DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Obama Wont Abide 2011 Budget Bill Section

**tinamasak** · 04-18-2011, 07:16 PM

Not so at all. An unconstitutional enactment is always void on its face. That's not even my opinion...that's a well settled fact not only by the judiciary but self-evident explanation.

The judiciary make the binding determination what enactments might be unconstitutional. If someone makes a challenge, the court has created a standard of review of presumption of constitutionality and placing a heavy burden of persuasion upon the challenger. That said, an unconstitutional law is never constitutional until a court says otherwise. The court is merely declaring a fact that's been in existence since its inception. A law cannot be enacted in violation of the constitution, and any such enactment has always been void on its face because it is an attempt to do something it had no power to do in the first place.

That misreads the Necessary and Proper Clause. If anything, it commands that the Congress properly fund so that the executive can perform his/her delegated powers. A law passed over veto that purports to deny the POTUS his/her delegated pardon power or any other delegated power does the exact opposite of performing what is necessary and proper so that the POTUS can perform his/her powers....it undermines and denies them by frustration of purpose.

And you're incorrect that the executive is not empowered to create positions.

Powers of the President of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You misread what I said. The constitution does not give the President power to create positions. Congress has given the President power to appoint officers where congress has created those positions in law, and to hire employees within depts that it creates. The President has no power other than what the constitution or the constitutional process of lawmaking gives him, and I listed the constitutional ones above. Since it does not give him the power to create Czars, congress has the power to prohibit it through its constitutional power to make all laws.

As for constitutionality of itself, see Reality, Sec 4, Part B. Congress passes unconstitutional laws (IMO) all the time. But my opinion doesnt matter, no more than yours. The only authority to judge disputes in this country is the Supreme Court and courts they choose to delegate to. Since Congress followed the constitutional process of passing a law, it is a law, until the courts say otherwise, and the President must follow it, in thoery, if not reality.

If he is going to simply not follow the law, then he should be charged with a crime.

04-18-2011, 07:16 PM	#33
tinamasak Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 511 Senior Member	Not so at all. An unconstitutional enactment is always void on its face. That's not even my opinion...that's a well settled fact not only by the judiciary but self-evident explanation. The judiciary make the binding determination what enactments might be unconstitutional. If someone makes a challenge, the court has created a standard of review of presumption of constitutionality and placing a heavy burden of persuasion upon the challenger. That said, an unconstitutional law is never constitutional until a court says otherwise. The court is merely declaring a fact that's been in existence since its inception. A law cannot be enacted in violation of the constitution, and any such enactment has always been void on its face because it is an attempt to do something it had no power to do in the first place. That misreads the Necessary and Proper Clause. If anything, it commands that the Congress properly fund so that the executive can perform his/her delegated powers. A law passed over veto that purports to deny the POTUS his/her delegated pardon power or any other delegated power does the exact opposite of performing what is necessary and proper so that the POTUS can perform his/her powers....it undermines and denies them by frustration of purpose. And you're incorrect that the executive is not empowered to create positions. Powers of the President of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You misread what I said. The constitution does not give the President power to create positions. Congress has given the President power to appoint officers where congress has created those positions in law, and to hire employees within depts that it creates. The President has no power other than what the constitution or the constitutional process of lawmaking gives him, and I listed the constitutional ones above. Since it does not give him the power to create Czars, congress has the power to prohibit it through its constitutional power to make all laws. As for constitutionality of itself, see Reality, Sec 4, Part B. Congress passes unconstitutional laws (IMO) all the time. But my opinion doesnt matter, no more than yours. The only authority to judge disputes in this country is the Supreme Court and courts they choose to delegate to. Since Congress followed the constitutional process of passing a law, it is a law, until the courts say otherwise, and the President must follow it, in thoery, if not reality. If he is going to simply not follow the law, then he should be charged with a crime.
	Quote