41 ms·

I think that the depth of the hypothetical that tdees postulates has eluded you... it would not be Obama who has a Constitutional/Legal crisis... it would be

by bilbo0s 13y ago

I think that the depth of the hypothetical that tdees postulates has eluded you... it would not be Obama who has a Constitutional/Legal crisis... it would be the United States. It would be, quite literally, US Law mandating the violation of ... US Law.

fleitz 13y ago
Which the president as head of the executive branch is required to execute.
- bilbo0s 13y ago
  Sigh... OK... let's walk your suggestion through. The President resigns. The Vice-President succeeds. The Vice-President is now the President. Now the NEW President is obliged by US Law... to violate US Law. So we enact your solution again... The NEW President resigns... This time the Speaker succeeds... The Speaker is now the President. Now THAT new President is obliged by US Law... to violate US Law. So we enact your solution again... Do you see the problem yet?
  - fleitz 13y ago
    Not really, eventually you run out of people to execute laws that can't be executed. Eventually the government becomes a laughing stock and folds.
    - pyre 13y ago
      Many people starve to death (among other things) in the ensuing confusion... Either you're very angry at the world, or you're just a troll.
      - fleitz 13y ago
        Have you ever considered that in the last 15 years more people have died as a result of the actions of the US government than are prevented from starving to death by the US government?
        pyre 13y ago
        If you want to contribute something constructive to this conversation, then I suggest that you put together some sort of report/study to demonstrate your thought that over the last 15 years more people have died as a result of US government actions than would die in the ensuing chaos around the fall of western civilization.
- jbooth 13y ago
  It's been spelled out like 6 times in this thread that this crisis creates contradictory legal obligations for the executive branch that are logically impossible to fulfill. If you're really not understanding that, perhaps you should consider rephrasing your objection as a humble question.

by bilbo0s 13y ago

fleitz 13y ago

Which the president as head of the executive branch is required to execute.

bilbo0s 13y ago
Sigh... OK... let's walk your suggestion through. The President resigns. The Vice-President succeeds. The Vice-President is now the President. Now the NEW President is obliged by US Law... to violate US Law. So we enact your solution again... The NEW President resigns... This time the Speaker succeeds... The Speaker is now the President. Now THAT new President is obliged by US Law... to violate US Law. So we enact your solution again... Do you see the problem yet?
- fleitz 13y ago
  Not really, eventually you run out of people to execute laws that can't be executed. Eventually the government becomes a laughing stock and folds.
  - pyre 13y ago
    Many people starve to death (among other things) in the ensuing confusion... Either you're very angry at the world, or you're just a troll.
    - fleitz 13y ago
      Have you ever considered that in the last 15 years more people have died as a result of the actions of the US government than are prevented from starving to death by the US government?
      - pyre 13y ago
        If you want to contribute something constructive to this conversation, then I suggest that you put together some sort of report/study to demonstrate your thought that over the last 15 years more people have died as a result of US government actions than would die in the ensuing chaos around the fall of western civilization.
jbooth 13y ago
It's been spelled out like 6 times in this thread that this crisis creates contradictory legal obligations for the executive branch that are logically impossible to fulfill. If you're really not understanding that, perhaps you should consider rephrasing your objection as a humble question.