Originally Posted by Direckshun
I do adopt the living document point of view (as do a vast, vast majority of legal/Constitutional scholars, but the idea that I'm all for allowing the President to do whatever he wants.
Are you sure they're a vast majority? Either way, that doesn't make it right. Afterall, the American Revolution wasn't started and implemented by a vast majority either. In fact Europe laughed at our idea of a limited Republic.
I am sure that vast majority, you allege, suffer from the some lust for power and are in the pockets of those who want to use govt for their own ends. Government and it's minions, cannot be trusted to judge where the powers end and begin. This is an age old and timeless problem.
Please name them, and allow the other side to name those who disagree with them. I take it you'll cite Laurence Tribe or someone. I assure you, that if you read the notes from the original Convention and some statements from some of the ratifying conventions—you can't possibly take the view of any "living Constitution" scholar the way it's been used as a living document. There's even Constitutional scholars, who support abortion, but feel Roe v Wade was bad law.
Boom. Constitution circumvented.
The president was intended to be the weaker of the branches with far less powers delegated to that branch than the others. The president does NOT get to decide if the Senate is in recess or in a pro form session. That's for the Senate to decide whether or not the president thinks it's BS or not.
Before you read the “Outside The Lines” report, consider this:
Taping the opposing team’s sideline still isn’t banned; only taping the opposing team from the sideline is illegal.
Also remember this:
Taping the opposing team from the sideline wasn’t banned until 2006, yet the report cites examples as far back as 2000. ~NESN