Out of idle curiosity, does anyone actually read the Constitution anymore?

[SidneyCarton]

I know I sound like some idiot tea-bagger for asking this, but having read some comments on DU in the past few days, I have to wonder.

For the record, as wonderful as it might be for President Obama to extend Medicare to all by Executive Order, it would be unconstitutional. It infringes on the powers of the purse which are delegated to Congress in Article 1 of the Constitution.

The outcomes of such an action, while perhaps wonderful in the short-term, would be disastrous in the long-term, I see three possibilities:

1. Such an overstepping of authority leads to a massive public outcry, that brings us yet another GOP President in 2012, who just suspends, or massively depletes funding to Pres. Obama's executive-ordered Medicare.

2. Executive overreach leads to impeachment proceedings against Pres. Obama, leading to his removal from office, the killing of the executive order, and our loss of the White House in 2012.

3. The Supreme Court rules that such an executive order is unconstitutional, and it is repealed.

Either way, we don't get what we want, and lose so much more in the process. The Constitution is ungainly, inconvenient, and at times a pain in the neck, but it is designed to deprive any branch of the government from having too much power, even if it is used with the best intentions. Even if we want a dictator to move our policies forward (and I would imagine that very few actually want this) we have no right to destroy President Obama by thrusting this on him.

Flame away if you want, but violating the Constitution is wrong, regardless of reason or party affiliation.

[TheWatcher]

1. What that quaint piece of Goddamn Paper with a buncha rules on it?

No such thing.

Gotta get with the times, kid.

You're living in the past.

It's The New American Century.

You gotta put away those old ways and get with the new.

Fascism is ALL the rage now.

All the Cool Kids are doing it.

Don't get left behind Daddy-O!

:sarcasm:

Oh, while we're at it, here's another quaint, old-wives tale, just to add some variety:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

-The Declaration Of Independence

[SidneyCarton]

4. I took a PoliSci class a few years ago dealing with Congress.

After going through the arcane and convoluted way in which a bill is passed, I could understand the appeal of fascism, (if only in the academic sense) because it seemed terribly straightforward in comparison.

What is it H.L. Mencken once said? For every problem there is an answer that is simple, elegant and wrong?

[TheWatcher]

54. And maybe that's why in the end the dumbed down, can't be bothered to read or focus, or THINK past a

sound byte or slogan American Public is going to be such an easy sell on the idea, for the most part.

Our Population cannot seem to be bothered with anything as complex as Freedom, or any of the concepts laid out in the Historical Documents that we eluded to, and this country was FOUNDED on.

We The People, at least these days, seem quite ready to accept such simplicity, since they can't be bothered to do anything to stop it. And quite unfortunately far too many of us that CAN actually think are far too invested in the Fake Political System that simply plays us all against each other, looking to it to be their savior, instead of wielding the Power they ACTUALLY have under historical precedent.

The Media does not OWN Us. Or RULE Us.

Our LEADERS do not OWN Us. Or RULE Us.

The Banks do not OWN Us. Or RULE Us.

The CORPORATIONS do not OWN Us. Or RULE Us.

They need to be reminded of that.

In a Big Way.

[TheKentuckian]

2. The desperate and overreaching stupid solution to a complex problem is scary as hell

That proposal would not just be a violation but complete abandonment of the Constitution based on the sad logic that Bush did it with the wars (and that is dubious as we did actually have a vote).

[SidneyCarton]

6. Some days I think that many here only wanted a Left-wing version of Bush.

It has never been about good government for some, just an opportunity to get our licks in in the ongoing game of mutual punishment.

[JDPriestly]

17. See my post at 15. If Obama was going to let Congress prepare the bill,

he shouldn't have interfered with his show roundtables and conferences in the first place. He was inconsistent and has alarmed the country with empty gestures. He disarmed his own supporters. We were unable to say much during the summer recess while the Republicans were out there spreading lies. But the fact is that I really don't know at this point whether congress will come up with a bill I can support or not. It is looking more and more like this health care reform is just an excuse to raise taxes in another form. This time there will be no sham process of taxpayers paying the money to the government and then the government either contracting with private interests or simply handing the money over to favored private interests. This time it will be the government requiring taxpayers to pay their tax ransoms directly to private companies. That is feudalism. We are way beyond fascism at this point. Back to castles and moats. That's where we are.

