Can the President dissolve Congress? I know it has never been done before. Shouldn't he seize control of the government to prevent default?
Can the President dissolve Congress?
|by Anonymous||reply 30||10/12/2013|
I'll bet they let you vote, right, OP? That explains so much about the mess we're in.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||10/11/2013|
The founding fathers created three branches of government: the executive (President), legislative (Congress) and judicial (Supreme Court). These three all together have what is called "the balance of powers," that is, each one is just as powerful as the others. President cannot fire Congress, Congress cannot fire Supreme Court, etc. This system was created to stop a tyrant from taking over all authority and creating a dictatorship.
The Legislative branch writes bills and votes them into law, the President can veto them if he doesn't like them, although this power is rarely used. Congress can override a Presidential veto with a 2/3 majority, which is hard but can be done, or could before the Teabaggers came along. The Supreme Court can overturn unconstitutional laws. If the Supremes make a bad ruling, Congress can write a bill and vote it into law that fixes the problem. Arguments are supposed to be resolved by compromise. All branches are supposed to respect the will of the people as expressed by popular vote, unless there's a constitutional violation involved. Then the constitutional rights of the individual outweighs the popular vote (ideally).
This whole system is based on the idea that everybody is acting in good faith to do what's best for the country. That was true until the Teabaggers came along. Their mantra is "my way or the highway," and you see the result.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||10/11/2013|
Pointless bitchery, step right up.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||10/11/2013|
I guess I didn't make myself clear. Regardless of what the Constitution says, can a strong--even fascist President surround Congress with troops and tell them they are all out of a job? Think of Chile in the 70s.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||10/11/2013|
In that case, R3, "What a maroon!"
|by Anonymous||reply 5||10/11/2013|
You know, R2, tonight is Friday night. If you were young, good looking and had friends---you'd be out right now clubbing. But you are on DL at midnight, getting drunk and mean drunk posting because you have no partner, no friends and your sweet bird of youth has flown, flown, flown away.
So fuck off.
You ask what I'm doing? I've got my kids for the weekend and I'm trying to sign the family up for ObamaCare. Next week I'll go out dancing with my friends.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||10/11/2013|
...and you will still be here drunk posting--alone.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||10/11/2013|
R7, Congress pays the military, not the President. That's how Congress stops the President from doing foolish things - by refusing to pay for it. There is also impeachment.
Could the President declare martial law and overturn the entire system? Maybe, but who's going to go along with him? I think some would, (if he were a Republican), but the military does have a right to disobey an unlawful order.
The solution is, don't vote for terrorist Teabaggers and we'll never know.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||10/12/2013|
The Founding Fathers gave the U.S. Senate the power to negotiate treaties, and to approve Presidential appointments and ambassadorships. They also have to work with the House to approve legislation. Either house can propose legislation.
The House of Representatives was given "the power of the purse" and the right to declare war. That's why the tyranny we're witnessing right now is so critical. This band of about 50 pigfuckers, aided and abetted by spineless cretins who are "scared to oppose the Tea Party" are holding this country, and particularly the Executive Branch, hostage.
Can POTUS declare martial law? If it became a national security issue, a real threat, and not a political gambit, yes. To restore order. I forget what the process is. But can he "surround Congress?" Not really.
He can use his Constitutional power to invoke the 14th Amendment, and bypass them on the debt ceiling. Then the shits will start impeachment hearings even though they will go no where and just bottle up government.
Wake up people. This is the Corporate Police State we've been heading towards for the past 30 something years.
Now, POTUS could "surround them" politically. Karl Rove did this really well. Make them more afraid of him, than they are of the Tea Party. But this President won't do that. He keeps talking about "negotiating."
They don't need to negotiate. They have what they want. They have stopped him, blocked him, and humiliated him in the eyes of THEIR constituents. They don't give a fuck about anything else.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||10/12/2013|
The Founding Fathers had the, to them, relatively recent example of the King dissolving Parliament whenever he wanted, and decided that that would not happen here. Much of the Declaration and the Constitution were written as a direct reply to the abuses of the various Kings and Queens of England. For example, the right of habeas corpus, trial by jury, being able to confront your accuser, is in direct response to the Start Chamber trials. The old FFs were a pretty smart bunch of guys.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||10/12/2013|
I have subscribed to DL for years. Finally I found the stupidest OP yet.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||10/12/2013|
Most presidents cannot dissolve congress but our current president was given a magic wand by Nicholas Cage. The wand was discovered by Cage while filming National Treasure 3, it will indeed turn Congress into a puddle of goo.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||10/12/2013|
You mean "Star Chambers" and some countries still have them. But yes, you're correct, R10. The FFs were pretty smart, and I was surprised to realize how young they were, comparatively speaking.
