The essence of wielding power is sometimes having to ask for forgiveness, but never to ask for permission.

That's also often the key to an effective con - always assume permission. Most people won't stop you.

Such as McCain-Feingold?

JBE:

Yes, Congress should certainly impeach everyone who voted for it, signed it, and upheld it.

OJ,

That's just silly. Congress should impeach itself for passing a law favored by the majority of the members of Congress?

Brandon, Should and Would are two different words.

Brandon:

Yes. The law is unconstitutional.

Congress doesn't have the authority to pass a "law" that isn't constitutional. Such a thing isn't a "law" anymore that the "driver's license" that you get from a 25cents gumball machine in the grocery store is a driver's license.

OJ:

You'd throw out half of Congress and the president, thus precipitating a governmental crisis, in order to uphold a point that to most Americans must seem like an abstraction at best, and which many politicians honestly believe to be Constitutional? That's Jacobinical.

It doesn't matter whether the law's unconstitutional or not. Expecting or even asking Congress to impeach itself it nonsense.

Brandon;

No where did OJ say he expected that, but I agree with his view on this 100%.

Mr. Murphy;

It will rapidly become less of an abstract point, just like the AMT, as ordinary citizens get caught up in legal hassles for doing things like putting large political signs in their yards.

One also notes that McCain is now openly saying that he values "clean government" over the First Amendment.

Matt:

The Republic wouldn't even skip a beat.

It is the responsibility of all branches of government, not just the courts, to watch out for unconstitutional actions by the others.

If there is serious question on constitutional legality for a law, there should be a debate. If Bush is right, the laws should be repealed. If Bush is wrong a few times, he should acknowledge the laws are correct and enforce them. If he is consistently wrong, he should be impeached and removed from office.

However, I am very worried about the partisan use of the Constitution in these political disputes. Continued use of such rhetoric can only undermine respect for the Constitution and degrade its value in upholding the rule of law. If there are real constitutional issues at stake, Bush should challenge them openly, not covertly.

Chris:

It's a power struggle between the constitutionally coequal branches, why would Congress give up just because they're wrong?

Chris: Bush has been up-front. He's issuing signing statements that clearly say what sections of the statute, if any, he believes are unconstitutional as applied to him and that he thus intends to ignore.

Now, who do you think is going to referee this contest between congress and the president. The Supreme Court is no more empowered to pronounce laws unconstitutional than the other branches.

The Republic wouldn't even skip a beat.

Show of hands please for everybody who thinks having America ditch the president and half of Congress would just be a historical footnote. That is, if you're still reading this thread and can wriggle your arm out of the straitjacket.

AOG:

I don't happen to think it's an abstract point at all -- CFR and the First Amendment obviously don't go well together -- but I seriously doubt the government will pursue large numbers of Americans who put signs in their yards, and in the absence of such obvious overreaching the point will doubtlessly seem abstract to most people. I typically respect the judgment of the American people but expecting them to care about campaign-finance regulations (even unfair ones) is a lot to ask.

And 5 Justices. The Republic just isn't as fragile as folks like to think.

The state is not the nation.

Fortunately, there is no nation in America.

OJ:

Just what percentage of Congress and SCOTUS would have to be wiped out before you would consider it problematic?

It would be problematic, just rather insignificant to the life of the nation.

Yes, for statists, all there is is the state.

The state doesn't much matter as long as you get society right. Because we have ours reasonably correct a change of governors wouldn't disrupt much.