Suppose Congress were to pass a bill, signed into law by the President, that required something - a balanced budget, for example.
Then, a new Congress and a new President are elected.
Is the law binding on the new Executive Branch and Legislative Branch. Or do they have powers provided in the Constitution that cannot be taken away by a previous Congress and President?
No, one congress can not bind a subsequent congress.
To take your balanced budget example, the next congress could simply repeal it.
But lets say they left in on the books and just ignored it.
Who enforces it?
Any effort to enforce the act is going to run into several problems.
1. Standing. You have to find someone to bring suit who has been harmed by what congress did in a particular and concrete way. Speculative harms of future financial problems won't cut it.
2. Justicability and the political questions doctrine.
3. Availability of relief. There has to be some relief that the court has the power to order that will redress the harm you claim to have suffered.
What does that mean?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/justiciability
Justiciability
Primary tabs
Overview
Justiciability refers to the types of matters that a court can adjudicate. If a case is "nonjusticiable," then the court cannot hear it. Typically to be justiciable, the court must not be offering an advisory opinion, the plaintiff must have standing, and the issues must be ripe but neither moot nor violative of the political question doctrine. Typically, these issues are all up to the discretion of the court which is adjudicating the issue.
Advisory Opinion
An advisory opinion is a court's nonbinding interpretation of a legal question.
Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, a federal court may only adjudicate an actual controversy. This is referred to as the Case and Controversy Clause.
Some state courts are allowed to issue advisory opinions under limited circumstances, however these circumstances are typically enumerated within that state's constitution.
Standing
Standing refers to the capacity of a plaintiff to bring suit in court. Typically, the plaintiff must have suffered an actual harm by the defendant, and the harm must be redressable.
Ripeness
A claim is ripe when the facts of the case have matured into an actual controversy. A case is not ripe if the harm to the plaintiff has not yet occurred.
Mootness
A claim is moot if the relevant issues have already been resolved.
Political Question Doctrine
Under the political question doctrine, a court will refuse to hear a case if the relevant issues are politically charged.
Anything one Congress does can be countered by a later Congress, even International Treaties. That was demonstrated back in the 1970s when one Congress signed a treaty to provide military hardware to the South Vietnamese government on a regular basis as it was used, then the next Congress refused to keep the commitment and refused to send any more hardware or munitions. That soon resulted in the North Vietnamese overrunning the South when they realised the no longer had any support from the USA.
The closest you can get to binding a later Congress is a Constitutional Amendment, but even they can be turned around by the very same process. All that does is make it harder to change.
The closest you can get to binding a later Congress is a Constitutional Amendment, but even they can be turned around by the very same process. All that does is make it harder to change.
You pretty much said exactly what I was going to.
No one Congress has any more or less power than any other. They make the laws, they can also strike them down. They can also pass new ones in completely different directions, or simply ignore them altogether.
Just as the President. I laughed at people a few years ago who cheered when the last President passed some things by Executive Order, and said they could never be undone.
THen I laughed again at their screams as the current one undid a lot of them. And it was not the Orders or their being struck that I laughed at, it was the stupidity at the idea that any President could really do something that would become permanent.
Most people are amazingly stupid at what the Government can and can not do.
I laughed at people a few years ago who cheered when the last President passed some things by Executive Order, and said they could never be undone.
THen I laughed again at their screams as the current one undid a lot of them. And it was not the Orders or their being struck that I laughed at, it was the stupidity at the idea that any President could really do something that would become permanent.
An action taken by any President or Congress is only as strong as the people's will to obey it. Absent that, it falls. And if this forced against what the people want, a representative democratic republic ceases to exist and instead turns into a despotic dictatorship, i.e. the rule of man supplanting the rule of law.
This mistaken principle, that what any one President ordains, another can't put asunder (sound familiar?) has been around for awhile. But it will remain correct unless forcefully challenged. Which, as you pointed out, is what happened.
Political actions follow a certain hierarchy of strength in the U.S. (don't know what it's like in Europe). Weakest is Executive Orders, followed by passed laws (signed by the President), followed by treaties (only if approved in the Senate per the constitutional process), followed by Constitutional amendment.
