Constitutional Scholars, please reply

What is wrong with this statement.

Published on January 9, 2006 By Dr Guy In Politics

In another example of extreme inebriation, our dislustrious Senator from Taxachusettes, said the following:

Ultimately, the courts will make the final judgment whether the White House has gone too far. Independent and impartial judges must assess the proper balance between protecting our liberties and protecting our national security.

Now this is one of the most senior senators, so one would assume (incorrectly) that he understandst he constitution.

That being a given (he is senior but not a scholar), can anyone tell me how many ways that statement is wrong? Actually, since that is a snippet of this {hic} speech, and not the entire rambling inanities, there are but a few.

But they are MAJOR ones. Not only against an amendment, but against the very basis of the document itself.

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Jan 09, 2006

Hey Davad70, want to tell me how I am wrong now? Please! Pretty please with whipped cream on top?

Dr Guy

on Jan 09, 2006

This is a completely different issue than the one you were lying about previously.

I did not lie. I proved my point. However since that is your opening, your post is deleted. Now, do you want to respond to this, or lie some more? I have already documented you lying twice now. Do we make it 3 times?

davad70

on Jan 09, 2006

You have proved no such thing. I did reply to this...that's the part you deleted. Since you asked me to reply and then deleted it then please take my name off your blog.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 09, 2006

Ultimately, the courts will make the final judgment whether the White House has gone too far. Independent and impartial judges must assess the proper balance between protecting our liberties and protecting our national security.

I guess I missed the earlier fireworks between you and Davad, and I'm not a Constitutional Scholar (but I play one on the internet), but here goes with my short answer to your quiz:

1: The courts do not make first, secondary or final judgements on the legality of the actions of a president. Oddly enough (but ever so telling) the U.S. Constitution charges the Senate with this responsibility. Being a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you would think the drunk democrat would have at least picked this up along the way... maybe during the Clinton impeachment?

2: He could be referring to the Supreme Court (which does have authority to review the laws and executive orders of the president, but the Supreme Court is not part of "the courts" and the members are not referred to as "judges", but "justices"... again, I would expect a senior U.S. Senator, and member of the Judiciary committee to know the difference.

3: There is a court set up to so that government officials can obtain warrants and challenge laws and regulations without comprimising national security,. However the government officials who claimed to have had a problem with the NSA's directive didn't seem to have included this court in their objections. Apparently they preferred to sit on the information until it was "leaked" and then use it as a political chip in the game. Now it's out of that court's hands, as that court is not Constitutionally able to rule on the legality of current actions by the president. Again, only the Senate is given this authority.

To me, this is a classic case of a Senator trying to shirk his Constitutional responsibilities on to someone else. If president Bush's executive order needs to be challenged, it is the job of the House and Senate to try to reverse it. If their is a Constitutional question, then the Supreme Court has the authority to rule on it. If sounds like the Senator doesn't have the guts to use his constitutional authority to challenge Prs. Bush directly.

ISOL

on Jan 09, 2006

It's not up to the courts to decide what the government does. It is up to those who control the government... or should I say who is supposed to be controlling the government, the people. After all, that's what this country is about....isn't it?

MasonM

on Jan 09, 2006

Independent and impartial judges must assess the proper balance between protecting our liberties and protecting our national security.

Hmmm, I coulda sworn it was the job of judges to ajudicate legal issues. Isn't it their job to determine whether someone has violated the law of the land, and not decide what that law should be? Seems the old drunk needs to go back and study high school civics.

Dr Guy

on Jan 10, 2006

You have proved no such thing. I did reply to this...that's the part you deleted. Since you asked me to reply and then deleted it then please take my name off your blog.

You have not read it of do not understand the written word.

Dr Guy

on Jan 10, 2006

To me, this is a classic case of a Senator trying to shirk his Constitutional responsibilities on to someone else. If president Bush's executive order needs to be challenged, it is the job of the House and Senate to try to reverse it. If their is a Constitutional question, then the Supreme Court has the authority to rule on it.

You were first! And you did hit the 2 main points I was trying to get! Congratulations! Have a cookie!

Dr Guy

on Jan 10, 2006

That is correct. The supreme court is not a check on just the Executive, but on the Executive and Legislative, just as the Executive is a check on the Judiciary, as well as with the advise and consent of the Legislative. To imply that the role of the surpeme court is to reign in the Executive is flat out wrong as Parated2k stated. And for a senior senator to be so ill informed of both his job and the role of the 3 branches of government speaks very poorly for said senator.

Dr Guy

on Jan 10, 2006

Seems the old drunk needs to go back and study high school civics.

Go back implies he ever did in the first place. And the latter is highly doubtful.

davad70

on Jan 10, 2006

It's pretty distasteful to delete my reply, but then quote part of it. In effect, you've edited my own post. Therefore I asked you to remove reference to me on your blog.

davad70

on Jan 10, 2006

Why not let us see the comments of the person you are slamming here and accusing of being a liar, DrG?

Basically he's referring to me making a comment a while ago that I would ignore him in the future and then not doing so. Oh, the shame...the horror! I'm the worst kind of liar!

Dr Guy

on Jan 10, 2006

It's pretty distasteful to delete my reply, but then quote part of it. In effect, you've edited my own post. Therefore I asked you to remove reference to me on your blog.

I deleted the rest of your response because it was insulting and off point, as I explained. I quoted the only printable part. Clean up you act, or honor your promise your choice.

Dr Guy

on Jan 10, 2006

As a matter of fact, I'll bet he deletes this too.

No, I think I will let it stand so all can see how petty and spiteful you are.

Dr Guy

on Jan 10, 2006

Basically he's referring to me making a comment a while ago

No, I am talking about your comment. Please note, none of your others are deleted. Now I did not save your comment, and you are free to repost. But dont lie to me on my blog.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!