5 ms·

Gay marriage was determined to be a constitutional right by a conservative Supreme Court (judicial ruling), versus this being an executive order from Obama. Tru

by awinder 10y ago

Gay marriage was determined to be a constitutional right by a conservative Supreme Court (judicial ruling), versus this being an executive order from Obama. Trump has previously said he plans on throwing away all of obamas executive orders, which he can do on his own. That said Obama is now working with trump to transition govt and taking a much more active role in it due to trumps team being under prepared, so who knows. Maybe pieces like this that trump doesn't really care about live on. Hard to say, it's a brave new world in US politics.

_delirium 10y ago
It's fairly complex even for executive orders; depends on how they were implemented. Some are purely the president's prerogative, in which case the next president can do whatever they want as well. But quite a few are Congress having delegated to the executive branch implementation of some provision (Congress loves to craft fairly vague laws and delegate the details to administrative rulemaking by various agencies). In that case there are certain required rule-making processes that have to be followed, such as public comment periods, cost-benefit analyses, appeals, etc. The president can direct an agency to implement a particular preferred approach, but it has to make it through this process to become binding regulation, and a subsequent president would have to go through the same process to reverse it.
- ohyoutravel 10y ago
  >>Congress loves to craft fairly vague laws and delegate the details to administrative rulemaking by various agencies I can't quite tell from your tone if you're implying that this is a bad thing, or if you're of the opinion that Congress is shirking on their duties when they do this. I read it like, "'Congress just LOVES to pass vague laws so others have to step in' /sarcasm." My apologies if I'm misreading your tone. For posterity, just to be clear, this is definitely a good thing here. In the case of, for example, the environment, which this post is about: Members of Congress are not experts in every field, so it makes more sense to pass a law called the Clean Air Act requiring protection of the air with some parameters, and then letting the experts at EPA fill in the details. In this case at least, it's not Congress shirking their duties, but rather the way it should work. i.e. Congress issues laws requiring general things, and the experts at the various federal agencies fill in the details with regulations (though obviously it doesn't always work perfectly).
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Administrative agencies encourage Congress to micromanage the economy, passing regulations full of loopholes, instead of passing categorical bans on harmful things or practices. Also, I don't think administrative agencies are constitutional. They're a fourth branch of government not described in the constitution.
    - ohyoutravel 10y ago
      The powers of administrative agencies come from their organic enabling act, which is passed by congress. In many cases, agencies cannot pass categorical bans on harmful things or practices because they don't have that ability. Regarding your second point, at this point that's not really debatable. SCOTUS has consistently ruled that admin agencies are constitutional within the legislative intent of Congress. Where agencies act ultra vires, beyond their power, SCOTUS will frequently rule what they did unconstitutional. But they are in themselves constitutional, and saying otherwise smacks of the same arguments people make when they say that income taxes are illegal. i.e. it discredits the person making the statement.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        > Regarding your second point, at this point that's not really debatable. SCOTUS has consistently ruled that admin agencies are constitutional within the legislative intent of Congress. There is a difference between what the courts have ruled and what the constitution actually says. The significance of the difference being that when the courts have it wrong, you can sometimes convince them to change their minds. Or at some point different justices are appointed with different opinions. Roe v. Wade is long-established precedent but that doesn't mean it hasn't been a major consideration when appointing justices to the Supreme Court. And there is a completely reasonable way to have "administrative agencies" without making them part of the executive -- you make them part of the legislature, in the nature of the CBO. The difference being that after they propose new rules, Congress would vote to approve them or not. Which in most cases could be a rubber stamp but it would give Congress the opportunity to say no when it matters, and get the executive branch entirely out of the rulemaking business.
fosco 10y ago
Roe vs Wade was also a Judicial ruling, and yet that appears under threat. The power of the supreme court to interpret laws allows them to change, appear and be dismissed as time goes on. While Trump does not directly attack gay marriage, if he nominates judges who are against the women's right to choose, I am concerned they will also be against things like gay marriage, my argument is most people against that right are very religious and thus also against marriage being equal.
- joshuaheard 10y ago
