Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

The_Jazz · 05-31-2006, 01:19 PM

Boys, boys, boys, can't we have a calm and rational conversation? Oh wait, I forgot that this is Politics and calm and rational have never cast a shadow on this particular venue.

After reading and rereading the various posts here, I think that I see the point of irritation here - the Executive branch is not expressly responsible for interpreting the Constitution. However, in the real world, it goes on every day and it has since the day the Constitution was ratified. Every law has to be applied to the real world, and the Executive branch is the one that has to figure out how to do that. For instance, if Congress passes a law stating that "no person in a yellow personal vehicle engaged in interstate commerce shall make a left turn on alternate Thursdays", the Executive branch is the one stuck with figuring out if that means that a truck with yellow racing stripes is an ambiturner (thank you, Derek Zoolander).

The Executive branch also has the option of saying that this law is too much of a hassle and that they're going to focus their energy on more important things, like fighting the revolution that dksuddeth is always aggitating about. Congress would be left with the choice of repealing the law, leaving it alone or retooling it into something that the Executive branch wants and needs. Its pretty rare for Congress to waste time passing laws that the Executive branch doesn't at least pay lip service to and say that they want and need the legislation.

Dksuddeth, can you give an example of the USSC declaring a law constitutional and telling the Executive branch to enforce it followed by the Executive then declaring the law still to be unconstitutional? I've never heard of such a blatant disregard for the separation of powers and I wonder if it ever happened or if you were just making a point.

05-31-2006, 01:19 PM	#23 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Boys, boys, boys, can't we have a calm and rational conversation? Oh wait, I forgot that this is Politics and calm and rational have never cast a shadow on this particular venue. After reading and rereading the various posts here, I think that I see the point of irritation here - the Executive branch is not expressly responsible for interpreting the Constitution. However, in the real world, it goes on every day and it has since the day the Constitution was ratified. Every law has to be applied to the real world, and the Executive branch is the one that has to figure out how to do that. For instance, if Congress passes a law stating that "no person in a yellow personal vehicle engaged in interstate commerce shall make a left turn on alternate Thursdays", the Executive branch is the one stuck with figuring out if that means that a truck with yellow racing stripes is an ambiturner (thank you, Derek Zoolander). The Executive branch also has the option of saying that this law is too much of a hassle and that they're going to focus their energy on more important things, like fighting the revolution that dksuddeth is always aggitating about. Congress would be left with the choice of repealing the law, leaving it alone or retooling it into something that the Executive branch wants and needs. Its pretty rare for Congress to waste time passing laws that the Executive branch doesn't at least pay lip service to and say that they want and need the legislation. Dksuddeth, can you give an example of the USSC declaring a law constitutional and telling the Executive branch to enforce it followed by the Executive then declaring the law still to be unconstitutional? I've never heard of such a blatant disregard for the separation of powers and I wonder if it ever happened or if you were just making a point. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo