For the Strict Constructionist

[Scuba]

My sister's always thinking. From my email ...

I just re-read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and we need some strict construction! For example, in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and in the Sixteenth Amendment, it states very clearly that Congress shall "lay and collect" taxes -- but NOWHERE does it say Congress can cut taxes!!!!

And there's a lot more interesting stuff there -- Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall protect each state against domestic violence. Amendment XIV, Section 3 neatly takes care of crazy sheriffs who say they won't enforce gun regulation.

But my fave is Article II, Section 3: The President has the power to adjourn Congress, in Case of Disagreement between the two Houses, "to such time as he shall think proper."

She may be on to something.

[Flashmann]

1. Article II, Section 3

The President has the power to adjourn Congress, in Case of Disagreement between the two Houses, "to such time as he shall think proper."

Let me imagine,for a moment,that the President would avail himself of that provision,and ask 2 questions..


Would he then be able to use Executive Orders to accomplish things the two Houses could/would not,even though those "solutions wouldn't have the permanency of law?

If so,and if he did so,would that then not set dangerous precedents for future occupants of the Oval Office?

[patrice]

3. The appropriate response to the situations you pose is a much more responsible & perpetually engaged

ACTIVE electorate, instead of the dishonest, un-informed, lazy, ir-responsible, power-clique based stuff that we have going on.

[Flashmann]

4. ACTIVE electorate

Yes I agree with every word you say....

While I'm sure I can answer my second question,myself,I'm still curious about the first.....Only for my own curiosity and not to stir any pots......

[patrice]

5. My own personal legal wizard passed on a few years ago. We would be having a great time

with your question right now. He was a Leftie Libertarian, my spouse, and LOVED the law. I'm a Liberal Democrat, btw, very liberal.

It's a very interesting question, I cant' answer it and hope it gets addressed with respect here at DU.

Thank you very much for being considerate about stirring "pots" around here, Flashmann!

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. At first blush ...

The answers would be:

Yes and Absolutely!

[Flashmann]

7. Good enough!!

And thanks....

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. To flesh out my thoughts on the matter ...

It is the resonsibility of the Executive Branch to effectuate laws and policy, i.e., to keep things running and make things work. Without a Congress, nothing would get done to address arising concerns ... In which case the Executive Office could/should act to fill the void.

However, (and touching on the second question) there is a term for the Executive acting in lieu of Congress ... Dictator! That's why it's a BAD, BAD idea.

[Flashmann]

10. Much as I suspected

I wasn't looking for a detailed,nuanced dissertation..

The crux of my curiosity was whether the President could enact policy through executive order,with the Houses in adjournment,as with recess appointments,even though he ordered the adjournment..Very scarey thought......

I think you answered nicely...

[galileoreloaded]

2. How does article 14 section 3 address crazy sherrifs? Equal protection?

help me out.

[Flashmann]

11. Disappointing.....

I was eager to see your questions answered too......

[WillyT]

9. K & R !!!