The Most Egregious Violation of the Constitution

Discussions that don't belong elsewhere in the forum, but hopefully are still somewhat relevant to TTO.
Forum rules
As elsewhere in the TTO forum, no harangues, scurrilities, chicanery or mongering is permitted. However, repartees and irreverence is tolerated as long as they are not fatuous. Those who fail to abide by these rules may be subject to objurgation.  

The Most Egregious Violation of the Constitution

Postby HankW501 » Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:11 pm

There have been quite a few Presidents throughout U.S. history who have been (informally) accused of being in violation of the U.S. Constitution. What I find surprising, and a little amusing, is that a great number of the critics seemed, in my opinion, to have spoken as if they believed that their President was the first to ever do so. A great deal of the Constitution was written in a manner that leaves points open to interpretation. I'm the type of person who would prefer to see every law written like a computer program, with every possible contingency accounted for and with no gray areas. However, I recognize that vagueness gives the courts power in their roll in the balance of power. Many who have said, "He's in violation of the Constitution!" probably would have spoken more accurately by saying, "His interpretation of the Constitution differs from mine!" Definitions change from generation to generation, and one President was even questioning what is is.

All that being stated, I'm having a very hard time wrapping my head around how it could have been possible for the 67th U.S. Congress to get away with refusing to carry out the required reapportioning of House seats after the 1920 Census. That violation seems as blatant to me as if Pres. Obama were allowed to run for a third term in 2016 (without repeal of the 22nd Amendment), or if California were allowed to appoint 200 electors to vote for him. It's not the results of the inaction that bother me (I doubt most Americans even know about it), but just the fact that it could happen without consequence. It scares me somewhat when the Constitution appears so weak. I've come to realize that, like the U.S. dollar, all of the strength of the Constitution comes from those who believe in it.

Out of curiosity, I calculated the 1920s reapportionment that should have been (I will reply with a list of the differences upon request). The Republican Party was the majority party at the time of the failure to reapportion, and ironically the failure cost the Republican presidential candidates in the 1924 and 1928 elections two votes each.
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:44 pm
Stance: Pro-Enlargement

Return to Whatever...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests