White House Ready to Draft own Health Care Bill, Sources say - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;17146225]Not going to happen.[/QUOTE] lankist reassure us plz

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17146550]lol. Imagine the people that showed up at the Tea Parties, trying to engage in Guerrilla Warfare against the U.S. military.[/QUOTE] Makes me think of the Michigan Militia.

Executive branch drafts legislation all the time, Congress still has to vote on it. Patriot Act?

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;17151414]Executive branch drafts legislation all the time, Congress still has to vote on it. Patriot Act?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lankist;17146300]Even USAPATRIOT wasn't written by the Whitehouse, even though everyone thinks it's Bush's brainchild. USAPATRIOT was drafted by Viet D. Dinh. [editline]06:41PM[/editline] Very rarely if ever do the other two branches tolerate this behavior.[/QUOTE] USAPATRIOT was authored mostly by members of the Senate with the Assistant Attorney General acting as a liaison between the three branches, given the act mostly had to do with the Department of Justice its radical changes wouldn't have been accepted if there was no representation on that behalf. The Whitehouse and the Presidential staff had no hand in its creation. Furthermore this article implies bypassing Congress entirely. That is completely unacceptable.

[QUOTE=thisispain;17146556]that's my thang you bitch[/QUOTE] [img]http://filesmelt.com/downloader/allears1.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=JDK721v2;17146246]lankist reassure us plz[/QUOTE] :c00l:

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17151603]:c00l:[/QUOTE] :frogc00l: [editline]12:59AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;17146268]Not really no.[/QUOTE] Dumb x 4

Why does it matter who drafts the bill? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like the president can say "this is law now, fuck you guys" and make it so.

I can find you literally ONE FUCKING HUNDRED news articles that say both sides of the argument (will pass and wont). This isn't news.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;17152280]Why does it matter who drafts the bill? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like the president can say "this is law now, fuck you guys" and make it so.[/QUOTE] The Executive Branch's job is to enforce laws. Congress' job is to create laws. The Judicial Branch's job is to interpret laws. The Executive Branch writing a law is like a police officer writing the law. They have no place in that decision. This is not Judge Dredd. The branches of government cannot grow beyond their predetermined place in government as a whole. We have three branches of compartmentalization to ensure that there is no one individual or group of individuals that is more powerful than another. The Executive Branch drafting law would increase their power dramatically and unacceptably. That is neither their job nor their purpose, and the measures we have in place in The House and The Senate to prevent corruption do not exist for The President, given he is forbidden from taking it upon himself to intrude upon their duties.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17152353]This is not Judge Dredd.[/QUOTE] Though that would be totally badass. I AM THE LAW

[QUOTE=Neolk;17152291]This isn't news.[/QUOTE] Wrong.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17152291]I can find you literally ONE FUCKING HUNDRED news articles that say both sides of the argument (will pass and wont). This isn't news.[/QUOTE] Maybe it isn't news to someone like yourself who thinks you can justify something by referencing alternate dimensions in a discussion about morality and law. Then again you don't understand how our government works.

Corruption is in the Government now. :derp:

[QUOTE=Lankist;17152449]Maybe it isn't news to someone like yourself who thinks you can justify something by referencing alternate dimensions in a discussion about morality and law. Then again you don't understand how our government works.[/QUOTE] I bet you that in the next 4 weeks, a new news article will pop up somewhere that says that health care won't pass. If not, I'll leave face punch forever.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17152676]I bet you that in the next 4 weeks, a new news article will pop up somewhere that says that health care won't pass. If not, I'll leave face punch forever.[/QUOTE] What does that have to do with this? Do you not understand the concept of the Executive branch taking on the responsibilities of the Legislative?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;17152736]They still have to put it through legislation, and they still have to get a majority to vote in its favor. Honestly nothing in the constitution prevents the executive branch from drafting legislature.[/QUOTE] That isn't how the Constitution was written. The only powers a branch of government has are those that are laid out before them. When new powers must be assigned they are assigned by a joint effort between the three. What prevents the Executive Branch from drafting legislation is the fact that nowhere in its charter is their mention of their permission to do so. Instead that responsibility is explicitly and exclusively given to the Legislative. Article One explicitly gives all legislative power to the Legislative Branch. [quote]To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.[/quote] [editline]02:16AM[/editline] "all laws" doesn't mean all of them except what the White House decides to do. The entire process of legislation rests in the Legislative Branch, hence why it's called the Legislative Branch.

The rights of the executive branch includes: *Whatever I think might sound right *Whatever I think might sound abusive

I don't want this to happen.

It's not like they CAN'T write it, I mean, even if it sucks it can still go into committee and then congress will be able to vote on it just like normal, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they are doing.

