Kucinich as thorn in my side

[Qingdai]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

"I knew Marcel Marceau. Marcel Marceau was a friend of mine. You, Senator, are no Marcel Marceau."

Wot, no mime smiley?

Almost all the smilies are mimes, it would be redundant.

[livius drusus]

On his way back from the store, Opus is accosted by a persistent street mime until he snaps and beats him unconscious with an olive loaf. He becomes known as the "Olive Loaf Vigilante".

Oh, and .

[Qingdai]

Mimes! Gahhhh!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

albeit the New (One Time Only, Barely For Publication) New Federalism.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Just a little clarification re: the French system, so that Adam may dry the blood from his eye sockets. French presidential elections are first-past-the-post, but they're done in two rounds. If no candidate receives a majority in the first round, the top two vote-getters proceed to a runoff election. They are the only candidates on the ticket, so the president will always have a popular majority. In 2007, Sarkozy and Royal were the top two. In 2002, the left- to centrist- ballot was so saturated that Jean Marie Le Pen made it to a second ballot and scared the shit out of basically everyone.

It's also perhaps not the best international comparison because the French President has a little more power than presidents in most other countries. Even at that, national policy and law is created by the Prime Minister, who must be from a party/coalition of the majority of Parliament which need not be the same as that of the President. The US is fairly unique in the Western World in having Head of State and Head of Government in the same person.

NTM

[Watser?]

Who is also Commander in Chief.

You elect a new dictator every 4 years.

[Caligulette]

Well, yes and no, really. He's not supposed to be able to declare war. That's suppossed to be Congress' job. They just felt all give-y when he asked if he could pretty please have the War Powers, oh, please.

[godfry n. glad]

Um...So, for youse folks, the state and the government are two different things? Wow...that must complicate all that bureaucractic bullshit that goes with such things. Imagine have two differing official structures of governance.

It's true that it has become more "dictatorial" over time. That's because the legislative branch has seen fit to give away its powers to the executive for some years now. It becomes worse when the majorities of both chambers of the legislative branch are of the same party as the sitting president. The creation of a permanent freestanding intelligence service seems to be curiously correlated with this trend, as well, but we all know correlation is not necessarily causation.

Our current one has, at points in his tenure been able to just ignore the public which disagrees with his initiatives, as he had not only Congress, but a majority of the SCOTUS, as beholden to some version of his influence.

It should be noted that the Framers weren't particularly favorable to "efficient" government. They structured the constitution so that one branch was to be a counterweight to the other two as a means of tempering the enthusiasms of the masses, even separating powers between the two portions of the legislative branch. The consequence is that change can happen, but it's got to outlast the drag of the legislative process, avoid being subverted or ignored by the executive, and nullified by the Supreme Court. When all those aspects are in the hands of one partisan group, then we have a tyrannic state/government.

[California Tanker]

Um...So, for youse folks, the state and the government are two different things? Wow...that must complicate all that bureaucractic bullshit that goes with such things. Imagine have two differing official structures of governance.

Absolutely the two are two different things. The one is the embodiment of the nation, particularly so when looking at Royalty, the other is what runs the nation. The two do not need to agree, or even talk to each other. In normal terms, the Head of State has less power than the Head of Government, but this is not always true. Thailand would be a good case in point.

NTM

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Bush's lawyers wanted to argue that the Florida Supreme Court erred in interpreting the state election code. Trouble is, state court interpretations of state statutes are generally binding on federal courts. In an attempt to get around that basic precept,

The underlined word should give even the casual reader a clue that the statement containing it is not a precept at all, but merely a characterization of the legal environment.

They also argued that Florida Supreme Court's order somehow contravened 3 U.S.C. § 5, a statute containing no proscription that a state can even arguably "violate." That argument was patently frivolous, so much so that the Court should have sua sponte ordered Bush's lawyers to pay Gore's attorney fees in responding to it.

It seems to me that neither you nor Stevens made any effort to comprehend Rehnquist's position, which, as I read it, never hinted at anything resembling a violation of that statute. The argument was that the FSC's decision ran afoul of the legislature's clear intent to keep the electoral process within the "safe harbor" the statute provides.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Caligulette

Well, yes and no, really. He's not supposed to be able to declare war. That's suppossed to be Congress' job. They just felt all give-y when he asked if he could pretty please have the War Powers, oh, please.

Congress gave him the power that under the Constitution he is authorized to request, and that they are authorized to give. Any "declaration of war" or the lack thereof is a red herring.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

The underlined word should give even the casual reader a clue that the statement containing it is not a precept at all, but merely a characterization of the legal environment.

