Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
Serious question; under that approach why even have a constitution?
It is far better to have laws not get passed/changed that we want, than just taking the 'we can't do it the right way, so we'll do it whatever way we can make work' approach.
|
Because I believe the constitution is a living document and the challenges (resulting in clarification, reconfirmation, precedence etc.) to its parts should be continuous (aka in my line of work, there is a concept called "continuous improvement").
Sometimes laws are not as clear cut, concise, applicable etc. as they should be (I mean, how could they be with stuff written pre-1900s or even pre-2000s with all the innovations, changing culture etc.). This constant "tension" on laws/interpretations is good as it results in clarification, reconfirmation, precedence etc.
I know you are not saying that constitution/amendments should not be challenged by Congress, and I agree in an ideal world that Congress should lead. Your argument is the President should not be doing this, and I disagree. Presidents should be able to dispute the legal boundaries ... just as long as there is a timely process to resolve the dispute (e.g. all the way to SCOTUS or leading Congress to write/amend laws etc).
Sometimes, it takes a President to jump start the process and not wait on Congress (source: the dysfunction and lethargy in the past 10+ years). If Congress disagrees, they can write a law to strike it down or it goes to SCOTUS.
See below list of "10 most important executive orders". Where would we be without executive orders.
10 of the Most Consequential Executive Orders and Proclamations | HISTORY
Quote:
|
Yes, that's not the job of the President. Issues where there isn't a clearly existing constitutional position are absolutely within the authority of Congress. They're the ones that make the laws, and the President has a role in setting the agenda, signing and vetoing, etc. But where there is a constitutional principle, either follow the amendment process or accept the law the way it is. There's no acceptable third option.
|
Using 2A as an example of "constitutional principle", I disagree. Sometimes Presidents need to take the lead and, like in the recent past, chip away at open ended 2A in bits and pieces. I really do wish recent Democratic Presidents did issue more Executive Orders (frak the political suicide) to implement what I'd consider more rationale 2A restrictions (and I own multiple weapons) and force the issue. And some laws are so broad that it inevitably touches on "some constitutional principle", so do what you believe is right and let it play out through the process.
Bottom-line. Sometimes, the President needs to "ready, shoot, aim" to get things done and challenge laws, including constitutional principles just as long as the process is played out. In this example, "aim" is Congress/SCOTUS recalibrating to take another shot, adjust, strike down etc. if needed. Or in other words, Congress very often too damn slow to act.