reply to post by deadcalm
In some ways you are on target, in other ways you are falling into the trap that the two parties set by pretending to oppose each other.
We seem to agree that there is a bi-partisan overstepping of bounds that has been going on for quite some time, however you seem to write the SCOTUS
off as toothless and regard this bill as necessary, while I believe exactly the opposite is true.
I believe the SCOTUS to be much more powerful than anyone, the court itself included, realizes. Those who ultimately enforce the rule of this
government are all well aware of their duty to disobey illegal orders, but in recent memory they have never been clearly told by an authoritative
source that their orders actually were illegal and should be disobeyed. Frankly I believe the SCOTUS could, if it so chose, assume the power of
advisory opinions in exactly the way it assumed judicial review, order a temporary injunction and subpeona of all relevant information against any
suspect activities of the federal government, and gain sufficient compliance from non-complicit federal employees under threat of incarceration to get
us out of this mess in a few years with no bloodshed.
I also believe the two parties have shown a willingness to work together to overstep constitutional limitations even to the detriment of their stated
platforms. This is shown in the way Republicans tried to give Clinton the line item veto, in the way Obama protected and continued the criminality of
the Bush admin, and in this bill itself, which at best asks that the power to cherry pick the law be shared, or at worst is a born-to-lose token
effort intended to give the appearance of opposing an imperial presidency so that voters will continue to support an opposition party which fully
intends for unconstitutional powers to be still in place and awaiting them when they are sent back to the white house based on the same kind false
promises of rolling back abuse that brought Obama in.
If this bill were enacted as law, I assure you nobody would ever use it to stop assassinations, to stop the government from forcing you to do business
with a profit seeking entity that fully intends to take your money and still let you die, or anything like that. There will be constant reports,
constant bickering over minor sub-points in court that plays well in the news cycle and in election commercials, but there will be no breakthroughs.
They'll take away everything that Obamacare gives anyone but not the part that requires you to give a bunch of money to government and industry,
Congress will be able to point and shoot the FBI and IRS the same way Obama does, and if they are sharing the gun, all they have left to shoot at is
you. etc etc.
If anyone in this fight were working to enforce constitutional limits they'd go to the court and say, "this is clearly against the constitution, and
you already have the power to make that official and countermand illegal orders". But instead they are appealing to the public, "the constitution
isn't able to defend itself, give us extra power and we promise to interpret it correctly".
In short, they're pretending to fight over power, and one side always claims they're actually fighting for your freedom, but in fact they both
working together for power. As long as you buy into that con and support a side, no matter who wins the result is always that they have more and more
power over you.