But, as you point out, all of these can be overturned. By another Executive Order, revocation of the law, abrogation of the treaty, overturning of the constitutional amendments (happened twice in U.S. history).
Most people are amazingly stupid at what the Government can and can not do.
That was what the proponents of permanence of one President's diktat were relying on.
Weakest is Executive Orders, followed by passed laws (signed by the President), followed by treaties (only if approved in the Senate per the constitutional process), followed by Constitutional amendment.
Given government track records, treaties are probably the least 'powerful'. Just ask any of the native tribes.
Given government track records, treaties are probably the least 'powerful'. Just ask any of the native tribes.
Not really. What failed with those is mostly the failure to understand that the tribes do not operate like conventional governments. And that is how most were treated.
A great many times, it was the tribes themselves that violated the treaties. A bunch of "young bucks" go out to do a raid, part of their culture, little more to them than "soccer hooligans" having a bit of fun in the pubs during game time. Not realizing that when such happens, we would react as if it was say a UK excursion down from Quebec into the US. And we react with war.
Some attack a group of settlers and kill a dozen or so, we stormed in and killed a few hundred. Both sides were wrong, but most even today do not understand the anarchy that is the reality in "tribal politics" of the time.
I was thinking more in terms of treaty violations in the last century or so. There's some interesting legal 'dirty tricks' available to the government. At least around here. Not sure if judges where you are can get away with the same thing.
Your comment seems to imply that once a treaty is agreed to and ratified, it is inviolate. Inviolate is opposite of violate, the term you used. Which is defined by M-W as to break or disregard, e.g. to violate a law. Which implies that which is violated is permanent.
Funny with M-W. They define abrogate as to abolish by authoritative action. Something governments are known for. And the example they give for the definition is -- wait for it -- to abrogate a treaty.
Treaties hold no more sanctity than Executive Orders. And, as my earlier comment said, any action of a government can be reversed. As no action of government is permanent. Not even Constitutional amendments.
Treaties hold no more sanctity than Executive Orders.
Which is close to what I said, in that it appears treaties are somewhat less forceful than executive orders.
Which is close to what I said, in that it appears treaties are somewhat less forceful than executive orders.
And once again, it goes both ways.
Look at the 1869 treaty with the Lakota. They moved to a reservation in the Dakotas, and the US promised to stay out of their lands. And when gold w3as discovered in the region, a lot of settlers ignored this and moved into those lands to mine. The US even put soldiers on the boarder. Not to keep the Indians in, but to keep the miners out.
And if the tribes had simply kicked the settlers out, things would have stayed peaceful. But instead they started to attack them. So of course after a few miner massacers, the US got upset and started to attack themselves.
Compare it to if instead of just detaining and returning the illegal immigrants from Mexico, the US started shooting them instead. So yea, the US then reacted, and the treaty ended.
Most of the treated were violated by both sides. And the loose tribal confederacy type of organization of the tribes really did not understand what those from European descent would think of such actions.
But treaties are generally only enforceable, so long as both sides agree to abide by them. A great many treaties were cancelled by the US over the centuries because the other side did not follow them, or did not appear to be following them.
The US also had problems not understanding how a few dozen young bucks going off and attacking a bunch of wildcat miners was not the fault of the tribes. If the tribes could not control them, then they would do it themselves.
And if the tribes had simply kicked the settlers out, things would have stayed peaceful. But instead they started to attack them. So of course after a few miner massacers, the US got upset and started to attack themselves.
The Lakota tried to kick them out, but the miners shot at them, so they shot back.
The Lakota tried to kick them out, but the miners shot at them, so they shot back.
*yawn*
You mean like the Gordon Party? Which actually built a stockade at French Creek? So the Lakota went to the Army, who came out and evicted them and destroyed the stockade?
Once again, there are ways to do it "by the rules". I am not talking about the actions of the "Official Tribes", who worked with the Army to keep them out. I am talking about the small groups that took matters into their own hands. And did not just try to run them off, they often attacked without warning.
