executive tool kit for way too long to easily smack them down now.

Congress just needs to step up and do its job instead of leaving room for executive rule through executive orders.

For all the bitching about Obama's executive orders, if you've been paying attention, it's very clear that Obama has been careful to limit those orders to what he thinks is permissible under the constitution and existing law. You may disagree with what he has chosen to do. And you may disagree with the assessment that he stayed in bounds, constitutionally. But it's clear the effort was made.

The more interesting question, to me, is whether he's just looking for clever loopholes that let him get away with dubious policy - like when Team Bush deceived us about WMD and determined that torture was OK, etc. - or whether he's genuinely avoiding abuse of executive power while still trying to accomplish his objectives.

Those of us who recognized that W was fitting the facts around the policy (in the words of the Downing Street Memo) need to pay attention that Obama isn't similarly abusing executive power.

Here's the problem.... As a liberal, I don't care all that much about his immigration or Obamacare or gun control orders - because I like what he's trying to do and I lost patience with GOP obstructionism and lies a long time ago. OTOH, conservatives have already demonstrated they can't be trusted to form rational judgments on these things - since they virulently defended Bush's abuses of executive authority.

Where does that leave us?

Roughly half the people paying attention agree with any executive order.

Depending on if they agree with the action or not should not be the gauge on whether it is a good way to govern.

You are correct that every President seems to push a little further and use the actions of their predecessors as justification when questioned. A President who acts on their own when they believe they can't get congress to should concern everyone.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Roughly half the people paying attention agree with any executive order.

Depending on if they agree with the action or not should not be the gauge on whether it is a good way to govern.

You are correct that every President seems to push a little further and use the actions of their predecessors as justification when questioned. A President who acts on their own when they believe they can't get congress to should concern everyone.

Yes and no. As I said, this wouldn't be a problem if Congress would do its job. If Congress has taken a position against something, I have a problem with a president end running them. But if Congress fails to act and the issue is amenable to presidential action, I have less trouble. I may disagree with the specific action, but I have less trouble with the process.

Many years ago I worked for the DC government. They wanted to hire more cops. The question was whether to ask Congress for more money or to shift money from something already in the budget. Yes, Congress decides such things for DC - or did back then, at any rate. Anyway, the decision was to NOT bring it up to Congress. Because if Congress said "no" then they couldn't shift money. This is what I'm thinking about with things like Obama's immigration orders or the upcoming gun orders. If Congress has spoken, his hands presumably would be tied. But if they just screw off and don't address the issue, they leave the door open. And I'm OK with that (as long as he doesn't break the law, of course).

 

[TexMichFan]

Yes and no. As I said, this wouldn't be a problem if Congress would do its job. If Congress has taken a position against something, I have a problem with a president end running them. But if Congress fails to act and the issue is amenable to presidential action, I have less trouble. I may disagree with the specific action, but I have less trouble with the process.

Many years ago I worked for the DC government. They wanted to hire more cops. The question was whether to ask Congress for more money or to shift money from something already in the budget. Yes, Congress decides such things for DC - or did back then, at any rate. Anyway, the decision was to NOT bring it up to Congress. Because if Congress said "no" then they couldn't shift money. This is what I'm thinking about with things like Obama's immigration orders or the upcoming gun orders. If Congress has spoken, his hands presumably would be tied. But if they just screw off and don't address the issue, they leave the door open. And I'm OK with that (as long as he doesn't break the law, of course).

Perhaps the majority of Congress feel that an issue is settled and doesn't need changes.

Now you can agree or not with that statement. Congress is not required to act just because a President wants them to. It could be that the majority of Congress feel the voters who put them there don't support changes that a President wants. This doesn't give a President carte blanche to make the changes they want.

Change the members of Congress and get the votes you need.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Perhaps the majority of Congress feel that an issue is settled and doesn't need changes.

Now you can agree or not with that statement. Congress is not required to act just because a President wants them to. It could be that the majority of Congress feel the voters who put them there don't support changes that a President wants. This doesn't give a President carte blanche to make the changes they want.

Change the members of Congress and get the votes you need.

Imagine some disaster that exceeds the remedied provided by decades-old laws. Say a Zombie outbreak. Congress could act but because of gridlock doesn't. As president, wouldn't you look for actions you could take that seem within your constitutional wheelhouse?

 

[TexMichFan]

Imagine some disaster that exceeds the remedied provided by decades-old laws. Say a Zombie outbreak. Congress could act but because of gridlock doesn't. As president, wouldn't you look for actions you could take that seem within your constitutional wheelhouse?

I will let you know when we have a Zombie outbreak.

Using your argument I guess FDR was right to set-up relocation camps at the start of WW2. Was action acceptable to you?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I will let you know when we have a Zombie outbreak.

Using your argument I guess FDR was right to set-up relocation camps at the start of WW2. Was action acceptable to you?

The problem some of us seem to have is separating this into the 2 different questions we ought to be considering.

1. Whether we need to act.

2. What action should we take?

OBVIOUSLY FDR should have taken up the question of the possible threat posed by folks of Japanese origin in the US when we are under attack from Japan. Just as, for example, it's obvious we should be cognizant and concerned about whether bad guys could enter the US when we take in refugees.

BUT was internment the correct answer? I assume that you and I and other reasonable people understand how horrible that action was. But we weren't there. What were the other options?

One option was to do nothing and let possible Japanese spies and saboteurs do whatever they want. I assume most of us would reject that. What else was on the table?