In most cases, comity and respect for federalism compel us to defer to the decisions of state courts on issues of state law. That practice reflects our understanding that the decisions of state courts are definitive pronouncements of the will of the States as sovereigns.

How much more of a legal precept would you like?

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

Congress gave him the power that under the Constitution he is authorized to request ...

Empowered to recommend to Congress' consideration.

and that they are authorized to give.

Whether one branch may cede to another its enumerated power(s) is debatable, to say the least.

Any "declaration of war" or the lack thereof is a red herring.

Um, hello? The War Power (together with the Necessary and Proper Clause, which may not be invoked without the exercise of a foregoing power) is precisely the enumerated power at issue. There is no other.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by yguy

Congress gave him the power that under the Constitution he is authorized to request, and that they are authorized to give. Any "declaration of war" or the lack thereof is a red herring.

FAIL

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

In most cases, comity and respect for federalism compel us to defer to the decisions of state courts on issues of state law. That practice reflects our understanding that the decisions of state courts are definitive pronouncements of the will of the States as sovereigns.

How much more of a legal precept would you like?

Well I think we can all agree that in order for something to be a legal precept, it must be a precept; and as such it may be either true or false, but may not be equivocal.

Hope that helps.

[D. Scarlatti]

Legal rules are not Pythagorean axioms, yguy. As a matter of fact, the case Rehnquist cites to in the above excerpt from his Bush v. Gore concurrence, Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, itself contains the announcement of a rule contrary to one announced in an earlier case, Swift v. Tyson. And Maturin is a lawyer, discussing a Supreme Court case. So when he mentions a precept, it's meant in the legal context. Hope this helps you, the storied "casual reader." But I'm sure it won't.

The latter presumption is based on a precept in the colloquial sense: your general ineducatability.

[California Tanker]

Isn't it kindof academic anyway? The President's ability to send forces around the globe and shoot people without Congress declaring war is pretty well established by over 200 years of precedent by now.

NTM

[D. Scarlatti]

The president can do anything he wants. Whether his actions conform to the constitutional scheme is a separate question.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Whether one branch may cede to another its enumerated power(s) is debatable, to say the least.

Actually I don't think it's the least bit debatable. Powers granted to governmental entities under the Constitution are also responsibilities, and therefore may not be ceded to other entities.

Now that's a precept.

Um, hello? The War Power (together with the Necessary and Proper Clause, which may not be invoked without the exercise of a foregoing power) is precisely the enumerated power at issue. There is no other.

There are two major components to the war power: conducting it and funding it. Congress total responsibility for the latter, and very little for the former; but the power to declare war - at least in the sense that it was exercised 67 years ago - is not a necessary component of the power to make war under the Constitution.

In fact, I believe the precedent on that goes back to 1800 or so, for all you stare decisis fetishists.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Legal rules are not Pythagorean axioms, yguy.

If the examples cited are representative, they aren't precepts either.

And Maturin is a lawyer, discussing a Supreme Court case. So when he mentions a precept, it's meant in the legal context.

IOW, when he says precept, he doesn't mean precept. He means rule of thumb.

Gotcha.

[D. Scarlatti]

No, when he says precept, he means precept. Several years ago, I went out of my way to find you a copy of Black's 6th ed. on eBay for seven dollars. Evidently you never consummated the deal.

[California Tanker]

Whether his actions conform to the constitutional scheme is a separate question.

Since a lot of those involved in framing the Constitution were probably still alive back when the Marines went to Tripoli, wouldn't some of them have made comment if the intent was to not to (as Yguy rather well puts it) make war without declaring it?

NTM

[D. Scarlatti]

Another one of the first things they did was pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, some of the most blatantly egregious violations of the First Amendment ever perpetrated, both facially and as applied. Go figure.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Isn't it kind of academic anyway?

What you're hearing are echoes from the Viet Nam era, when kids eager to find fault with the previous generation were suckered into accepting a superficial interpretation of a constitutional provision. Some of those kids haven't let go of their ideological teddy bears yet.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

No, when he says precept, he means precept. Several years ago, I went out of my way to find you a copy of Black's 6th ed. on eBay for seven dollars. Evidently you never consummated the deal.

Well evidently he's using some definition available nowhere on the public web, including dictionary.law.com.

In any case, you are welcome to quote me a definition accepted by even a large minority of people that allows for equivocation, as yours obviously does.