# Stupid liberal idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086 "2011-04-20T15:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 90
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1781 "2014-06-06T00:27:58Z")
It’s stupid because it is typical partisan bickering. Both sides do it but it’s always stupid. This is why we can’t have nice things. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1782 "2014-06-06T03:35:24Z")
Not this time. It’s bipartisan. Sure, there’s going to be extreme positions taken, Republicans calling for a special hearing and Democrats saying it doesn’t matter(Reid, who has no integrity and has just become a mouthpiece for the President). But most just want answers. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1783 "2014-06-06T04:50:14Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > Contra to what some people say, you are a true patriot. I’m sure you’d travel to the North pole to defend the country and not hide behind a Bush. I see what you did there, in that posting affair. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1784 "2014-06-06T11:38:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Not this time. It’s bipartisan. Sure, there’s going to be extreme positions taken, Republicans calling for a special hearing and Democrats saying it doesn’t matter(Reid, who has no integrity and has just become a mouthpiece for the President). But most just want answers. Maybe for the 30 day thing, but not for the supposed desertion. Painting this guy as a traitor is not about anything but political smears. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1785 "2014-06-06T14:03:15Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > Try [this](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/05/1304556/-The-GOP-is-Heading-for-a-World-iof-Hurt-on-Bergdahl-here-s-why), moran. Try quoting from a reliable source in the future, _moron_. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1786 "2014-06-06T14:07:14Z")
[Know your memes.](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/get-a-brain-morans) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1787 "2014-06-06T14:16:16Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > But there is a difference between a law that is unconstitutional on its face, and one that is later found to be unconstitutional. That is, there are plenty of laws that are obeyed over a considerable period of time, under the assumption that they are constitutional, but are later found by the courts to be unconstitutional. Is this law unconstitutional on its face? The legal discussions in numerous media outlets suggest considerable disagreement over whether it’s unconstitutional at all. I would think a law that generates such heated discussion and disagreement among legal experts is unlikely to be unconstitutional on its face. > > To be honest, the whole “unconstitutional on its face” issue has always struck me as an odd legal fiction anyway. No law is constitutional or unconstitutional except that someone’s interpretation makes it so. The way that lawyers use the term “unconstitutional on its face” implies that some laws are, or are not, unconstitutional without even the intervening step of human interpretation and analysis. As used in constitutional jurisprudence, “on its face” does not mean what you seem to think it does (“obviously unconstitutional”). That might be why the term strikes you as odd. _Facial_ unconstitutionality means a law is unconstitutional regardless of the challenger’s specific circumstances. That is distinguished from “unconstitutional as applied”, which means the law is okay but cannot be constitutionally applied because of the attendant circumstances of the specific person challenging it (and those similarly situated.) By way of illustration, in _Brown v. Board of Education_ the class representative argued that all segregated public education was unconstitutional, always, everywhere, no matter what. That’s a _facial_ challenge. However, he _also_ argued in the alternative that the segregation statute was unconstitutional as applied to _his daughter_ because it forced her to walk a mile to school when she could have walked a couple of hundred feet to the white school. That’s an _as applied_ challenge. The importance of this distinction is that facially unconstitutional laws are deemed to never have been in effect. So Obama wouldn’t have broken the law if this one is facially unconstitutional. The other point to remember is that constitutional challenges to laws directing the president to act are always facial challenges, because there are no attendant circumstances to take into account (in other words, there is only one office of POTUS.) ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1788 "2014-06-06T15:53:36Z")
Thank you for the explanation. It’s useful. But it seems to me that, in that case, the substance of my original observation still holds. That is, Obama has broken this law, and it has not yet been determined that the law is unconstitutional. There is no magical ether that emerges to tell us that the law is unconstitutional; someone actually has to make a ruling. IF, at some future point, the law is determined to be facially unconstitutional, then Obama never broke the law. But, as i observed in my most recent post, that decision still has to be made. The fact that some people are now claiming that the law in unconstitutional does not necessarily mean that they are correct. And Obama broke the law. I understand the principle of breaking a law that you believe to be unconstitutional, in order to change the law. There are plenty of examples in American history, and plenty of Supreme Court decisions, that testify to the usefulness of this approach for people with few other ways to effect change. But the President has the whole Department of Justice at his disposal. I expect him to obey the law, and if he thinks there’s something wrong with it, get the Attorney General on the case. That’s the main criticism i have of Obama in this case. As i said earlier, the citation provided by **ElvisL1ves** suggests that he might have had good reason not to comply with the law in this case. I’ve also said that i don’t have a problem with the prisoner exchange itself. But plenty of Democrats were angry when Bush chose which laws he was going to ignore, and when he used signing statements to avoid following the laws, i think we should hold our guy to the same standard. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1789 "2014-06-06T16:00:29Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Thank you for the explanation. It’s useful. > > But it seems to me that, in that case, the substance of my original observation still holds. That is, Obama has broken this law, and it has not yet been determined that the law is unconstitutional. There is no magical ether that emerges to tell us that the law is unconstitutional; someone actually has to make a ruling. > > IF, at some future point, the law is determined to be facially unconstitutional, then Obama never broke the law. But, as i observed in my most recent post, that decision still has to be made. The fact that some people are now claiming that the law in unconstitutional does not necessarily mean that they are correct. And Obama broke the law. Using that reasoning, someone or some entity must rule that Obama broke the law. His guilt, like the unconstitutionality of the law, does not appear from the magical ether. