Title : "I’m old enough to remember when it was a bad thing for presidents to knowingly and blatantly violate their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States."
link : "I’m old enough to remember when it was a bad thing for presidents to knowingly and blatantly violate their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States."
"I’m old enough to remember when it was a bad thing for presidents to knowingly and blatantly violate their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States."
"I’m even old enough to remember a time — lo these seven months ago! — when the left responded to such maneuvers with horror, rather than egging them on."Writes Megan McArdle in "Opinion: What the left doesn’t want to face about the eviction moratorium" (WaPo).
I agree that Presidents of both parties ought to be judged by the same standard when they take a challenging legal position, but we need to be consistent in when we're going to say they have "knowingly and blatantly violate[d] their oath."
I read in The Washington Post that Professor Larry Tribe advised the President that the new moratorium would be constitutional. If Biden sincerely believes that — or embraces it with whatever feeling a politician has in the place in heart where ordinary people experience sincere belief — should we denounce him for knowingly and blatantly violating the Constitution?
McArdle proceeds to argue (persuasively) that the moratorium is bad policy. But bad policy doesn't make it a blatant constitutional violation. And yet, even as the desire to adopt the policy is what led Biden to take a challenging constitutional position, recognition that the policy is bad could people who don't really care about constitutional limits to back off from that position.
But I don't even trust Biden to choose the best policy or even to believe he is choosing the best policy! It's political maneuvering, and I presume that he not only expects the courts to strike it down, he wants that outcome.
Writes Megan McArdle in "Opinion: What the left doesn’t want to face about the eviction moratorium" (WaPo).
I agree that Presidents of both parties ought to be judged by the same standard when they take a challenging legal position, but we need to be consistent in when we're going to say they have "knowingly and blatantly violate[d] their oath."
I read in The Washington Post that Professor Larry Tribe advised the President that the new moratorium would be constitutional. If Biden sincerely believes that — or embraces it with whatever feeling a politician has in the place in heart where ordinary people experience sincere belief — should we denounce him for knowingly and blatantly violating the Constitution?
McArdle proceeds to argue (persuasively) that the moratorium is bad policy. But bad policy doesn't make it a blatant constitutional violation. And yet, even as the desire to adopt the policy is what led Biden to take a challenging constitutional position, recognition that the policy is bad could people who don't really care about constitutional limits to back off from that position.
But I don't even trust Biden to choose the best policy or even to believe he is choosing the best policy! It's political maneuvering, and I presume that he not only expects the courts to strike it down, he wants that outcome.
Thus articles "I’m old enough to remember when it was a bad thing for presidents to knowingly and blatantly violate their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States."
You now read the article "I’m old enough to remember when it was a bad thing for presidents to knowingly and blatantly violate their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2021/08/im-old-enough-to-remember-when-it-was.html
0 Response to ""I’m old enough to remember when it was a bad thing for presidents to knowingly and blatantly violate their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.""
Post a Comment