Could it be viewed that using these funds in this way is a legal equivalent to "protection money"? But as said before, this tactic is used often, particularly in reference to tying federal highway dollars to ensure the transport laws what the fed wants, i.e. DUI thresholds, seat belt laws, and formerly speed limits.
I agree with you, perhaps partially, but only in spirit. The "problem", per se, is that Executive Order powers have been granted by Congress and legally upheld by SCOTUS. So, the POTUS is perfectly within their right to autonomously and unilaterally exercise it. That may or may not be tyrannous, but it's legal, nonetheless. I think that Trump should, and will, attempt to enact these things via the traditional legislative process, at least initially. But if it looks like it's not going to happen, or they play politics and just attempt to needlessly delay it, I have little doubt that he'll do it "with the stroke of a pen".
I was adamant in the defense of President Obama's legal use of the EO, even when I disagreed with it's use or was personally opposed to how it was applied. Personally, I believe that the EO is so poorly defined and constrained as to threaten both the the very real and necessary bounds of enumerated power and checks and balances. But it is currently the law, and I respect that, too.
I agree with the breadth of the EO. I think it needs to be reigned in a bit, much like the ability of the the President to wage a unilateral war for any length of time was changed after Vietnam.
Congress lost it's balls post WWII. They call it "military action" now and formerly a "police action", but the war making powers Congress has ceded to the executive is nothing more than a cop-out on Congress' part. They get to keep their hands clean to a degree if things go sideways. In other words, it's cowardice, imho.
I'm not debating if the Feds can regulate coal. And I'm not debating about the inferiority of coal. I'm saying when the Feds want to enforce whatever law they want to enforce, they will enforce it. You can protest. You may run the off a time or two, but they will be back. And they will be like the Russians on the Eastern front, they have seemingly inexhaustible resources to bring against you. And you will lose.
I agree. Further, Congress has tightened the ROE to the point that there is, in fact, no real point of being in a conflict.
I agree that elections have consequences, but do not believe that those consequences must necessarily be needlessly onerous and unforgiving. I do not wish to see our country suffer beneath the rule of either a pure majority rule or a "might makes right" policy. I do not wish to see liberalism squashed, subdued, needlessly infringed or certainly altogether eradicated. They too often are needed and required to singlehandedly serve the necesaary and critically important role as the nation's conscience, and the source of new and continued progress. They are too important, valuable and necessary of a resource to leave behind or that we should - or could - do without. I am unaware of, and in fact cannot even imagine, any argument which does or could exist, so as to allow any reasonable person to believe otherwise. But, left with too much power for too long, they inevitably pull the pendulum exceedingly and increasingly off center and heavily leftward. This is by no means unique to them, and no different or worse than anyone - Republicans, Conservatives, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, Country or City residents, etc. - when given the same autonomous authority for too long. What I hope that any POTUS would do - certainly, Trump is particularly included - is seek to return the pendulum to neutral, and normal, as I believe that'a best for both the country and The People. But, we too often see a POTUS who thinks that you best correct a mistake of driving 50 mikes in the wrong direction by driving 100 miles in a second and doubly wrong direction. Eventual, someone is going to get us so lost that we can't get back home. Like, driving over an unforeseen cliff, as an example.
I could not more strongly disagree. There is a reason that the law exists, whether we like and agree with it or not. If they are impossible or impracticable to enforce, then they should be amended or repealed. If they cannot be amended or repealed, then one must still accept the will of The People in refusing to do so, and they need to work harder to change it. But I am never for simply "ignoring" any law, however easy and tempting, for that is the road to anarchy and ruin.
I'm a fan of what Robin Williams said once in a stand-up routine, "War is like circumcision. You go all the way or effing forget it."
But if you are a police captain in a precinct, and you have to choose A or B, and B is more of a serious crime and more dangerous to the public, you have to make choices. That is my point. Yes, fundamentally, the best situation would be to change the law. But a local sheriff has no ability to such a thing, and is left holding the bag on enforcement.
You cannot win this argument, because it is unreasonable and indefensible to simply ignore the law, however difficult it may be to follow and enforce. You keep looking for this "Option C" where you can abide by some laws and ignore others. It doesn't exist, because then you're no longer talking about "laws" but "suggestions", instead. Would you be ok with some ignoring the laws requiring the desegregation of schools, the right of women and minorities to vote, etc. etc.? What right do those who wish and sincerely desire to give anyone the right to arrive and set up shop here, and without need for either any restrictive or formal immigration process, to overturn and usurp the will of the millions who not only don't share that view, but who have passed laws specifically designed to prohibit it? Who has the right to overrule The People - and from those others from whom the law arose, and who similarly and reasonably expect it to be respected and enforced by all fellow countrymen?
When we lose sight of this, we all need to consult THE guide to life, the 1987 classic film, Can't Buy Me Love [youtube]wHN3MKxaQFU&index=3&list=PL5ria4Yd1TgIsmtBKgY-p_rQOEScfSot-[/youtube] All the answers to life are contained in this iconic piece of cinematic art.
Excellent post. The idiocy of people screaming how much better we'd be without liberalism or conservatism both saddens and frustrates me. An enduring, successful society requires both ideologies.
GCB, sorry to put you on the spot, but could I ask: 1. Do you support Kim Davis' decision to ignore the law and refuse to issue marriage licenses in KY? 2. If not, what reason might she sincerely believe and possibly give to you, so as to then make you ok with her refusal to ignore the laws allowing gays to be married?
Agreed. In the case of surface mines, it is usually the states that tattle to the feds. TN just got the oSMRE to declare ridges off limits
And I don't think the world is always black and white, right and wrong. A sheriff has to enforce a meth law, and he KNOWS that 35% of his town is on meth. Does he go around and arrest every citizen in his county, flooding his jails, putting more pressure on city, state and federal courts and prisons? Or does he selectively enforce it, getting the most egregious of offenders and trying his best to put the finger in the dike? Hell, we don't enforce all of the drugs laws now and we still have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Sometimes, you just have to cry "uncle".
