Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
ace, I've seen you question the usage of the word "unilateral" several times now.
Here's a hint: when new law is signed into effect in a signing statement that Congress never saw, that's unilateral. When new policies and rules are implemented top-down straight out of the Commander In Chief's office, that's unilateral.
I know you'd like to have Congress (sorry: "the Democratic Congress"--never mind that the majority is razor-slim) be complicit in this, but the fact is, they're not. They're no angels, but in this, the Executive Branch acted utterly alone.
What REALLY scares me is, this ruling was 5 to 4. One more right-winger on the SCOTUS, and this shit would be constitutional.
|
At what point do you give allowance for process? A) Assuming a President did do something "unilaterally" and or system of checks and balances either supports or rejects that "unilateral" action, is it still "unilateral"? In my opinion no. I would say no, even in a circumstance where the other branches of government failed to take any action. We do not have royalty or a dictatorship. Yes, I have a problem with the concept of "unilateral" action in our form of government. It is temporary at best. In this case all branches of our federal government was a part of the process.