Trump is rocking it!

[Fargo]

^^^THIS^^^

If congress does not like the law that their predecessors enacted they can propose to change it.

I believe a lot of people here including me complained when the the congress ceded power to the last President. I did not say that this particular law was enacted by those congresses.

So, am I correct to that the argument is that Congress can cede it’s constitutional authority to the executive, thereby making him a monarch of sorts?

It’s weird, but I thought that the reason that the constitution granted certain powers to certain branches of government, and not to others, was to avoid exactly this sort of thing.

I am amazed that the Republican Party now appears to be the party of FDR.

 

[bwframe]

I don't agree with the bumpstock ban, that said the jury is still out on it. History may well show Trump may turn out to be the evil genius on this with all the lawsuits and etc.

The only positive thing about the bumpstock ban is that it prevented a modern day BIPARTISAN gun control law. That very well could have happened and set a devastating precedence.

We knew Trump wasn't a knowledgeable gun guy when we elected him. We got what we got, as he was the ONLY choice, likely the only one who could have been elected against the Clinton machine.

The smart folks in Trump's ear need to have better explained ways of the idea of gun control. IMHO, it's a real stretch to explain to the average middle of the road pro 2A non-gun owning person the legitimacy of a bumpstock? It's gonna take a little more than "shall not be infringed."

 

[BugI02]

Obviously, I get what you wish to point out. The authority is not the executive's by constitutional enumeration. I just wish to point out that congress ceded that authority to the president in a constitutionally recognized way and should not be surprised in any way when that authority is used. There is also a constitutionally recognized way to rescind that grant of plenary power that is not as timely as a court challenge but would permanently solve the problem. But they wish to have their cake and eat it, which is hard to do outside the ninth circuit. They should get off their lazy asses and fix the problem, any tightening of broad government authority whether in the area of plenary authority or Chevron deference is all right with me

 

[Ingomike]

Obviously, I get what you wish to point out. The authority is not the executive's by constitutional enumeration. I just wish to point out that congress ceded that authority to the president in a constitutionally recognized way and should not be surprised in any way when that authority is used. There is also a constitutionally recognized way to rescind that grant of plenary power that is not as timely as a court challenge but would permanently solve the problem. But they wish to have their cake and eat it, which is hard to do outside the ninth circuit. They should get off their lazy asses and fix the problem, any tightening of broad government authority whether in the area of plenary authority or Chevron deference is all right with me

This what I have been saying all along.

MM

 

[Fargo]

Obviously, I get what you wish to point out. The authority is not the executive's by constitutional enumeration. I just wish to point out that congress ceded that authority to the president in a constitutionally recognized way and should not be surprised in any way when that authority is used. There is also a constitutionally recognized way to rescind that grant of plenary power that is not as timely as a court challenge but would permanently solve the problem. But they wish to have their cake and eat it, which is hard to do outside the ninth circuit. They should get off their lazy asses and fix the problem, any tightening of broad government authority whether in the area of plenary authority or Chevron deference is all right with me

What is this “ constitutionally recognized way” you speak of? I am really curious where the framers said you could void the constitutionally dictated separation of powers by statute?

 

[2A_Tom]

It is interesting that some would say that THIS president should not take advantage of existing law.

Steve apologized for his Gaffe.

Law is law and it was passed in a constitutional manner and be changed the same way. Or it can be challenged as unconstitutional in the courts.

 

[Fargo]

I am still waiting for someone to point me out the enumerated powers of Congress to reframe the powers granted by the constitution via statute.

 

[Mongo59]

Public opinion is easier...

 

[2A_Tom]

Whether it is Constitutional or not is not the question councilor.

It is on the books and you are welcome to challenge it.

Why don't you go buy a machine gun, without a tax stamp?

 

[Fargo]

Whether it is Constitutional or not is not the question councilor.

It is on the books and you are welcome to challenge it.

Why don't you go buy a machine gun, without a tax stamp?

Really? I’ve been discussing whether it was constitutional or not with a number of people for the past couple pages, I don’t know where you get to decide what the question is.

If it is unconstitutional, what does that say of the president, Congress, and their oath’s? Or do we not care because it’s our guy?

 

[mmpsteve]

I am still waiting for someone to point me out the enumerated powers of Congress to reframe the powers granted by the constitution via statute.

Is this what you're looking for? It pretty much says Congress can do any damn thing they deem necessary, yes?

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

.

 

[Fargo]

Is this what you're looking for? It pretty much says Congress can do any damn thing they deem necessary, yes?