[Romulox]

3. The Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means. Little point in reading it

as you cannot predict what the Court will decide by parsing it or with appeal to logic; Constitutional cases are decided by ideology and doctrine, not logic or grammar.

[SidneyCarton]

13. Considering the ideological makeup of the current court...

how likely do you find the survival of such an action?

[Romulox]

14. I will answer that question with the most fundamental legal quesiton: cui bono?

If it is profitable for powerful private interests, the Court will find a way to excuse almost anything. If it cost big business money, however, it is almost certain that the Court will strike it down.

Incidentally, I think Justice Sotomayor can be included in the above analysis. As can Justice Ginzburg, despite being lauded as the Court's leading liberal.

[leftstreet]

5. What page is Executive Ordered Telecom Spying on?

I'm not finding it

[TexasObserver]

7. What makes you think you understand constitutionality?

[SidneyCarton]

12. I know enough to know that totally bypassing one branch of the government

on an issue over which they have delegated authority is unconstitutional. I admit that it has been done before, but that didn't make it right then, and it certainly doesn't make it right now.

[TexasObserver]

16. My point is: Where is your controlling case law?

The constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. If you have a constitutional argument it means you'd better have a line of cases from the Supreme Court which makes clear your interpretation aligns properly with theirs, since theirs is the opinion which matters.

[SidneyCarton]

18. Do you honestly think Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, et. al. will back this?

Yes, you're right, the Court determines what is Constitutional, and what is not, the Court has also not shown itself to be particularly friendly to Progressive causes in its current incarnation.

That said, you are overlooking the fact that this kind of stunt could get Pres. Obama impeached. Congress does not need SCOTUS for that, Chief Justice Roberts just presides over the Trial in the Senate.

[Statistical]

45. Clinton v. City of New York

6-3 decision

Held:
Line Item Veto Act was without legal force, because the U.S. Constitution did not authorize the President to enact federal law of which both houses of Congress had not previously approved the text

Supreme Court of the United State (1998)

[TexasObserver]

57. Thank you!

My point, which you get and the OP doesn't, is that if one wishes to talk about constitutionality, one begins and ends with supreme court decisions that are controlling.

I have a problem with any analysis of constitutionality which begins with what someone thinks the original constitution meant or means. That ship has long since sailed. The constitution means what this court and those it follows have said it means. Any other analysis is star gazing.

The action proposed in the OP would be unconstitutional because there's recent case on point that says it is. What the original constitution may mean is entirely immaterial to the discussion.

[knixphan]

8. I carry one like DK.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. i agree with you on all counts but where did this come from?

i mean are people suggesting he go over congress? i think he can sell it fiercely and maybe ensure the dems are in line but he certainly cant do it without the legislative branch

[SidneyCarton]

11. There is a thread that is fantasizing about his doing this in his speech tonight.

It's a stupid fantasy that is doomed to disappointment (Whatever his failings, Pres. Obama is not going to do this) I worry because it shows that the longing for a "strongman" to force change regardless of the law seems to be growing not only on the right, but on the left as well. This bodes ill for the future of American democracy.

[Statistical]

47. yes there is and even worse is it had 60 recs at one point.

At least 60 (but likely much more than 60 due to unrecs) people believe the President should operate outside the rule of law.

(as long as it is for a good cause).

I guess they fail to realize dictators always take power under the guise of "the common good".

[Initech]

10. Nope, we stopped using the constitution on 9/12/2001.

[JDPriestly]

15. No one believes that Obama could just order Medicare for all.

Those of us who criticize him do so because he so totally botched the strategy on healthcare reform.

He took it upon himself to hold round-tables and to negotiate directly with the various insurance companies. He made a big spectacle of it. Consumer interests were not broadly represented.

Then he sort of walked away and handed the writing of a bill over to Congress. Now why did he hold all the showcase meetings in the White House if he was going to leave the writing of the bill up to the hot-shots in Congress like Baucus and Olympia Snowe and Grassley? That makes no sense.

I have the impression that under Republican administrations, big business and its lawyers and management lobby and make specific demands and even propose the text of bills. Under Democrats Congress more often writes its own bills.

But with healthcare, Obama stepped in. He made it look like he was taking an initiative in the way that Republicans like Bush and Reagan had. But then he dropped the ball. He has never really clearly set forth a vision for what form health care reform should take.

