Are Republicans still in favor of the "Unitary Executive" theory?

[uscitizen]

Obama said he wouldn't use signing statements and then used them anyway. Not exactly a "man bites dog" story. Barry's lied to us on many occasions.

did he actaully say he would not use them? Or just run down Bush for using them?

I now he talked trash about Bush using them, but I do not remember if he actually said he would not use them?

He is a politician first.

Was it too much trouble for you to view post #9 vid?

It's only one minute and 27 seconds out of your busy day....or check the last 10 seconds.

I was sure you would or someone would fill me in.

 

[PoliticalChic]

did he actaully say he would not use them? Or just run down Bush for using them?

I now he talked trash about Bush using them, but I do not remember if he actually said he would not use them?

He is a politician first.

Was it too much trouble for you to view post #9 vid?

It's only one minute and 27 seconds out of your busy day....or check the last 10 seconds.

I was sure you would or someone would fill me in.

My pleasure,...after all, a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to help a liberal.

 

[The Rabbi]

And signing statements that nullify the laws the President signs if the president deems it necessary?

Of course. Republicans pushed for the line item veto when Bush was in office.

 

[rightwinger]

And signing statements that nullify the laws the President signs if the president deems it necessary?

Of course. Republicans pushed for the line item veto when Bush was in office.

The Line Item Veto is an unconstitutional shift of power from Congress to the President

 

[Two Thumbs]

Most of these sign off are comon and expected.

The one I recall;

Federal aide (our taxes) going to pay for abortions overseas.

Bush signed it to end it, Obama signed it to re-start it.

I'm sure theres more, that's just the one I know about.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The issue with a strong Unitary Executive isnt that he just makes signing statements. Obama has done signing statements and if he said he wouldnt and did...yes, its a lie from a politian. Dont tell me you guys are still shocked that politians lie to us. Anyway, it's when the signing statement is used to ignore or change parts of the law.

Not just signing statements....jeez. These arguments are becoming ridiculous....I ask about a hit and run and some people come back with "Obama drove a car TOO!"

Not remotely the same thing..

 

[loosecannon]

The issue with a strong Unitary Executive isnt that he just makes signing statements. Obama has done signing statements and if he said he wouldnt and did...yes, its a lie from a politian. Dont tell me you guys are still shocked that politians lie to us. Anyway, it's when the signing statement is used to ignore or change parts of the law.

Not just signing statements....jeez. These arguments are becoming ridiculous....I ask about a hit and run and some people come back with "Obama drove a car TOO!"

Not remotely the same thing..

uh, yes it is remotely the same thing. There is no purpose for signing statements except to assert a presidential rendition of what the new means, and how the executive will adhere to it. It is preemptive legal cover for breaking the new law at will.

 

[beowolfe]

I never liked this idea and was mad as hell when I heard this "theory". I dont believe any president should circumvent laws by putting his own spin on it. I thought Obama would do the same but so far he hasnt...and I'm wondering why?

it isn't a theory, it is a trend, and Obama HAS done the same!

List of President Obama's Signing Statements -

We tried to tell you all that it was a bad idea when Dubya went crazy with them. Now do you understand?

 

[JBeukema]

I would say no since it is a dem in office. They will be for it again when a repub gets back in office.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc"]YouTube - Obama on Presidential Signing Statements[/ame]

Wow, a lying, hypocritical, partisan politician.


I'm fucking shocked.


So long as we have the two party system, northing's gonna change. Get used to it or help destroy it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

uh, yes it is remotely the same thing. There is no purpose for signing statements except to assert a presidential rendition of what the new means, and how the executive will adhere to it. It is preemptive legal cover for breaking the new law at will.

if that is what Obama did I don't agree with it. Do you agree with signing statements when the purpose is to side step the law?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would say no since it is a dem in office. They will be for it again when a repub gets back in office.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc"]YouTube - Obama on Presidential Signing Statements[/ame]

Wow, a lying, hypocritical, partisan politician.


I'm fucking shocked.


So long as we have the two party system, northing's gonna change. Get used to it or help destroy it.

This type of post, far too common, both attempts to proclaim that one was never infected with the 'hope and change' virus, and far too accomodating to and accepting of this kind of corrupt, dishonest, foetid janissary of a major political party.

Why didn't you proclaim the same prior to the election?

 

[JBeukema]

YouTube - Obama on Presidential Signing Statements

Wow, a lying, hypocritical, partisan politician.


I'm fucking shocked.


So long as we have the two party system, northing's gonna change. Get used to it or help destroy it.

This type of post, far too common, both attempts to proclaim that one was never infected with the 'hope and change' virus, and far too accomodating to and accepting of this kind of corrupt, dishonest, foetid janissary of a major political party.

Why didn't you proclaim the same prior to the election?

I did. I have since long before the election.

And I was never an Obama supporter. The only candidate from either major party I ever considered supporting was Paul.

The Dems just ran a ****** and a **** so they could say 'It's not an old White guy! Come on, vote for a minority or you're a racist! Vote for Billary or you're a sexist! Come on!'

McCain can't keep his damned story straight about what he's supposed to stand for and the former 1/2 governor is was shown time and again to be too stupid to even remember the notes they gave her in her crash civics class.

None of them are fit to lead or represent and none of them give a damn about this country or her people.

 

[JBeukema]

Although what should we expect from you? You never did finish the quote.