  Most people don't know this, but Roe v. Wade as a landmark case for two reasons. The first, of course, was that it took the ability to regulate abortions away from the people's representatives, the legislatures. Second, it created a right to privacy in the Constitution. Already, the abortion regulations set up by the Supreme Court are becoming obsolete with new procedures being developed, such as partial-birth abortion, which is why the courts should not legislate. I most oppose the right to privacy created by the court. I am not against a right to privacy, if someone wants to put one in there. But to find a right to privacy in the Constitution through the "penumbras and emanations" is really just making it up whole cloth, which I oppose. As for gay marriage, again, it should be up to the states. There is no Constitutional right for gays to marry. First, because marriage is not a right (although procreation is). Second, for the purpose of marriage, gays are not equal: it is impossible for them to procreate, which is the purpose (but not a requirement) of marriage. My purpose is not to re-litigate these issues, but to say that many feel these cases were badly decided so they should be overturned, not just because we oppose those issues on a religious basis.
  - woofyman 10y ago
    Gay couples procreate the same way many straight people do. Sperm or egg donors, surrogates or adoption. Before marriage equality many states didn't recognize two party adoptions. Which left gay families in precarious positions.
  - jms18 10y ago
    > There is no Constitutional right for gays to marry. There is no Constitutional right for anyone to marry. Full stop. There is a Constitutional right for equal protection under the law.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Hope he works with him to ban NSA spying on its own citizens. I doubt it though; he's had eight years and hasn't done it.
- japhyr 10y ago
  Trump has nominated Mike Pompeo as CIA director. Pompeo would like to expand government surveillance, and feels Edward Snowden should receive a death sentence. "Congress should pass a law re-establishing collection of all metadata, and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database. Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pompeo#National_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pompeo#National_security
  - JustSomeNobody 10y ago
    This disgusts me.
  - woofyman 10y ago
    He's pro-torture. https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/foreign-policy/new-cia-director-mike-pompeo-torture-muslims-terror-iran-nsa-spying/ https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/foreign-policy/new-cia-...
waterphone 10y ago
I'm not a Trump supporter in any way, but reading his 100 day plan, it actually says he'll throw out all unconstitutional executive orders by Obama. It is a little bit ambiguous, but could be read several ways—either he's saying executive orders are unconstitutional, or he's giving himself a very vague and general way to throw out stuff he doesn't like and not others.
- DasIch 10y ago
  Who is supposed to decide on which of these is unconstitutional or not, if not the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court decides that what stopped the Republicans from going to court earlier? Surely they would have, if the thought they'd get anywhere. He says it because it sounds better on the surface than just throwing out all executive orders, which doesn't make sense anyway. He'll just throw out what he doesn't like and claim that those are unconstitutional. This is a weak appeal to moderates and nothing more.
  - waterphone 10y ago
    I agree that seems likely, and I agree it's not the President's place to determine constitutionality, I've just been noticing a lot of people stating that Trump is planning to throw out all of Obama's executive orders, and that isn't necessarily what he specifically said.
    - nickff 10y ago
      It is the duty of every branch of the US Government to follow the constitution, so they are all required to determine constitutionality. Most, if not all US Presidents have made statements on the constitutionality of bills brought before them to be signed, and they have often refused to enforce laws they believe are unconstitutional.
      - DasIch 10y ago
        You're right of course. Nevertheless I think actions speak louder than works. The Republican party is not known for being hesitant or compromising. If they'd actually believe Obama's executive orders to be unconstitutional, they would've done more than complain. They're not doing more though, so I can only conclude that they're not at all convinced that they're unconstitutional. To be fair though I have no idea what Trump is thinking, I don't think anybody really does. He might actually believe what he's saying in this instance.
throwaway1776 10y ago
>That said Obama is now working with trump to transition govt and taking a much more active role in it due to trumps team being under prepared Where are you getting this information? Trump's team has not spoken with the mainstream media at all since winning the election. Anything that has come out is a direct statement, otherwise it is just complete here-say. And how is Obama taking a "much more active role" by running off to Germany? It's very clear that Trumps rhetoric has sent Merkel into a panic, and her own comments towards Trump have been less than diplomatic. At least try to hide the fact that you are a Hill shill.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  I'm surprised HN doesn't automatically bounce green-bean posts containing the word "shill". Arguendo, it's not clear what "Hill" partisans hope to gain by shaping this particular narrative. She got beat, again, she's done. Obama is probably concerned with his "legacy", so maybe there's some shilling to be done there...
- astrodust 10y ago
  Oh boy /pol is leaking into HN. Anyone have a mop? Pro Tip: Try not to accuse people making counter-points of being shills.