I realize that everyone warned him that a strong presidential lead on healthcare reform did not work under Clinton. But Obama was not Clinton. Clinton came in on less than majority support among voters. (Remember the little mosquito from Texas, Ross Perot? Perot is the reason GHWBush served only one term.) Obama was one of the most popular presidents of our time. Had he spoken clearly, early about just what he wanted, had he DONE THE MATH before he started talking about the health care reform, had he prepared for the inevitable fight that reform would entail, we would have had a bill before the summer recess and the Republicans could not have spread all the lies they have spread.

I, in particular, fault Obama for the fact that we who would normally be out there working to support a health care reform initiative have been completely left on the sideline by his inept handling of the matter, by his vague speechery, by his empty oratory. What is the plan, Mr. President? What are we supposed to be getting behind or against? Nobody knows.

This is the worst managed boondoggle I have seen come out of the White House in my life and I survived some pretty awful presidents including Reagan. President Obama is going to have to take charge and clean his house of characters like Rahm Emmanuel who are not working with him, but have secret agendas. That also goes for Geithner and Summers. I guess it is too late to fire Bernanke.

We are blaming Obama not for what Congress did wrong, but for what Obama did wrong.

[SidneyCarton]

19. There is a thread with 50+ recs that advocates precisely what you argue

that no one here supports.

[JDPriestly]

21. I do agree that Obama could have gotten the support in Congress

necessary to get a bill passed that was written pretty much in the White House. That is how previous presidents did a lot of things. Obama totally messed up on this one. It is shameful. He really let us down. It isn't a matter of issuing an executive order.

It is a matter of being clear about what you really want, what is essential and what is not and then twisting arms and cajoling and getting the important stuff into the bill you want to sign. Johnson and FDR were masters at this. Obama is a failure as a politician thus far. Either that or he mislead a lot of people during the campaign.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

26. Not this crap again....

Someone can disagree with the tactical steps taken by the Obama administration and not be a Freeper.

[SidneyCarton]

27. Indeed they can.

And indeed I don't believe that Mr. Todd is a Freeper either, just a member of the loud and railing chorus that call Pres. Obama a failure less than a year in.

[Ignis]

31. And yet you compared a fellow DUer to Limbaugh.

Why?

[SidneyCarton]

37. I said that there was a seat next to Mr. Limbaugh

The poster in question and Mr. Limbaugh have the same basic opinion on President Obama in this situation, they both think he's a failure.

[Ignis]

46. And you can sit between Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot.

...Because all three of you have the letter "O" in your names! :eyes:

Or you could simply admit that you went overboard in comparing the above poster to Limbaugh because you disagree on the efficacy of a particular politician's tactics. :shrug:

[SidneyCarton]

49. Fair enough, as a historian, I admit that the opportunity to sit between two "monsters"

would be interesting.

[Ignis]

51. Ah, disingenuity at its finest! Never admit to a mistake!

Only the hoi polloi make mistakes and allow their emotions to get the better of them, obviously. :eyes:

[SidneyCarton]

52. I make mistakes quite often, not putting you on ignore three posts ago may have been one.

But since I have consented to your inquisition, I ought to see it through. My words to the poster in question (who seems to have taken less offense at them than you have) were extreme, and inaccurate of the posters actual position.

In other words:

Mea Culpa! Mea Culpa! MEA MAXIMA CULPA!

Oh, mighty and merciful Ignis, please absolve me of my sins and allow me to stand at the right hand of the PC and self-righteous of DU again.

[Ignis]

53. See? Not so hard, was it? Awfully dramatic, but not that painful.

Pro-tip: If you're going to appoint yourself Net Nanny and call out other DUers on their manners, you should probably avoid acting like a misanthrope yourself. ;)

But hey, don't change your behavior on my account! Do it because it's the right thing to do.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

32. Never, never make the mistake

of assuming that all the people who post here are educated, literate, informed, or even rational.

I'm continually assaulted by the things people don't know - as in, how legislation is passed, what goes into writing a bill, how tripartite government works, things that I regard as essential basics for American citizens.

Some people latch onto a phrase - "executive order" - without the slightest idea of what it means, and they take off.

Don't take the jokers seriously, M. Carton. They're not worth the time or effort. I hope they're educable, but, from what I've seen, they're utterly uninterested in doing anything as bizarre as reading a book............................

[Davis_X_Machina]

20. "No one believes that Obama could just order Medicare for all."

There have been posts here suggesting precisely that. On more than one occasion.

