That’s the preamble. It is aspirational in nature and does not have legal effect. See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905):
The Second Amendment, in contrast, is part of the body of the Constitution and confers substantive legal rights and remedies. See, e.g. Heller v. DC,
554 U.S. 570 (2008):
It’s not meaningless. But, as I cited above, it has no legal effect. Again I draw your attention to the Supreme Court’s words in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
Are you relying on some contrary court case? What is it?
Or are you relying on your own innate sense of how things should be, and therefore must be?
Who said it makes it right or acceptable? This whole line of discussion stems from the accusation that the Republicans in congress failed to govern. Words have meaning. It’s not being an apologist to point out flaws in reasoning, or errors in understanding.
Yes, congress is allowed to play brinksmanship with the economy. Don’t like it? Change the constitution. Accusing congress of not fulfilling their duty is unfounded. They had no duty in the first place.
When you write a sentence that is the opposite of what someone states, it’s a fair criticism that you’ve missed the point. I said unequivocally that there was harm caused. You then question how I can say there was no harm. Yeah you missed the point.
I see this trend - I say something specific and you impart different meaning to a straightforward sentence. I say the preamble of the constitution doesn’t impose a duty on Congress, and you interpret this the same as saying the preamble is meaningless. It’s comical how transparently bad that interpretation is.
Seriously, do you think the preamble of the constitution imposes a duty on congress? (see, I am inferring that from your statement, but I am asking a question directly to clarify) If you say yes, I will then ask for a cite. If you say no, then I will ask you to clarify your statement.
OOOOHHH…you wanted an option that wasn’t a Scotsman! Why didn’t you say so in the first place?! It’s like there was a sale on fallacies.
As to why we have a congress? Perhaps you may take a look at Article I. That part actually is in the constitution.
I concur.
Airbeck, you remind me of Britannus in Shaw’s Caesar and Cleopatra. When he learns that Ptolemy and Cleopatra are both king/consort and brother/sister, he is outraged at the wrongness. Caesar rebukes him, reminding him that his ideas of right and wrong are not laws of nature.
You repeatedly commit a similar sin in this thread. You think it’s true, therefore it is, and no reasonable person can possibly brook dissent. “There was no good from the debt ceiling fight!” “The preamble imposes a duty on Congress!”
No, and no.
There are good arguments to be made for those positions, to be sure. But they are not laws of nature.
And don’t they teach civics any more?
Let’s say ISIL invaded the United States, a la “Red Dawn.” And the President did nothing - no orders to the military to defend Americans, no orders to the National Guard, nothing. Just kind of stuck his thumb up his butt and made some speeches.
Suggesting that the Constitution ought to be changed because both action and inaction are both allowable options under the commander in chief clause is absurd. Criticizing the President for inaction, however, is perfectly acceptable. One could even say that he is shirking his constitutional responsibilities, which is similar to what Airbeck is saying, and I don’t think that’s an outrageous suggestion, despite there being no clause of the Constitution which specifically obligates the President to defend the American people (apart from his oath to defend the Constitution, which I’m sure the pedants in this thread can all agree is not the same thing at all).
I’m not talking legal theory I’m talking right and wrong. Do you expect everyone here to be a lawyer? Lots of horrible things can be technically justified legally, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be criticized or be considered to be a bad thing. Do you really believe that Congress has no duties whatsoever? That if every senator and representative just sat on their hands their entire terms that would be considered governing? Their job description is a blank page?
Anyway, the OP of the thread is about what Obama could have done to get Congress to work with him. Myself and many other participants in the thread feel that nothing is the answer. Now Bricker and Bone have decided that this thread is actually only about my line ‘refusing to govern’. Therefore I would like to withdraw that line in an effort to return to the actual topic at hand. I feel like we’ve drifted off topic onto a bit of minutiae that they feel they can make a case about at the cost of abandoning the central topic of the thread. I don’t want to play a part of that any longer.
Also Bone continues to condescend and since I don’t think the tone of the argument is befitting great debates I’m disengaging rather than continuing to be part of that.
No, of course not. Although quite frankly I do expect that informed adults are aware that the preamble to the Constitution is not legally binding in any way; that’s not an obscure point of arcane law.
But if you’re talking about right and wrong, then why in the world would you demand that I accept your vision of what things are right and wrong? Do you hold yourself out as some great moral authority on rightness and wrongness, such that no other view is even tenable?