by awinder 10y ago

_delirium 10y ago

It's fairly complex even for executive orders; depends on how they were implemented. Some are purely the president's prerogative, in which case the next president can do whatever they want as well. But quite a few are Congress having delegated to the executive branch implementation of some provision (Congress loves to craft fairly vague laws and delegate the details to administrative rulemaking by various agencies). In that case there are certain required rule-making processes that have to be followed, such as public comment periods, cost-benefit analyses, appeals, etc. The president can direct an agency to implement a particular preferred approach, but it has to make it through this process to become binding regulation, and a subsequent president would have to go through the same process to reverse it.

ohyoutravel 10y ago
>>Congress loves to craft fairly vague laws and delegate the details to administrative rulemaking by various agencies I can't quite tell from your tone if you're implying that this is a bad thing, or if you're of the opinion that Congress is shirking on their duties when they do this. I read it like, "'Congress just LOVES to pass vague laws so others have to step in' /sarcasm." My apologies if I'm misreading your tone. For posterity, just to be clear, this is definitely a good thing here. In the case of, for example, the environment, which this post is about: Members of Congress are not experts in every field, so it makes more sense to pass a law called the Clean Air Act requiring protection of the air with some parameters, and then letting the experts at EPA fill in the details. In this case at least, it's not Congress shirking their duties, but rather the way it should work. i.e. Congress issues laws requiring general things, and the experts at the various federal agencies fill in the details with regulations (though obviously it doesn't always work perfectly).
- rayiner 10y ago
  Administrative agencies encourage Congress to micromanage the economy, passing regulations full of loopholes, instead of passing categorical bans on harmful things or practices. Also, I don't think administrative agencies are constitutional. They're a fourth branch of government not described in the constitution.
  - ohyoutravel 10y ago
    The powers of administrative agencies come from their organic enabling act, which is passed by congress. In many cases, agencies cannot pass categorical bans on harmful things or practices because they don't have that ability. Regarding your second point, at this point that's not really debatable. SCOTUS has consistently ruled that admin agencies are constitutional within the legislative intent of Congress. Where agencies act ultra vires, beyond their power, SCOTUS will frequently rule what they did unconstitutional. But they are in themselves constitutional, and saying otherwise smacks of the same arguments people make when they say that income taxes are illegal. i.e. it discredits the person making the statement.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      > Regarding your second point, at this point that's not really debatable. SCOTUS has consistently ruled that admin agencies are constitutional within the legislative intent of Congress. There is a difference between what the courts have ruled and what the constitution actually says. The significance of the difference being that when the courts have it wrong, you can sometimes convince them to change their minds. Or at some point different justices are appointed with different opinions. Roe v. Wade is long-established precedent but that doesn't mean it hasn't been a major consideration when appointing justices to the Supreme Court. And there is a completely reasonable way to have "administrative agencies" without making them part of the executive -- you make them part of the legislature, in the nature of the CBO. The difference being that after they propose new rules, Congress would vote to approve them or not. Which in most cases could be a rubber stamp but it would give Congress the opportunity to say no when it matters, and get the executive branch entirely out of the rulemaking business.

fosco 10y ago

Roe vs Wade was also a Judicial ruling, and yet that appears under threat. The power of the supreme court to interpret laws allows them to change, appear and be dismissed as time goes on. While Trump does not directly attack gay marriage, if he nominates judges who are against the women's right to choose, I am concerned they will also be against things like gay marriage, my argument is most people against that right are very religious and thus also against marriage being equal.