A certain fascination with the simplicity of a monarchy is not restricted to one side of the aisle.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

33. Why not?

If LBJ proposed it for senior citizens, why not expand it - consider what Social Security was in its initial iteration - why not propose it for all?

It's unrealistic politically, of course.

But, it's possible. And it is hardly about simplicity. I trust you understand what an undertaking of that magnitude - were it somehow to pass - would entail.

Simple?

Ha.....................

[Statistical]

48. I think you are missing the point.

The other thread wasn't about Obama proposing Medicare for all. It was about Obama creating law without Congress by using a signing statement to make Medicare for all and violate the fundamental principles of separation of power & checks and balances.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

55. Ahhh.......

The idiots who don't know what an executive order is, but think it would be a great idea?

No, I didn't bother to read that thread. Life is too short to waste it with morons.

Thank you for the edification and clarification.

And now, life goes on, and we root for our President to do another great job tonight......................................

[treestar]

41. If Obama had hired you on as advisor, this might be relevant

It is also too early to deem the whole thing "botched."

The insurance companies are huge, employ many people, and are already involved.

It would really be botched if Obama just ignored them. Irresponsible.

It might be emotionally satisfying if he told them to go to hell, but Obama doesn't do things that way.

Anyone who was expecting him to exclude those who disagree with us was not paying attention, or thought he was the scary socialist the RW nuts portray.

[Statistical]

43. You might want to look again. n/t

[hfojvt]

23. Here's your chance

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

And no, I have probably not read that document in a long, long time.

[Javaman]

24. Every 4th of July, I read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

It think it only right.

[Captain Hilts]

25. Got a copy I carry with me. nt

[RoccoR5955]

28. I carry a copy of the US Constitution AND the Declaration of Independance

with me at all times!

Not to mention, I have asked numerous people to take my American flag off of their foreign-made car!

[Pangolin2]

40. Could I get your approval to keep my replica flag on my Toyota Tacoma

that was manufactured in Fremont, California?

[Statistical]

50. You bought my flag? Somehow I didn't get the check. Please resend a check for $285,000 and I will

[RoccoR5955]

29. The only way to get what we want is to take it to the streets!

We did it in the 60s, we have to do it again now.

[Xenotime]

30. It's a document of negative liberties.

[Rosco T.]

34. SIMPLE solution to that issue you are overlooking....

"I have signed executive order #12345 lowering the age of coverage of Medicare to birth. The provisions of this order are in effect but not enforced PENDING CONGRESS FUNDING THE EXPANSION OF COVERAGE"


hey Congress.. tag, you're it... you're standing in the way of people's health care with NO DOUBT you're standing in the way...

[onenote]

36. actually, no

Article I, Section I.

"ALL legislative powers herein granted, shall be vested in a Congrss of teh United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives."

Article II, Section I vests in the President "the executive power".

In other words, Congress has the sole power to legislate and the President has the power to "execute" -- carry out -- the laws passed by Congress.

There is no law passed by Congress that gives Medicare coverage to people from birth. The law is specific. For the President to change the age to which Medicare applies by executive fiat would be no less a legislative action than if there was no Medicare law in the first place and he just declared that there was and left it to the Congress to find the money.

The proposed executive order would be wholly legislative in nature, not executive, and thus would be facially unconstitutional.

[SidneyCarton]

39. And when Congress shitcans the President's proposal?

A distinct possibility, made all the more likely by the fact that Congress would be pissed for the President having gone over their heads.

Once again, we are left with a situation where we still have no Public Option, we have a politically crippled Administration, and a hostile Congress.

[Snotcicles]

35. To answer your question, They read, The Constit while it's on it's way to their rectum. nt

[rucky]

38. That was pointed out several times in the original thread.

so the answer to your question is YES

[treestar]

42. Boosh and Darth counted on the fact most Americans know little about it

When they tried to say it was the President's job to "keep up safe" or that the President had the right to detain people without charge indefinitely because he slapped the label "terrorist" on them.

It seems there is some element on DU who agreed with them, just wanted those powers transferred to a left wing President, then also believed Obama was a socialist, marxist commie and then expected him to wield the power from that direction and are now stompin' mad it isn't so.

[Statistical]

44. Some do. Most don't.

Sad thing with internet it is so much easier. Confused by what an article means or what a phrase says in modern English you can load it into google and find tons of analysis.

[katty]

56. i have it - and refer to it on my phone