And the Lakota did not need to "kick them out", they got the Army to do it for them. That was part of the agreement after all. Whites violate the borders, the Army would go in and remove them.
But please, more information about those miners attacking the Indians that asked them to relocate. I would find that interesting.
back in 2006 to 2008 I did a lot of research on the interactions between the whites and the Native Americans in the USA in the areas between the Appalachian and Rocky mountains. All that research and the links was taken by the Gestapo in 2015 and arbitrarily destroyed in 2019 because they were too lazy to give me a directory tree listing to let me list files I wanted. Thus I no longer have the records of the source documents I read back then.
However, in them were account from people who lived in the area back in the mid to late 1800s where they recounted reports of the conflicts between the Indians and the Whites. Some mentioned about being asked to leave area they were establishing farms on because it was Indian lands and not open for settlement, despite what other Whites had told them. They also spoke of seeing the Indians being shot at by others because they wouldn't leave.
Don't forget all the Forts the US Army built on Indian land to protect the whites despite the treaty saying they couldn't build forts there. The Oregon Trail and the Bozeman Trail were through lands they shouldn't have been when they started up.
The US Government was always happy to give land they deemed useless to the Indians, until one of their friends found a sue for the land, like having gold in it. I never did find a Treaty between the US government and an Indian tribe that the US Government didn't violate.
The US also had problems not understanding how a few dozen young bucks going off and attacking a bunch of wildcat miners was not the fault of the tribes. If the tribes could not control them, then they would do it themselves.
Typical Washington response. The white soldiers can't control the white miners and that's OK, but let the Lakota leaders not be able to control a few Lakota braves and that's not acceptable.
Typical Washington response.
Awe, what's a little hypocrisy and double standards between friends?
Awe, what's a little hypocrisy and double standards between friends?
standard faire in Wonderland on the Potomac.
Wonderland on the Potomac.
DC - a vermin infested swamp, not much different than it was before becoming the capital.
DC - a vermin infested swamp, not much different than it was before becoming the capital
Before it became the capital, the vermin that infested it were far less dangerous than the vermin that infest in now.
You folks are obviously misinformed. Our current leader kept his promise to drain the swamp.
bk69
10/26/2020, 8:38:13 PM
@Ernest Bywater
Typical Washington response.
Awe, what's a little hypocrisy and double standards between friends?
Replies: Ernest Bywater Dominions Son
ββοΈ
Ernest Bywater
10/26/2020, 8:51:01 PM
@bk69
Awe, what's a little hypocrisy and double standards between friends?
standard faire in Wonderland on the Potomac.
Replies: bk69
ββοΈ
Dominions Son
10/26/2020, 9:11:25 PM
@bk69
Awe, what's a little hypocrisy and double standards between friends?
Government.
ββοΈ
bk69
10/26/2020, 9:47:48 PM
@Ernest Bywater
Wonderland on the Potomac.
DC - a vermin infested swamp, not much different than it was before becoming the capital.
Replies: Dominions Son
ββοΈ
Dominions Son
10/26/2020, 10:16:53 PM
@bk69
DC - a vermin infested swamp, not much different than it was before becoming the capital
Before it became the capital, the vermin that infested it were far less dangerous than the vermin that infest in now.
You folks are obviously misinformed. Our current leader kept his promise to drain the swamp.
While he's been busy draining the swamp, Pelosi has been busy trucking in more water, nor has Donald had time to get a decent alligator hunt going while Shumer has been breeding and releasing 'gators.
Shumer has been breeding and releasing 'gators.
Strictly non-political comment: Does Shumer appear to be at least partially reptillian?
Does Shumer appear to be at least partially reptillian?
Definitely in his behaviour, but more so in the way he wants to increase the number and size of dangerous creatures in the swamp.
I laughed at people a few years ago who cheered when the last President passed some things by Executive Order, and said they could never be undone.
