Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Rynar wrote:
Again, Freedom of Religion is not Freedom from Religion, as the second is an abridgement of the first. Noting that, there becomes an obvious reason that "of" was the word chosen to use instead of "from".
This. A million times this. gah
So... Question for you folks. If the judge had struck it down (which she did) but also said that the gatherings could not go forward (she said they could go forward until after all the appeals), would you have supported Obama for moving forward?
I would not, I don't think. Even though I agree it's a bad ruling, checks and balances > all.
I would. The President can proclaim all kinds of non-mandatory National Days of Whatever any time he pleases, such as when someone important dies. The law has no actual power to compel anyone to do anything, and neither would a Presidential proclaimation.
Overturning a law is really supposed to be a check and balance on Congress (who make the laws), not the PResident, who really just enforces whatever the law happens to be. I'd go so far as to say that in this case, since the law has no actual power, it can't be enforced, and therefore overturning it is an attempt by the court to exert power it does not actually have - i.e. to forbid completely voluntary action for no other reason than a non-enforceable proclaimation in favor of it has been issued.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