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

.

What are the foregoing powers and where are they listed? That’s not it all what it says, and has never been understood to mean anything like that.

The power to reallocate the powers granted by the Constitution is not one of the foregoing powers, nor is it one of the powers found elsewhere in the constitution.

Go back and read the first line of article 1 section 1.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I am still waiting for someone to point me out the enumerated powers of Congress to reframe the powers granted by the constitution via statute.

Are you saying that the law giving the President emergency powers, passed by Congress and signed by the president in 1976 (or 1977) was unconstitutional? I'm not sure what you're getting at. This isn't some new "power grab" by Trump. It's been used by every president since it was enacted, and nobody has challenged the constitutionality? I'm not saying it's a good law, but there have been 40+ years to challenge its constitutionality and nobody has to my knowledge. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

If it's a bad law (constitutionality aside), Congress has the power to rescind it, do they not? I suspect neither side wants to do this. Sure they ***** about it when the other side uses it from time to time, but I don't think either side wants to give up on having it in their back pocket to pull out when it's expedient for them.

 

[Fargo]

Are you saying that the law giving the President emergency powers, passed by Congress and signed by the president in 1976 (or 1977) was unconstitutional? I'm not sure what you're getting at. This isn't some new "power grab" by Trump. It's been used by every president since it was enacted, and nobody has challenged the constitutionality? I'm not saying it's a good law, but there have been 40+ years to challenge its constitutionality and nobody has to my knowledge. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

If it's a bad law (constitutionality aside), Congress has the power to rescind it, do they not? I suspect neither side wants to do this. Sure they ***** about it when the other side uses it from time to time, but I don't either side wants to give up on having it in their back pocket to pull out when it's expedient for them.

To the extent that the emergency powers encompass powers solely delegated to Congress by the constitution, yes that would be unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not allow the president to legislate, anymore than it allows Congress to sit as a federal Court, or the supreme court to execute the law.

Could the supreme court cede it’s judicial authority to the president?

 

[BigRed]

Really? I’ve been discussing whether it was constitutional or not with a number of people for the past couple pages, I don’t know where you get to decide what the question is.

If it is unconstitutional, what does that say of the president, Congress, and their oath’s? Or do we not care because it’s our guy?

I know a guy who has been saying for many, many years that the republic is dead.

 

[Mongo59]

No, just to public opinion...

 

[2A_Tom]

YES, HE is the ONLY GUY I've got.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

To the extent that the emergency powers encompass powers solely delegated to Congress by the constitution, yes that would be unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not allow the president to legislate, anymore than it allows Congress to sit as a federal Court, or the supreme court to execute the law.

Could the supreme court cede it’s judicial authority to the president?

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. So why HAS no one challenged the constitutionality of the law in the courts? And, does someone HAVE to bring it to the courts, or can the SCOTUS simply examine the law and declare it unconstitutional on their own? Has there ever been a time when a law was passed only to have SCOTUS say, "Now just hold on there boys and girls. That ain't gonna fly."?

 

[mmpsteve]

To the extent that the emergency powers encompass powers solely delegated to Congress by the constitution, yes that would be unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not allow the president to legislate, anymore than it allows Congress to sit as a federal Court, or the supreme court to execute the law.

Could the supreme court cede it’s judicial authority to the president?

I was pretty much focused on the last part of the quote, which seems to me they have the power, as they deem necessary to make laws as concerns "and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Obviously, the President is a part of the government, or a department thereof, or an officer thereof. His powers are certainly part of "all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government". I'm not as well learned as you, and maybe I'm seeing it in simpleton terms, but the words above are what they are.

.

 

[Fargo]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. So why HAS no one challenged the constitutionality of the law in the courts? And, does someone HAVE to bring it to the courts, or can the SCOTUS simply examine the law and declare it unconstitutional on their own? Has there ever been a time when a law was passed only to have SCOTUS say, "Now just hold on there boys and girls. That ain't gonna fly."?

There is a “standing” requirement in the constitution that does not allow the federal courts to consider issues that don’t have an actual case or controversy involved. Someone has to bring the case and it has to be someone actually affected.

I do not know if this particular version of the law has gone to the Supreme Court, I rather doubt it. The cases from early in the country‘s history were quite clear that the powers granted by the Constitution could only be exercised by those they were granted to. However, once FDR finally got a majority on the court they overruled most of those cases. Remember, FDR was allowed to issue an executive order to confiscate privately held gold and void all certificates of gold deposit.