Who makes foreign policy in the USA?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Congressmen and Senators have supported and voted for bills of questionable legality ever since the beginning (Alien & Sedition Acts to present). Passing a dubious law doesn't violate the Constitution until the Judiciary says so (after all, many bills considered dubious have been upheld or punted).

[Kuciwalker]

She's passing a law that plainly violates the Constitution. I think I'm allowed to count that against her.

[Drake Tungsten]

Pelosi is the Democratic version of Gingrich...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
She's passing a law that plainly violates the Constitution. I think I'm allowed to count that against her.

It doesn't "plainly violate" anything until the courts say so. They may decide that, hey, it's a political question and thus the law gets to stay.

As I've said to Berzerker many times, what is and what is not Constitutional is the sole province of the Federal courts. Your opinion on constitutionality has no bearing on whether it actually is or is not unless you are one of the nine that sit on that bench (or you are in such a position that your writings tend to influence one or more of them)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It doesn't "plainly violate" anything until the courts say so.

Yes, the courts are the final arbiters. No, this doesn't mean that we can't make statements about the Constitution absent a court ruling.

[Kuciwalker]

If Congress passed a law eliminating North Dakota's Senate seats, I'd be perfectly justified in calling it unconstitutional before it reached the courts.

[Kuciwalker]

And if I think an elected official is trying to do something contrary to the Constitution, I'm perfectly justified in criticizing that official.

Or could no one complain about the NSA wiretapping program before it was ruled on in court?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Yes, the courts are the final arbiters. No, this doesn't mean that we can't make statements about the Constitution absent a court ruling.

And if the court says its ok, what are you going to do, hold your dick in your hand and bleat about how Pelosi backed something unconstitutional?

You want to say you think a law is unconstitutional, go ahead. But saying a law "plainly violates" the Constitution is utterly silly absent a ruling. Plenty of "plainly violate" laws have been ratified by the courts as being Constitutional.

Until the courts say the law is unconstitutional, the supporters of the D.C. law aren't doing anything violative of the Constitution (and on the rare chance it passes through, have a decent chance of winning in the Judiciary). Hell, even if the law is struck down, the supporters merely passed a bill that didn't pass muster. Not exactly an action violative of the Constitution.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And if the court says its ok, what are you going to do, hold your dick in your hand and bleat about how Pelosi backed something unconstitutional?

And what would all the people complaining about the NSA have done? What would the lawyers arguing that it's unconstitutional do? You're being an idiot.

You want to say you think a law is unconstitutional, go ahead. But saying a law "plainly violates" the Constitution is utterly silly absent a ruling.

See the Senate example.

Plenty of "plainly violate" laws have been ratified by the courts as being Constitutional.

Because the courts aren't infallible, duh.

[Until the courts say the law is unconstitutional, the supporters of the D.C. law aren't doing anything violative of the Constitution (and on the rare chance it passes through, have a decent chance of winning in the Judiciary). Hell, even if the law is struck down, the supporters merely passed a bill that didn't pass muster. Not exactly an action violative of the Constitution.

Oh come on. If Congress passes a bill that's unconstitutional it's violating the Constitution. And by extension we can say those who voted for it were violating the Constitution. Obviously there aren't personal consequences to the individual legislators, apart from possible bad publicity.

[Kuciwalker]

And do you seriously think that "I think a law she supports is unconstitutional" isn't a legitimate complaint?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Your opinion on constitutionality has no bearing on whether it actually is or is not unless you are one of the nine that sit on that bench (or you are in such a position that your writings tend to influence one or more of them)

This is goddamn Apolyton, Imran. Nothing anyone posts here matters.

[Ramo]

It's not "plainly unconstitutional." The district clause which gives Congress the broad powers over DC, may give Congress the right to treat DC as a state (and therefore a right to vote in Congress). See Tidewater, which upheld Congress' right to do exactly that, but for other reasons. Indeed, the courts have frequently interpreted numerous provisions of the Constitution that refer explicitly to states, as also referring to DC. The constitutionality is questionable (and I'm skeptical) - and that's why we have courts - but no means is the question trivial.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
It's not "plainly unconstitutional." The district clause which gives Congress the broad powers over DC, may give Congress the right to treat DC as a state (and therefore a right to vote in Congress). See Tidewater, which upheld Congress' right to do exactly that, but for other reasons. Indeed, the courts have frequently interpreted numerous provisions of the Constitution that refer explicitly to states, as also referring to DC. The constitutionality is questionable (and I'm skeptical) - and that's why we have courts - but no means is the question trivial.

We had this debate already. IMO your current position on the subject is "partisan tool." I suspect no one would be defending its constitutionality if it weren't one of the Democrats' latest attempts to pander to their base.

[Berzerker]

I wonder how voters would have voted had they known that Pelosi would conduct her own foreign policy to the extent the Dems disagreed with the president? I know many Dems would have cheered. But some who voted for Democrats surely are more cautious and respectful of the constitution.

Some Dems respect the Constitution? Somebody tells me they're a Dem and I know they have respect only for the few parts they like and contempt for the rest of it.

As I've said to Berzerker many times, what is and what is not Constitutional is the sole province of the Federal courts.

You only say that when you're trying to change the subject because I've known all along the reality that the SCOTUS has assumed the power to tell us what the Constitution says. But this notion that we should just blindly allow the courts to define the Constitution is partly why the Constitution is ignored on all sorts of issues. Thats like the Catholic Church when printing became popular enough for people to read the Bible for themselves and not rely on the Church to tell them what it says.

[Ramo]

Don't be an idiot. I certainly didn't defend the constitutionality of the law in the other thread. I was arguing the moral imperative of giving DC representation.

edit: x-post