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1790 "2014-06-06T16:33:33Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > IF, at some future point, the law is determined to be facially unconstitutional, then Obama never broke the law. But, as i observed in my most recent post, that decision still has to be made. The fact that some people are now claiming that the law in unconstitutional does not necessarily mean that they are correct. And Obama broke the law. “Obama violated a duly enacted statute” would be a more accurate phrasing. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1791 "2014-06-06T16:37:30Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Using that reasoning, someone or some entity must rule that Obama broke the law. His guilt, like the unconstitutionality of the law, does not appear from the magical ether. This is a silly argument. Yes, his guilt would have to be determined legally. In fact, you can reasonably say that no-one has broken the law until found guilty in a court of law. But there are some important differences between the two scenarios that you are presenting as equivalent. First, and most importantly for your silly comparison, is that determining whether a law has been broken is, in the vast majority of cases, a far simpler exercise than determining whether a law is unconstitutional. Pop Quiz: which of these two things is more difficult to determine: A. Whether Obama gave Congress the required 30 days’ notice that he was going to release five Guantanamo prisoners. B. Whether the law requiring him to give such notice impinges unreasonably on the constitutional duties and responsibilities and authority of the president. Similarly with other Constitutional questions. For example, in the Lawrence v. Texas case, it was much easier to determine whether Lawrence and Garner were violating the Texas anti-sodomy law (they were engaged in anal intercourse when discovered) than it was to determine whether the Texas anti-sodomy law violated substantive due process under the 14th Amendment Constitution. The latter took a Supreme court case, long arguments, reams of \*amicus \*briefs, and consideration of Constitutional language and judicial precedent. Moving back to this specific instance, Obama’s own signing statement made clear that he was going to ignore aspects of the law if he felt that the law prevented him from carrying out his duties. And **Elvis** ’s link also shows that the administration actually admits not giving Congress the requisite notice because they feared for Bergdahl’s safety. As i’ve said a couple of times, if the information provided in that link is true, then i think they made a good decision. But having a good reason for [del]breaking the law[/del] _violating a duly enacted statute_ doesn’t mean that you didn’t [del]break the law[/del] _violate a duly enacted statute_. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2014, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1792 "2014-06-07T03:57:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Maybe for the 30 day thing, but not for the supposed desertion. Painting this guy as a traitor is not about anything but political smears. Smears done by non-politicians, which makes them not political. You may not like it, but there is no political agenda in soldiers coming out and saying this guy is no hero. It may be politically inconvenient for your guy who was trying to distract the public, but it’s not politically motivated. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2014, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1793 "2014-06-07T04:01:30Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > “Obama violated a duly enacted statute” would be a more accurate phrasing. Have to agree. Congress has limited powers. It can’t jut pass any law it wants and expect everyone else to toe the line. The President is not bound to enforce laws he deems unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has historically been reluctant to adjudicate purely interbranch disputes. That’s why the War Powers Act is still around and its constitutionality still in doubt. SCOTUS sees such disputes between the legislative and executive branches as a subject for politics to work out. In regards to transferring prisoners to and from Gitmo, it seems to me that Congress has no power to tell the President how to do his job as Commander-in-Chief. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2014, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1794 "2014-06-07T06:10:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Smears done by non-politicians, which makes them not political. You may not like it, but there is no political agenda in soldiers coming out and saying this guy is no hero. It may be politically inconvenient for your guy who was trying to distract the public, but it’s not politically motivated. Is this the guy that Fox News says has sworn allegiance to Mullah Omar and promised to hide an atom bomb in his butt so that when he shakes hands with Ted Cruz, he can take him out? Because that’s who those guys are all afraid of, Ted Cruz. They got a _fartwa_ out on him, and everything! ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2014, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1795 "2014-06-07T12:13:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Smears done by non-politicians, which makes them not political. You may not like it, but there is no political agenda in soldiers coming out and saying this guy is no hero. It may be politically inconvenient for your guy who was trying to distract the public, but it’s not politically motivated. I’m not talking about what soldiers said. Several Republican officials and office-holders have come out and said he’s a traitor (or even deserves to be shot). Not surprisingly, you’re wrong again. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2014, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1796 "2014-06-07T12:53:02Z")
Pointing to the least sympathetic critics in order to distract from the more legitimate ones is a common debate tactic. The fact is, his bros say he deserted his post, and saying, “Look! Fox News! ted Cruz!” doesn’t change that. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2014, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1797 "2014-06-07T12:55:29Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Pointing to the least sympathetic critics in order to distract from the more legitimate ones is a common debate tactic. > > The fact is, his bros say he deserted his post, and saying, “Look! Fox News! ted Cruz!” doesn’t change that. Can’t you just admit you were wrong to say something? So often, you’ll say something wrong, and when it’s pointed out you’ll just change the subject. And further, I said “traitor”. His fellow soldiers aren’t calling him a traitor… Republican officials are. His fellow soldiers aren’t advocating that he be shot… Republican officials are. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2014, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1798 "2014-06-07T13:03:28Z")
Whether or not he was worthy of the uniform he was wearing is not the point. He\* was\* wearing it,\* that’s\* the point. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2014, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1799 "2014-06-07T13:14:56Z")
So now we’re switching from highlighting the least sympathetic figures criticizing Berhdahl, and instead highlighting their least sympathetic statements. Whatever. His fellow soldiers say he deserted his post. THAT’s what’s damaging, which of course is why you need to throw up the smokescreen. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2014, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1800 "2014-06-07T13:22:22Z")
Those soldiers and their Stupid Liberal Ideas! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=89) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=91)