Saturday, February 21, 2015

Two Ways of Looking At This

One way is to fret and wonder how much longer our experiment with a republic can last when people think this way.  The other way is to optimistically note that they'll come back into their right minds as soon as a Republican is elected president:
The United States prides itself on being a nation of laws, not a nation of men. But a surprising number of voters are ready to override those laws in order to have their way.

President Obama’s immigration plan and his national health care law both face legal challenges this year that could bring them to a halt. But one-in-four voters think the president should be able to ignore the courts if he wants to, and Democrats believe that even more strongly.
From Rasmussen Reports.

I just want to remind you that the primary function of the president is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (US Constitution, Article II, Section 3).  The people mentioned above want a dictator, not a president.


maxutils said...

Better a Republic than direct Democracy; CA voters prove this on an annual basis. I don't really think the party matters. Sure, Democrats are more likely to support a Democratic President' policy. But how much time do Republicans spend trying to get around Roe v. Wade by making it difficult or impossible to obtain and abortion? That may have bee a very tortured decision, but it was a Supreme Court decision. How about same sex marriage? I don't think it does any good to blame one party over the other …they both try the same stuff, just on different issues. That's why I would love to see Presidents start picking moderates for SCOTUS … easier to confirm, more consideration of the case, and more distribution of power. Right now, cases end to be either very lopsided, or, basically what Kennedy thinks. Personally, I think the fewer things the public gets to vote on, the better.

Ellen K said...

Sadly Obama took the term "executed" to mean "exterminated."

Luke said...

What paragraph of the Constitution gives the government the power to get a say on either abortion or marriage? Rules for immigration is CLEARLY a power that the Constitution has granted to the CONGRESS, not to the Executive.

maxutils said...

Roe v. Wade was made based on the 4th Amendment right to privacy, in this case, between a doctor and a patient … so, if doctor and patient decided to have a medical procedure, it was not subject to government control. So, abortion can happen. I'm pro-choice, and even I recognize that that is a highly suspect argument designed purely to make abortion legal. But that's what the decision was, and it would take an equally convoluted argument to overturn it. And … should we? How about if we did things to make sure that as few people as possible ever had to even make the choice?