Comments on: Liberty wins in legislative committee

By: SkippingDog

SkippingDog — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:26:44 +0000

You need to read Marbury vs. Madison and bone up on the concept of Judicial Review, trout.

By: Brown delta trout

Brown delta trout — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 02:59:20 +0000

Well I have to disagree, because the executive branch is only responsible to execute the laws passed by the legislature, not to frame laws by executive order, and the legislature is to pass laws that are in harmony with the constitution so they must inherintly ask the question whether the law is constitutional. The judicial branch only judges. In my opinion all of our branches of government have tried to overstep there specific segregated duty.

By: SkippingDog

SkippingDog — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:58:30 +0000

If you’ll take the time to read what AB351 is intended to do, as “reported” above, it is attempting to determine the constitutionality of a federal law. That’s not within the purview of any state legislature, and determining the constitutionality of something is not within the legislative power of any legislative body.

Time for you to review basic civics again.

By: Brown delta trout

Brown delta trout — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:22:36 +0000

The purpose of the legislature is to legislate. If a state legislature believes the executive branch is overeaching it’s power given in the constitution then it can pass a law limiting the power within the guidelines of the constitution. The legislatures of the states even have the power to ammend the constitution itself.

By: SkippingDog

SkippingDog — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 04:38:45 +0000

Since it is the role of our courts, as the third and co-equal branch of both our state and federal governments, to determine if a law is or is not compatible with our constitution(s), isn’t a preemptive determination by some enforcement agency head in the executive branch or some legislative committee chairman putting the old cart before the horse?

The way our laws are tested for constitutionality is for them to be properly contested through our courts, not for some local yokel to unilaterally determine what they believe should be that legal determination.

BTW, I feel the same way about the obligation of the Governor and our AG to defend state laws in court, including Proposition 8, since no one else has legal standing to do so. It also seems to me that our federal Department of Justice has the executive obligation to defend and execute existing laws, such as DOMA, even if they politically disagree with them. To do otherwise, or to make a “signing statement” declaring the executive branch exempt from some or all of a law seems contrary to both good governance and our constitutional separations of powers doctrine.

By: Brown delta trout

Brown delta trout — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 04:02:15 +0000

Maybe we can get Queeg out of the internment camp? Or should we let the commie rot?