 

[The Rabbi]

And signing statements that nullify the laws the President signs if the president deems it necessary?

Of course. Republicans pushed for the line item veto when Bush was in office.

The Line Item Veto is an unconstitutional shift of power from Congress to the President

A) No it isn't.
B) Actually the GOP pushed for it when Clinton was in office. So claiming they change their views based on who is the president is demonstrably wrong.
C) You are a fucktard.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Although what should we expect from you? You never did finish the quote.

Are you proudly proclaiming that you are unaware of the fact that the part that I quoted is emphasized by the second clause???

Dummy, the Constitution with a capital 'C' is not the same as 'constitutions', lower-case 'c.'

Time for you to apologize?

 

[Charles_Main]

I never liked this idea and was mad as hell when I heard this "theory". I dont believe any president should circumvent laws by putting his own spin on it. I thought Obama would do the same but so far he hasnt...and I'm wondering why?

it isn't a theory, it is a trend, and Obama HAS done the same!

List of President Obama's Signing Statements -

Yep and I still think it is wrong and unconstitutional.

I agree, See not all so called Republicans/Conservatives agree.

Go figure.

 

[Charles_Main]

Of course. Republicans pushed for the line item veto when Bush was in office.

The Line Item Veto is an unconstitutional shift of power from Congress to the President

A) No it isn't.
B) Actually the GOP pushed for it when Clinton was in office. So claiming they change their views based on who is the president is demonstrably wrong.
C) You are a fucktard.

A- is correct it is not unconstitutional, and I believe if the question went to the courts they would agree.

B-is not true man. Clinton wanted a line Item Veto and the Republicans would not give it to him. Both Parties want it, when they have the WH, and do not want it when they control congress,

C- no comment

D- My own 2 cents, if you hate ear marks and wasteful spending tucked onto unrelated bills, then you better be for a line item Veto.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Although what should we expect from you? You never did finish the quote.

"Since the Constitution could not officially be "stripped off and thrown aside," Wilson endorsed the emerging, Darwinian-inspired theory of a "living Constitution." For Wilson, this did not mean creatively applying original principles to situations the Framers had not imagined: It meant negating those principles whenever they stood in the way of the march of History, as manifested in the latest promising idea."
From Hegel to Wilson to Breyer | The Weekly Standard

 

[The Rabbi]

The Line Item Veto is an unconstitutional shift of power from Congress to the President

A) No it isn't.
B) Actually the GOP pushed for it when Clinton was in office. So claiming they change their views based on who is the president is demonstrably wrong.
C) You are a fucktard.

B-is not true man. Clinton wanted a line Item Veto and the Republicans would not give it to him. Both Parties want it, when they have the WH, and do not want it when they control congress,

.

You are a nitwit if that is the best you can do.
Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Public Law (P.L.) 104-130 [1] was introduced by Senator Bob Dole on 4 January 1995, cosponsored by Senator John McCain and 29 other senators. Related House Bills included H.R. 147, H.R. 391, H.R. 2,H.R. 27 and H.R. 3136. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on April 9, 1996 and was immediately challenged in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by a group of six senators, first among whom was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), where it was declared unconstitutional by District Judge Harry Jackson, a Reagan appointee, on April 10, 1997. The case was subsequently remanded by the Supreme Court of the United States with instructions to dismiss on the grounds that the senators had not suffered sufficient, particularized injury to maintain suit under Article III of the United States Constitution (i.e., the senators lacked standing). The case, Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), was handed down on June 26, 1997, and did not include a judgement on the constitutional grounds of the law.

Tell me again how in Israel the rabbinate is not in control of personal status issues.

Really no more than 30 seconds could have made you informed here.

 

[Charles_Main]

A) No it isn't.
B) Actually the GOP pushed for it when Clinton was in office. So claiming they change their views based on who is the president is demonstrably wrong.
C) You are a fucktard.

B-is not true man. Clinton wanted a line Item Veto and the Republicans would not give it to him. Both Parties want it, when they have the WH, and do not want it when they control congress,

.

You are a nitwit if that is the best you can do.
Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Public Law (P.L.) 104-130 [1] was introduced by Senator Bob Dole on 4 January 1995, cosponsored by Senator John McCain and 29 other senators. Related House Bills included H.R. 147, H.R. 391, H.R. 2,H.R. 27 and H.R. 3136. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on April 9, 1996 and was immediately challenged in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by a group of six senators, first among whom was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), where it was declared unconstitutional by District Judge Harry Jackson, a Reagan appointee, on April 10, 1997. The case was subsequently remanded by the Supreme Court of the United States with instructions to dismiss on the grounds that the senators had not suffered sufficient, particularized injury to maintain suit under Article III of the United States Constitution (i.e., the senators lacked standing). The case, Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), was handed down on June 26, 1997, and did not include a judgement on the constitutional grounds of the law.

Tell me again how in Israel the rabbinate is not in control of personal status issues.

What in gods name does that have to do with what I said.



From your own Quote

and did not include a judgement on the constitutional grounds of the law.

And all I said is I believe if the court did address it they would say it was constitutional.

As far as what I said about Republicans. How does what you posted dispute what I said at all. Just because 29 Republicans wanted it does not mean Republicans wanted it.

The truth is they wanted it, but not for Clinton. Which is exactly what I said.

Each party wants it when they have the WH, and is less than enthusiastic when they dont.

By the way, why do you have to resort to petty name calling in every post? Are you incapable of civil debate?