See, that’s where I have a problem with the position you’ve staked out. It’s not merely that you have arguments that support your view – it’s that you claim no other view can possibly be accepted as reasonable. When caught without legal support, you claim that yours is a matter of right and wrong, but that doesn’t transform your position into an unassailable one. I don’t concede that your sense of right and wrong should trump mine.
These are strawman positions. Congress has duties, but they don’t include a mandate to raise the debt ceiling. You want them to, and somehow, that’s enough to make it a reality in your world view, as though by the merest wish, your desires take shape in the real world.
Fair enough.
Who is the hostage taker in this analogy? Of course I know your opinion. However, one could argue that by not capitulating to GOP demands it was Obama that engaged in brinkmanship over the debt crises. Isn’t the credit rating of the U.S. more important than Democratic policies?
We could go back and forth forever. Your side, unfortunately, cannot understand that there is a simple difference of opinion in U.S. politics. You have an “I’m right, you’re wrong” attitude which people of all political persuasion tend to have. However, your side tends to draw deeper lines in the sand.
Is Congress obstructionist? How? If Obama would agree to a repeal of the ACA, they would pass that bill. I’m sure Congress would pass a national concealed carry bill, one to defund planned parenthood, or one to chip away at social spending. Why hasn’t Obama come on board with those? Is he just trying to “obstruct” the Congress?
My point is that your side believes your political rhetoric as if brought down by Moses. Of course a GOP Congress will oppose Obama. Obama will oppose a GOP Congress. That is what happens in a divided government.
Oh, but we hear that the ACA was actually a Republican plan, so the only reason to oppose it is racism (or something). So because some members of my party agreed with something nearly twenty five years ago, and agreed to it only because it wasn’t as bad as the other thing that was likely to pass (the Clinton health care plan) then if I today do not support said plan, then I am an obstructionist? Not even possible that I disagree on principle?
By that definition all Democrats should support Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Because refusing to pay the cost of bills you already approved is petulant. If the GOP weren’t petulant, they’d approve less bills that required them to raise the debt ceiling or approve bills that raised revenue (fat chance) or less expensive bills. That they approved the cost of new bills while at the same time undercutting the payment is what makes them petulant.
Also, as it has been pointed out repeatedly, the bills that the GOP have blocked are ones they have supported under a Republican president. They are doing this because, like they discussed in that meeting in 2008, they want to block everything they can of Obama’s and not give him any victories.
These are not serious people trying to govern. These are petulant children who didn’t get their way and now are throwing a tantrum. All of the crap we’ve seen is political theater. If and when a Republican gets elected, they will be passing things as they’ve admitted themselves.
And no, its not simply a calculated and correct political move to get back in power. That gives them too much credit. If were of a political party and the other party is passing things that I supported, I’d sit back and let them. I’d support them even if my political party wanes. Its because helping my political party is a means to an ends. If the other party is achieving those ends, then there is no reason why I should be so desperate to lie, cheat, and steal to ensure my party’s relevance. What the GOP should do now is support Democrats as they pass the ACA, its their plan after all. They should praise Obama as he bails out the banks, they did the same thing. And they should point out that Romney said he’d cut unemployment to 6 percent within 4 years, and Obama did it in 2, so congratulate Obama for doing so well. These goals are the same ones the GOP said their goals were. It is happening, only under a Democrat. The only reason to tear that down is if the GOP puts its own party above the welfare of America
Petitio principii, fallacy of.
It’s pretty rich to criticize others for logical fallacies after you have so embraced tu quoque.
Everyone knows that there are irreconcilable differences between the parties, and I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it is unfair for one side to reject proposals that contradict core principles such as those you list.
But if you refer to my post from 1:34pm today, you’ll see a list of things that the Republican Congress has blocked that don’t have anything to do with core principles. There are numerous important nominations to scores of positions that are unfilled, mainly for no discernible reason.
When someone repeatedly says no for no reasonable purpose, one can fairly apply the word “obstructionist.” That is when someone says no for the main purpose of simply saying no. I think that’s a pretty fair description of the work of the current Congress.
I quoted the post I was responding to in my post. When you asked what I was responding to, I told you. When you asked me if I meant my post to be interpreted in a certain way, I specifically told you no. I can’t think of anyway to make what I said any clearer. So I don’t really know what you’re looking for here.