[QUOTE=Olinaj;17176492]It's not like they CAN'T write it, I mean, even if it sucks it can still go into committee and then congress will be able to vote on it just like normal, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they are doing.[/QUOTE] Yes there is. It's like letting a cop write the laws he enforces. Executive involvement, while mildly appropriate, is what is responsible for the unconstitutionality of USAPATRIOT. The Executive Branch should have no hand in legislation, it is not their place and it is entirely unacceptable. They have their job to do, they should focus on doing it instead of trying to butt in on Congress' job. There are plenty of problems we currently face with federal-level law enforcement that need to be fixed, that's the change they need to be focusing on. You don't let a cop write the law because cops have a skewed view of justice. It is neither objective nor blind. The executive branch is the same way, only on a much grander scale. What the executive sees as necessity for security, the legislative and judicial sides see corruption and flagrant abuse of power. The executive's explicit duty is to uphold law, order and stability. Their duty does not include in either doctrine nor modern context the idea of keeping the citizenry happy and independent. That duty and its associated interests falls in different respects on the other two sides of government. [editline]10:41AM[/editline] Any branch that has the ability to suspend individual rights should not have the ability to bypass the people who keep them in check. There is no circumstance or context that makes that behavior acceptable. To say writing one bill harms nothing merely demonstrates a lack of foresight and a complete disregard to the concept of precedence. It doesn't matter what the bill is, it is tainted with a bias that should never be allowed. [editline]10:48AM[/editline] Furthermore the President was not elected as a legislator, he was elected as a President. The President is not a dictator, he and his staff cannot simply do as they please in every facet of government. There is a reason Congress and the Supreme Court have the ability to tell the President to fuck himself, only in a more wordy and legal manner.

Sounds kinda [i]communist[/i] to me boys... Anyway, surely you guys have stuff put in place so if they want to, the other branches can step in and stop the bill or change it, right? In which case what's the problem? If the other parts of government think it's a bit iffy they can step in and do their job, if they want it to go ahead they can allow it through.

[QUOTE=Hivemind;17177296]Sounds kinda [i]communist[/i] to me boys... Anyway, surely you guys have stuff put in place so if they want to, the other branches can step in and stop the bill or change it, right? In which case what's the problem? If the other parts of government think it's a bit iffy they can step in and do their job, if they want it to go ahead they can allow it through.[/QUOTE] The point is that legislation shouldn't be written by anyone but legislators.

[QUOTE=Hivemind;17177296]Sounds kinda [i]communist[/i] to me boys... Anyway, surely you guys have stuff put in place so if they want to, the other branches can step in and stop the bill or change it, right? In which case what's the problem? If the other parts of government think it's a bit iffy they can step in and do their job, if they want it to go ahead they can allow it through.[/QUOTE] Well, that's sort of what we have in the UK. Rather than the seperation of powers, we sort of have a mingle. Though it leads to situations that Lankist is describing, we also have situations where judges and courts are attacking the government. Such as, the Prime Minister, being part of the executive, also sits in Parliament as part of the Legislative. Also we have Law Lords, which makes us awesome. Well, we'll have them, until the 1st October when we get the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom]Supreme Court of the United Kingdom[/url]

Supreme courts are awesome. They're like the least corruptible part of democratic government, despite the fact that for some reason in this country we actually give a shit about what party a fucking judge subscribes to. [editline]12:45PM[/editline] The US supreme court is kickass because it constantly tells the President and the Congress both to fuck theyselves. [editline]12:48PM[/editline] Congress: "It's not racism if it's all separate but equal." Brown v. Board of Education: FUCK YASELVES [editline]12:50PM[/editline] The Court is all "Jim Crow can suck our collective cocks."

Lankist, I lol at your posts. I [i]lol[/i].

C OMMUNISM COMMUNISM URRR URRRR URRRRRRRRRRRRr

[QUOTE=drive_the_hive;17178770]C OMMUNISM COMMUNISM URRR URRRR URRRRRRRRRRRRr[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone in this thread has seriously referenced communism. [editline]01:03PM[/editline] It's cool how niggas is ratin dumb like they know what the fuck they're talking about.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17178485]Supreme courts are awesome. They're like the least corruptible part of democratic government, despite the fact that for some reason in this country we actually give a shit about what party a fucking judge subscribes to. [editline]12:45PM[/editline] The US supreme court is kickass because it constantly tells the President and the Congress both to fuck theyselves. [editline]12:48PM[/editline] Congress: "It's not racism if it's all separate but equal." Brown v. Board of Education: FUCK YASELVES [editline]12:50PM[/editline] The Court is all "Jim Crow can suck our collective cocks."[/QUOTE] The best example was when the former Conservative leader Michael Howard attempted to increase the amount of time Jon Venables and Robert Thompson spent in custody ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger[/url]), the courts essentially told him to shut up and then took the power away from him.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17178907]The best example was when the former Conservative leader Michael Howard attempted to increase the amount of time Jon Venables and Robert Thompson spent in custody ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger[/url]), the courts essentially told him to shut up and then took the power away from him.[/QUOTE] This campaign was successful, and in 1995 Howard announced that the boys would be kept in custody for a minimum of fifteen years, meaning that they would not be considered for release until February 2008, by which time they would be twenty-five years of age. What are you talking about.