This doesn't seem to make sense. THe president , by definition, can't have the authority to legally do something if it is unconstitutional. I realize that is a bit of a chicken/egg argument; but it is the truth. If the COTUS doesn't allow something, then Congress can't pass a law letting the POTUS do it.

And in fact , there actually ARE laws on the books which give the President almost unchecked authority that directly contradicts the COTUS. For example, by law the President can unilateraly order a wiretap on a US citizen who he , and he alone, feels is a dirct threat to the United States. Now , this would certainly seem to contradict the 4th Amendment of the United States, but the law exists.

Here's the law, for your edification

LINK

And further, if you actually read the law that gives POTUS the authority ban immigration you will find a few things

1. The law allows the President wide latitude in banning immigrants who he , and he alone, feels are detrimental to the US. Not only does the President NOT have to prove a real danger to US exists, he doesn't even have to claim a danger exists. He merely has to feel they are a detriment to the US.

2. The law actually disallows the us government or its agencies from being sued by local jurisdictions over these laws.

3. We have not been enforcing large portions of this law for shite over the last 30 + years.

LINK

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by buckeye_vol

Member since Jul 2014

35252 posts

Posted on 3/16/17 at 11:30 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay

quote:
This doesn't seem to make sense. THe president , by definition, can't have the authority to legally do something if it is unconstitutional

Of course. But I'm saying (and maybe we are making the same point), but one could have the legal authority to do something, but that legal authority is still constrained by the Constitution.

quote:
For example, by law the President can unilateraly order a wiretap on a US citizen who he , and he alone, feels is a dirct threat to the United States.

Doesn't this refute that?

quote:
there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party

So how can he legally wiretap a citizen, when it explicitly states that they must have substantial likelihood that a citizen's communications aren't going to included? Obviously, he could lie about the likelihood, but that would be a violation of that.

quote:
And further, if you actually read the law that gives POTUS the authority ban immigration you will find a few things

I'm not arguing that he doesn't have the legal authority, and I'm not arguing that's it's unconstitutional.

I'm just saying that every legal authority is constrained by the Constitution, even when it's sole authority. Again, maybe we're on the same page, but when the initial ban was instituted, some people seem to think that a sole authority was somehow immune from the Constitution.

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board