- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
It's not a Presidents job to interpret the Constitution, and it's a bad precedent to set
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:25 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:25 am
The President is in charge of the Executive Branch, one of his powers is not to interpret the constitution and/or the amendments.
Furthermore, if the Presidents start interpreting parts of the Constitution to mean whatever he thinks (which again is not one of his powers), it sets a very dangerous precedent for the future.
Similar to Obama making a ton of executive orders set a precedent for Trump and future presidents to do the same thing. If Trump starts trying to reinterpret the Constitution (in this case the 14th amendment) to fit his beliefs, it sets a precedent for another president to do it (like someone who wants to reinterpret the 1st or 2nd amendment for example).
It's just a really really bad idea
Furthermore, if the Presidents start interpreting parts of the Constitution to mean whatever he thinks (which again is not one of his powers), it sets a very dangerous precedent for the future.
Similar to Obama making a ton of executive orders set a precedent for Trump and future presidents to do the same thing. If Trump starts trying to reinterpret the Constitution (in this case the 14th amendment) to fit his beliefs, it sets a precedent for another president to do it (like someone who wants to reinterpret the 1st or 2nd amendment for example).
It's just a really really bad idea
38
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:26 am to Tiger1242
quote:
Furthermore, if the Presidents start interpreting parts of the Constitution to mean whatever he thinks (which again is not one of his powers), it sets a very dangerous precedent for the future.
That's why it gets sent to the SCOTUS.
You're defining 'interpreting the constitution' in such a way as to say that the president can't do anything because there is a constitution.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:26 am to Tiger1242
Tis true
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:27 am to Tiger1242
The Executive Branch has standing to argue their interpretation of the law. That’s not bad precedent, that’s just government functioning. It’s up to the courts to decide. The big thing is the executive has to respect and abide by the decision of the courts. The bad precedent would be the executive ignoring the courts if they ruled against the executive branch. That’s when we get into banana republic territory
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:27 am to Tiger1242
You can't really have each president deciding who is and isn't a citizen per executive order. Everyone knows this. This is a campaign issue to make the elections about an issue that drives Republicans to the polls in important states. It's not really about policy.
Everyone knows this, whether the interpretation by Trump is ultimately proved to be right or wrong.
Everyone knows this, whether the interpretation by Trump is ultimately proved to be right or wrong.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 11:28 am
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:28 am to Tiger1242
quote:
The President is in charge of the Executive Branch, one of his powers is not to interpret the constitution and/or the amendments.
While I would normally agree, I think interpretations to protect our southern border, by any means necessary, from an invasion is most definitely his job
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:28 am to Tiger1242
He's not "interpreting the constitution"
He's attempting to change laws
If the new laws are found to be unconstitutional, then so be it, but like you said, it's not his job to interpret the constitution.
But if you think Congress and the Executive Branch dont have attorneys to advise them on the legal and constitutional ramifications of the laws they're attempting to pass then you're just short-sighted
He's attempting to change laws
If the new laws are found to be unconstitutional, then so be it, but like you said, it's not his job to interpret the constitution.
But if you think Congress and the Executive Branch dont have attorneys to advise them on the legal and constitutional ramifications of the laws they're attempting to pass then you're just short-sighted
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:28 am to cokebottleag
quote:
That's why it gets sent to the SCOTUS.
You're defining 'interpreting the constitution' in such a way as to say that the president can't do anything because there is a constitution.
A president calling for SCOTUS to reinterpret something for him is also an extremely dangerous precedent and one I don't like.
SCOTUS is not supposed to be a political tool, and I'm scared to think about what will happen if it becomes one
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:29 am to Tiger1242
The OP is partially correct, but the Supreme Court has been inappropriately making law for decades, so it only evens things out.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:29 am to Tiger1242
Wut? Every president does this.
We have a court to keep them in check.
We have a court to keep them in check.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:30 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
The Executive Branch has standing to argue their interpretation of the law. That’s not bad precedent, that’s just government functioning. It’s up to the courts to decide. The big thing is the executive has to respect and abide by the decision of the courts. The bad precedent would be the executive ignoring the courts if they ruled against the executive branch. That’s when we get into banana republic territory
This^
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:30 am to cokebottleag
quote:Bingo.
That's why it gets sent to the SCOTUS
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:30 am to Zanzibaw
quote:
While I would normally agree, I think interpretations to protect our southern border, by any means necessary, from an invasion is most definitely his job
You're missing the forest because of the trees.
If a president can do this for the 14th amendment, another president can do it for a different amendment, perhaps one you don't personally think should be changed or reinterpreted
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:30 am to Tiger1242
I don’t disagree in principle but I’d like to see him set the path to the judicial branch to finally clear this issue up..
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:30 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
The bad precedent would be the executive ignoring the courts if they ruled against the executive branch.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:31 am to Tiger1242
So you think the executive branch should act without considering whether the act is constitutional? Because that is exactly what you are arguing whether you realize it or not.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:31 am to Tiger1242
quote:
another president can do it for a different amendment,
And we have a court to keep it in check
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:31 am to Tiger1242
quote:
You're missing the forest because of the trees.
If a president can do this for the 14th amendment, another president can do it for a different amendment, perhaps one you don't personally think should be changed or reinterpreted
The Executive Branch has the Office of the Solicitor General which argues the Administration’s position on a variety of federal law and constitutional issues and has been doing so for decades, if not centuries.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:32 am to cokebottleag
quote:
That's why it gets sent to the SCOTUS. You're defining 'interpreting the constitution' in such a way as to say that the president can't do anything because there is a constitution.
This. He can throw something at the wall (the SCOTUS) and see if it sticks.
Your complaint should be against legislating via executive order, which has been going on for a very long time.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 11:32 am to Tiger1242
quote:
A president calling for SCOTUS to reinterpret something for him is also an extremely dangerous precedent and one I don't like.
It's not a reinterpretation. The meaning of the 14th has been in dispute since it was signed.
Page 1 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News