Is "It's legal" a valid argument when used in defense of policy?

[cali]

Personally, I think it sucks radishes, but I'm seeing quite a bit of it here in defense of the Obama Administration, as in: They didn't do anything wrong, it's legal.

They may actually be doing illegal things, but even if they're not, many bad things have been legal.

It's legal is a scary "argument" to see on a liberal site.

[Fumesucker]

1. Yoo just might have a point there n/t

[Aerows]

5. No kidding

That was wrong, this is wrong, and both were horrible.

[CrazyJudy]

2. it's similar to the "bush did it also" defense n/t

[Aerows]

3. Radishes are tasty

Defining something as legal when it blatantly isn't is distasteful.

But some will do anything to protect "the team", even when they were vociferous opponents when the other team was doing it. It truly is unconscionable.

[DCBob]

4. Well, our society is build around rules and regulations and laws.

If something is legal and shouldnt be then we need to change the laws regarding this issue.

[cali]

7. And protest the hell out of legal but wrong.

look, the fucking Nuremberg laws were legal. Should people have just obeyed them or defied them?

[DCBob]

10. Are you sure these surveillance laws are "wrong"?

I suspect you and many other critics would most likely have done the same thing if you were sitting in the Oval Office. There are completely legitimate reasons for collecting this data. When presented with all the facts and evidence and issues and concerns.. the most wise and prudent thing to do is to use surveillance.. in a legal manner.

[cali]

12. I'm pretty sure the spy agencies (all 16 of them) are as out of control now

as they have been historically- and that's pretty damned out of control. I think we create much of the terrorism we fight.

I don't give a shit what you think I might or might not do if I was in the oval office. that's silly stuff.

[DCBob]

14. "silly".. right.

[Skidmore]

11. Yes. True power lies in our ability to do just that.

If the teabaggers could exert pressure to change laws the left should also be able to do so. I'm pretty much not listening to those who descry bad law while deflecting all resposibility on the executive. It is counterproductive and allows our legislators to continue to do the bidding of big money.

[DCBob]

13. I think thats the only way to make a change to this practice.

I doubt the the President is going to back off this policy unless it is found to be illegal.

[Solly Mack]

6. Governments have committed horrible acts under the color of law.

Bush/Cheney Inc said torture was legal. Of course, they didn't call what they were doing torture, and they had legal "memos" saying torture wasn't torture - and those who committed water torture were not prosecuted and those "legal" memos were cited as a reason for not doing so.

I'm sure people can think of other countries that committed atrocities that were "legal" under the laws of that country.

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

8. Absolutely not. Legal merely means not illegal. Moral vs. immoral is a different dimenstion

entirely.

[sibelian]

9. In fact, of all arguments put forward, that one is the STUPIDEST argument POSSIBLE.

Last edited Sun Jun 9, 2013, 10:41 AM - Edit history (1)

The purpose of political analysis is not familiarity with the law, but familiarity with and, in the context of informed consent, the direction of the purpose and consequence of law.

FFS...

It's WORTHLESS EFFORT to sit back and watch and see if what they do fits what they think they're supposed to do and then "comment" on it. We're supposed to engage with the process so that our needs are met.

Law is supposed to be for US.

[Puzzledtraveller]

15. Ultimately it's ego.

And peoples absolute disdain for the taste of crow.

[bluedeathray]

16. Welcome to the police state...

How long before the shut down of Boston is expanded?

Hey, it's legal!

[1-Old-Man]

17. It's a valid argument with a limited life. Its good until the next election, if we do our job.

Its up to the voters to say that argument is not good enough.

[Laelth]

18. Ultimately, yes.

When we say something's "legal," we're saying it was approved of and written into law by a duly-elected legislative body. Presumably, that body "represents" the people, and it expresses the will of its constituents. If the Federal Congress passes a law, people are free to assume (under our governmental structure) that the law represents the will of the majority. Thus, saying something is "legal" is tantamount to saying that it represents the will of the majority. In a Republic, that means something. Thus, to say that a given policy is "legal" is a perfectly valid argument in favor of the policy.

That said, we have a couple of checks against the tyranny of the majority built into our system. The first is the Presidential veto power. The second is the SCOTUS which can strike down laws that are unconstitutional. I would argue that the Patriot Act and the FISA Act (as amended) are unconstitutional, even if they were enacted by the duly-elected representatives of the people. But I would still say that it's entirely valid, in defense of a given policy, to point to the will of Congress as "authorizing" said policy. In this case, even the author of the Patriot Act says that the executive branch has mis-read Congress' intent and has expanded the powers given to the executive by Congress in a far-too-expansive manner. Under this scenario, it is incumbent upon Congress to modify the law and clarify its intent so that the law is not abused by the executive.

As an aside, I once had a discussion with a relative about an Act of the Georgia General Assembly that showed me how poorly many intelligent people understand government. The General Assembly passed a law that my intelligent, well-informed relative did not like, and he asked me, "How can they do that? Is that legal?" I had to hide my amusement. Legislators can do whatever they want. Whatever the legislature decides is legal, by definition, because legislators write the laws. That's their job. Here in Georgia, said law could be vetoed by the Governor or overturned by Georgia's Supreme Court (or the SCOTUS), but until one of those things happens, whatever the legislature decides to do is, by definition, legal. My relative replied, "Well, then we're in deeper trouble than I thought." Again I had to contain my amusement. If you believe that we're in deep trouble because legislatures make laws, then your understanding of the way a Republic is supposed to function is woefully lacking.

btw, the above is not meant as an attack on the OP, just an interesting anecdote I wanted to share.

-Laelth

[LWolf]

19. No.

Plenty of things that are legal aren't appropriate.

It wouldn't be legal if this administration hadn't pushed for an extension and signed it into law.

[backscatter712]

20. No. Bush's war was "legal". John Yoo said torture was legal.

Most importantly, they were deeply unethical and immoral. Lampshading it by waving a lawbook holds zero weight in my eyes.

NSA spying may be "legal" according to the current bunch of lawyers scrambling to do ass-covering. Never mind that the Fourth Amendment says it isn't. Never mind that American values since the founding of our nation say we have a right to privacy.

[cali]

21. kick for a certain someone

[Javaman]

22. +1 nt