Certain things, especially things that turn out to be popular among voters once they're used to them, can be 'never undone' because it's basically political suicide to piss off the voters. And plenty of people assume they're in the majority as far as their political opinions go. So in that respect, it's understandable how they could believe that having their ideas enforced by executive order was all they needed (because anyone that held the 'obviously wrong' opinions would come around to agreeing with them once they were used to the change).
people are amazingly stupid
Truer words have rarely been... spoken? Typed? meh. Whatever.
people are amazingly stupid
"aΒ·mazΒ·ingΒ·ly
/ΙΛmΔziNGlΔ/
adverb
in a way that causes great surprise or wonder.
"amazingly, 66 passengers and crew members survived"
INFORMAL
very impressively or well.
"I genuinely thought Rachel sang amazingly"
INFORMAL
very; extremely (usually expressing approval).
"there's an amazingly diverse range of work under one roof"
Definitions from Oxford Languages"
I am surprised intelligent people are amazed by stupidity. After going to school for 12 or more years and working in typical working environments, aren't you used to stupid people? Lets not even talk about serving in the Military... Or working with the Government in any number of ways, including paying taxes.
Certain things, especially things that turn out to be popular among voters once they're used to them, can be 'never undone' because it's basically political suicide to piss off the voters.
And the thing is, that is "political thinking". THinking more about job security than the needs of the country.
But we have seen a lot of that over the decades. Look at all the things they have done their last days in office. Mark Rich comes to mind there.
Now realize, I am what many of my friends call "militantly moderate". No real strong stance either way, want what is best for all, not what *I* think is best.
Take EO 11905. A rather interesting one, and one that I bet most would ignore if they could get away with it.
Now realize, I am what many of my friends call "militantly moderate". No real strong stance either way, want what is best for all, not what *I* think is best.
Except in most areas, there is no one thing that is best for all.
Generally what would be best for all would be for the Federal government to fuck off and leave people alone.
Just look up the history of the Eighteenth Amendment or better known as the temperance movement 1920 - 1933. Conceived by Wayne Wheeler, the leader of the Anti-Saloon League, the Eighteenth Amendment passed in both chambers of the U.S. Congress in December 1917 and was ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states in January 1919. Its language called for Congress to pass enforcement legislation, and that was championed by Andrew Volstead, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who engineered passage of the National Prohibition Act (better known as the Volstead Act) over the veto of Pres. Woodrow Wilson. In March 1933, shortly after taking office, Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Cullen-Harrison Act, which amended the Volstead Act and permitted the manufacturing and sale of low-alcohol beer and wines (up to 3.2 percent alcohol by volume). Nine months later, on December 5, 1933, Prohibition was repealed at the federal level with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment (which allowed prohibition to be maintained at the state and local levels, however). Three-quarters of the states in the United States are required to ratify an amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, out of 50 states, 38 states or more are required. All the rules, regulations, and the process followed when making any alteration to the constitution is highlighted in Article Five of the United States Constitution.
In general issues around the internal rules of the House of Representatives and Senate are considered nonjusticiable under the political questions doctrine.
For example:
One clause in the Constitution specifies that each body of congress must have a certain quorum in order to conduct business.
Congress passes a new law. But the Senate didn't have a quorum when the bill was passed.
You are arrested and tried for violating that law.
You try to argue that the law is unconstitutional because the Senate passed it without a quorum.
The court rejects that argument as nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine and you are convicted.
10/23/2020, 9:39:14 PM
Suppose Congress were to pass a bill, signed into law by the President, that required something - a balanced budget, for example.
Generally speaking and that example, Congress cannot.
Suppose, though, that Congress (with the president's approval or by overriding his veto) grants something to a company. The government can't do anything to abridge contracts, and a grant is a contract [don't ask me how]. So, subsequent congresses can't revok3e the grant.
Only the Constitution and the Amendments can bind any branch of the government indefinitely. While an Amendment can be repealed (as with the previously mentioned 'Prohibition Amendment'), they can only be repealed with another Amendment. Every other law passed by Congress can be repealed according to the standard quorum rules for the House and Senate. Alternatively, they can also be nullified by judicial rulings based on the Constitutionality of the law. This is why the push for a "Balanced Budget" law is for an Amendment that compels the government to maintain a balanced budget.