joshuaheard 10y ago
Most people don't know this, but Roe v. Wade as a landmark case for two reasons. The first, of course, was that it took the ability to regulate abortions away from the people's representatives, the legislatures. Second, it created a right to privacy in the Constitution. Already, the abortion regulations set up by the Supreme Court are becoming obsolete with new procedures being developed, such as partial-birth abortion, which is why the courts should not legislate. I most oppose the right to privacy created by the court. I am not against a right to privacy, if someone wants to put one in there. But to find a right to privacy in the Constitution through the "penumbras and emanations" is really just making it up whole cloth, which I oppose. As for gay marriage, again, it should be up to the states. There is no Constitutional right for gays to marry. First, because marriage is not a right (although procreation is). Second, for the purpose of marriage, gays are not equal: it is impossible for them to procreate, which is the purpose (but not a requirement) of marriage. My purpose is not to re-litigate these issues, but to say that many feel these cases were badly decided so they should be overturned, not just because we oppose those issues on a religious basis.
- woofyman 10y ago
  Gay couples procreate the same way many straight people do. Sperm or egg donors, surrogates or adoption. Before marriage equality many states didn't recognize two party adoptions. Which left gay families in precarious positions.
- jms18 10y ago
  > There is no Constitutional right for gays to marry. There is no Constitutional right for anyone to marry. Full stop. There is a Constitutional right for equal protection under the law.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

Hope he works with him to ban NSA spying on its own citizens. I doubt it though; he's had eight years and hasn't done it.

japhyr 10y ago
Trump has nominated Mike Pompeo as CIA director. Pompeo would like to expand government surveillance, and feels Edward Snowden should receive a death sentence. "Congress should pass a law re-establishing collection of all metadata, and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database. Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pompeo#National_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pompeo#National_security
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  This disgusts me.
- woofyman 10y ago
  He's pro-torture. https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/foreign-policy/new-cia-director-mike-pompeo-torture-muslims-terror-iran-nsa-spying/ https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/foreign-policy/new-cia-...

waterphone 10y ago

I'm not a Trump supporter in any way, but reading his 100 day plan, it actually says he'll throw out all unconstitutional executive orders by Obama. It is a little bit ambiguous, but could be read several ways—either he's saying executive orders are unconstitutional, or he's giving himself a very vague and general way to throw out stuff he doesn't like and not others.

DasIch 10y ago
Who is supposed to decide on which of these is unconstitutional or not, if not the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court decides that what stopped the Republicans from going to court earlier? Surely they would have, if the thought they'd get anywhere. He says it because it sounds better on the surface than just throwing out all executive orders, which doesn't make sense anyway. He'll just throw out what he doesn't like and claim that those are unconstitutional. This is a weak appeal to moderates and nothing more.
- waterphone 10y ago
  I agree that seems likely, and I agree it's not the President's place to determine constitutionality, I've just been noticing a lot of people stating that Trump is planning to throw out all of Obama's executive orders, and that isn't necessarily what he specifically said.
  - nickff 10y ago
    It is the duty of every branch of the US Government to follow the constitution, so they are all required to determine constitutionality. Most, if not all US Presidents have made statements on the constitutionality of bills brought before them to be signed, and they have often refused to enforce laws they believe are unconstitutional.
    - DasIch 10y ago
      You're right of course. Nevertheless I think actions speak louder than works. The Republican party is not known for being hesitant or compromising. If they'd actually believe Obama's executive orders to be unconstitutional, they would've done more than complain. They're not doing more though, so I can only conclude that they're not at all convinced that they're unconstitutional. To be fair though I have no idea what Trump is thinking, I don't think anybody really does. He might actually believe what he's saying in this instance.

throwaway1776 10y ago

>That said Obama is now working with trump to transition govt and taking a much more active role in it due to trumps team being under prepared Where are you getting this information? Trump's team has not spoken with the mainstream media at all since winning the election. Anything that has come out is a direct statement, otherwise it is just complete here-say. And how is Obama taking a "much more active role" by running off to Germany? It's very clear that Trumps rhetoric has sent Merkel into a panic, and her own comments towards Trump have been less than diplomatic. At least try to hide the fact that you are a Hill shill.

jessaustin 10y ago
I'm surprised HN doesn't automatically bounce green-bean posts containing the word "shill". Arguendo, it's not clear what "Hill" partisans hope to gain by shaping this particular narrative. She got beat, again, she's done. Obama is probably concerned with his "legacy", so maybe there's some shilling to be done there...
astrodust 10y ago
Oh boy /pol is leaking into HN. Anyone have a mop? Pro Tip: Try not to accuse people making counter-points of being shills.