The President can't dissolve Congress, but he can suspend all activity under martial law. But why bother. There are so many other ways to seize power, gradually and subtly over time.
To me, it's just becoming clearer and clearer that our elected officials aren't in charge. We really need to stop this Right Wing extremist take over, and we have to do it state by state. They are like a cancer. Hopefully Obama will get a couple more Supreme Court appointments so we can overturn Citizens United anda Democratic majority can come up with some real Campaign Finance reform.
One more thing. Writing something into law doesn't stop it from being challenged. Congress and state legislatures write bad laws every day. The test is when you go to court and challenge bad laws.
The impulse for a lot of bad law is political. People are driven by opportunism or emotion to "sponsor a law". It's the courts that are more rational when these laws are tested. In theory.
Even a Constitutional Amendment can be overthrown thru a lengthy political process. John Marshall, our first Supreme Court Chief Justice established that Federal law trumps state law, and the Constitution is the law of the land.
But remember, we passed, then repealed the 18th Amendment. The constant chicanery of the extremists' influence on our politics and our government, is destabilizing this country, and it is a very bad thing.
We cannot even calculate the costs, and the meter has been running for a few years now. Bush really accelerated things, but Clinton set the stage with NAFTA and the Glass Steagal thing.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||10/12/2013|
R10 The power if the monarchy was reduced by the Bill of Rights 1688, but you can see why the FFs would reject the parliamentary system considering they'd just booted the British out.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||10/12/2013|
Only if he could pour salt on them, OP.
This is all a ploy to trick him into exercising executive power to save humanity and then impeach him for abuse of power.
Never mind that we are in wartime.
The excuse they used to impeach Clinton was a blow job. Obama would never in a million years cheat on Michelle and hurt his daughters.
They can't impeach him for a personal scandal so they generate faux scandals. Deployed by Faux News, and paid for by the Koch Brothers and Adele Stephenson.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||10/12/2013|
[quote]John Marshall, our first Supreme Court Chief Justice established that Federal law trumps state law, and the Constitution is the law of the land.
Our [bold][italic]first[/bold][/italic] Chief Justice of the United States? Isn't this a Jeopardy question about every other week? You might want to check your history books again, because that is wrong. John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the United States. And John Marshall was the fourth (not even the second or third).
|by Anonymous||reply 16||10/12/2013|
You have to hope no one is reading DL to learn about American history.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||10/12/2013|
Whatever. He still did What I say he did.
1. The Constitution is the law of the land.
2. Federal Law trumps state law.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||10/12/2013|
Execute Order 66.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||10/12/2013|
Just want to add that while John Jay was Chief justice, he ran for Governor of New York twice before he got elected, and served as a sort of Secretary of State negotiating treaties with the English. All while he served on the court.
His two successors were craptastic. One was an alcoholic who served as interim, while he awaited Senate approval and crapped all over himself politically speaking, so much so that he couldn't get confirmed if his life depended on it.
I singled out Marshall because he had the most impact on our modern court, and because he served for decades. It was known as the Marshall court. When you measure John Jay or any of the other two against Marshall, they were true lightweights.
Although, Jay did establish Judicial review to determine whether the court would take up a case. I think he also marked the independence of the Court and re-enforced the concept of separation of powers.
What seemed to be important to Washington, is that Jay & Marshall both believed in a strong central government. Rutledge, who was the drunk who succeeded Jay, at least contributed as one of the FF who helped write the Constitution, so I don't want to to marginalize him too much.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||10/12/2013|
[quote]I guess I didn't make myself clear. Regardless of what the Constitution says, can a strong--even fascist President surround Congress with troops and tell them they are all out of a job? Think of Chile in the 70s.
The military would never follow such orders. Even if a rogue officer or group of officers wanted to stage a coup, the troops and the rest of the military would stop them. They are sworn to protect the Constitution, not the President.
[quote]"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
|by Anonymous||reply 21||10/12/2013|
R9 and R13 have so many factual errors.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||10/12/2013|
At least R2 had a thoughtful response. I don't know why R6 had to spew at R2.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||10/12/2013|
OP posting from his Obama phone.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||10/12/2013|
"Regardless of what the Constitution says, can a strong--even fascist President surround Congress with troops and tell them they are all out of a job? Think of Chile in the 70s."
Would that he could. What is needed is a strong leader, one who will not let our national tragedy continue and get results. We need the trains to run on time.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||10/12/2013|
24 = Elizabeth Hasslebitch
|by Anonymous||reply 26||10/12/2013|
R20 also has a lot of errors.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||10/12/2013|
Thank you for the article, R28
|by Anonymous||reply 28||10/12/2013|
No, OP. The U.S. Congress is not a parliament and the President is not the equivalent of a prime minister. Totally different system with very different rules.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||10/12/2013|