This is why the push for a "Balanced Budget" law is for an Amendment that compels the government to maintain a balanced budget.
The sad part is, should such a thing ever be implemented, at some point the government will end up running a surplus, and the politicians will have the ability to claim that they're constitutionally required to increase spending to balance the budget.
The three big lies are:
"I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help you."
"The Check is in the mail."
Your choice of "I won't come in your mouth" or "I will respect you in the morning." Sometimes the choice depends on who you are informing about the biggest lies.
The three big lies are:
"I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help you."
"The Check is in the mail."
Your choice of "I won't come in your mouth" or "I will respect you in the morning." Sometimes the choice depends on who you are informing about the biggest lies.
you hit 1, 2, 4, & 5 in third place is:
The statistics say ....
statistics
"Often attributed to Mark Twain, it was actually Benjamin Disraeli who said "There are three types of lies β lies, damn lies, and statistics." Twain had a similar comment, "Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable." Both statements are important to keep in mind when reading reports of causes and cures."
Put another way, Figures don't lie but Liars figure.
More about lies, from Howard Faxon:
"I also taught him that there were lies, damned lies, statistics and text books, where lies were formalized into self-coherent structures. Just because a set of arguments are self-consistent doesn't make them rational or realistic. Mankind has developed certain protocols in engineering. One of them, possibly the most important one, is to build a model, then gauge your model against reality. If it doesn't fit, then the model is wrong, not reality!"
From "The World's Most Dangerous Job"
by Howard Faxon
If it doesn't fit, then the model is wrong, not reality!"
Sorry, but that doesn't comport with the battle cry of politicians and "scientists" everywhere of ".....what are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
@Jim S
"The science is settled" is the new "Shut up because I said to."
The very basis of the scientific method is that nothing is EVER settled - it is always open to further inquirey and testing. Sometimes this inquirey and testing confirm, sometimes it refines, and sometimes it refutes.
To insist that it is 'settled' and thus not open to further inquirey or debate is actually anti-science.
True, but a lot of current scientific leadership is politics or religion in a white lab coat.
A software salesman is setting world vaccine policy.
The head of the World Health Organization is a former terrorist.
'Hide the decline' was the mantra of climate scientists 13 years ago and they continue to do so, none of the models matches current measured temperatures. But they do match the new green religions belief system.
The Nobel Prizes were once the highest accolade in science. Then they gave the Peace Prize to Obama for being the first black president. He went on to foster war for eight years.
A professor was recently fired for saying transexuals can't have periods.
James Watson discovered DNA. He was recently 'cancelled' by the scientific community for stating the obvious - that intelligence is an expression of genetic potential.
We are living in Heinlein's Crazy Years and science, at least in the West, is now a means of social control, not a means for rational enquiry.
The Nobel Prizes were once the highest accolade in science.
Yeah, but they were really a massive PR campaign.
Agreed, it all boils down to one or the other factions attempting to control thought, and through that, the world.
The Nobel Prizes were once the highest accolade in science. Then they gave the Peace Prize to Obama for being the first black president.
The Nobel Peace Prize lost whatever shreds of relevance and honor that it clung to when it was awarded to Yasser Arafat in 1994. Who then celebrated by launching the Second Intifada in 2000. Having it awarded to President Obama was just the cherry on top of the sundae.
The Nobel Peace Prize lost whatever shreds of relevance and honor that it clung to when it was awarded to Yasser Arafat in 1994.
It had started that process in the 1930s when Mahatma Gandhi was nominated the first of five times (without winning).
white lab coat.
A software salesman is setting world vaccine policy.
What, please, is the name of this person?
A software salesman is setting world vaccine policy.
The head of the World Health Organization is a former terrorist.
'Hide the decline' was the mantra of climate scientists 13 years ago and they continue to do so, none of the models matches current measured temperatures. But they do match the new green religions belief system.
In context, Bill Gates has been mouthing off a lot lately about covid19 vaccines. He also has a long contentious history regarding vaccines in general.