It’s a shame I did not win the $1.5b lottery. I would have funded a foundation whose sole purpose was educating the American public on what does, and does not, constitute tu quoque.
I assume you’re citing Jacobson v Massachusetts.
It’s true that Justice Harlan said the preamble did not confer any specific powers to the government. But Jacobson also asserted his right to refuse vaccination under the Fourteenth Amendment and I’m assuming you recognize that section as giving the government some specific powers.
But Justice Harlan seemed to go out of his way to undermine his own argument. He repeatedly cited the “common good” as justification for ruling against Jacobson.
And where in the Constitution did Justice Harlan find any mention of common good as a justification for government action? It’s certainly not mentioned or implied in Article I (or Article III for that matter). The only place where you can find the common good as an implied justification for government action is in the Preamble (and even there the phrase doesn’t actually appear in those words).
You don’t need that much money to accomplish your mission.
“Tu quoque: a fallacy involving charges of hypocrisy, except if the argument involves criticizing liberals in which case it isn’t a fallacy, it’s totally true.”
I won’t even charge you for that.
Any and all sort of criticism is fine - I think this was the basis for some criticism of Obama’s immigration actions that they weren’t adhering to the ‘faithfully execute the laws’ duty. And that’s the thing, there are very few actual duties or obligations of our elected officials. Sure, the president must report on the state of the union, but there is no requirement it be a speech. If I said that the state of the union must be in the form of a speech, you would be right to criticize me and correct that error. The Congress must assemble at least once each year, sure, but what they must do beyond that is rather scarce. So yes, criticism is all well and good, but it should be accurate. If I said the Congress must meet twice a year!, that would be wrong. It is not accurate to say they have a duty to do X when there is in fact no duty to do X. Then I could then say, that’s just like, my opinion man!
Your other point about not holding votes, etc. - I think it’s pretty crappy myself. But again, not taking action is taking action in this sense. The way to combat it is to elect different people. Or change the rules so that type of behavior is not possible.
I think this is fair. The debateable part is whether “blocking everything the opposition party attempts” is a reasonable purpose.
With respect, I think you underestimate the importance and the policy decisions those officials make. And again, those are a large part because of an activist judiciary and to a lesser extent, the result of federal administrative power.
If a judge was like we traditionally understood him (now her) to be, and they decided what kind of standards I should use to keep my dog from shitting on your yard or how much I should have to pay you because my company fired you because you were a minority, then we could compromise on the political philosophies of those judges.
But when courts claim legislative power and legalize abortion and gay marriage, decide gun rights, or say that cops can come into my house because they smelled weed a block away, then we have moved into a new era where appointing judges is equal or even greater than voting for laws.
These administrative departments, at the behest of their leaders, promulgate rules that affect us all.
This is not just clerical stuff that Congress is doing just to fuck with Obama. They are rightly recognized as stopping these “core” policy positions from happening. The Dems did it to Bush.
Suppose you are a Congressman and President Cruz appoints Judge Smith to the Northern District of West Dakota. You don’t know Judge Smith…you want to stop his nomination, right? 
The President’s problem, as Mitch McConnell pointed out, is that he likes to tell people what they think, what they support, and what they want. That’s not negotiation, and the President has never been particularly interested in negotiation. He presents a deal, says how generous it is and how much of a compromise it is, and then it’s take it or leave it.
I almost hope Clinton gets elected just because it would demonstrate how bad a President Obama was. Clinton will probably work very productively with Republicans. That should convince all but the most ardent Obama fans.
Isn’t the life of the hostage worth more than the helicopter and $10,000 in unmarked bills you’d have to give the guy? Aren’t the police the real hostage-takers for putting me in this position?
No, I’m sorry, this is ridiculous. It was not the democrats who said, “Do what we want or we refuse to do basic government maintenance”. It was not the democrats who drastically overstepped their bounds. They demanded a clean debt ceiling bill. That’s not unreasonable. You know what is unreasonable? Expecting major policy concessions simply to get the republicans to take their finger off the red button (at least for now - it’s not like they ever did that again, except that time they totally did).
The debt ceiling debacle was entirely the GOP’s fault. You don’t get the blame the democrats for refusing to concede their entire policy to stop the other side from blowing up the country. You blame the other side for posing such completely unreasonable threats.
What’s your evidence that the Republicans oppose him because of race?