Does the POTUS have the right, as Pres & CinC, to violate the law & Bill of Rights?

[Mustang]

Stated again a little more clearly than the subject line allows...

Does the President of the United States have the right, as both President and Commander in Chief to break the law or violate the Constitutional protections afforded to Americans under the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 Amendments to the US Constitution?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Perhaps if you explain how he is doing so?

 

[saveliberty]

Sounds like your fishing for a specific application. The Constitution doesn't allow it. That doesn't mean violations can't happen and the President may or may not suffer the consequences.

 

[Charles_Main]

Stated again a little more clearly than the subject line allows...

Does the President of the United States have the right, as both President and Commander in Chief to break the law or violate the Constitutional protections afforded to Americans under the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 Amendments to the US Constition?

Not going to participate in the silly poll. Lets just say this. The only time the President has such Power would be if there was a National Emergency and he declared Marshal Law. The Constitution allows for Temporary suspensions of certain Rights in a national Emergency, through the Declaration of marshal law.

 

[Mustang]

Perhaps if you explain how he is doing so?

At its heart, this is a Constitutional question. As such, the specific laws that are (assumed to be) broken by this or any other president are less relevant than whether or not the president has a right to do so as president and commander in chief.

 

[Mustang]

Stated again a little more clearly than the subject line allows...

Does the President of the United States have the right, as both President and Commander in Chief to break the law or violate the Constitutional protections afforded to Americans under the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 Amendments to the US Constition?

Not going to participate in the silly poll. Lets just say this. The only time the President has such Power would be if there was a National Emergency and he declared Marshal Law. The Constitution allows for Temporary suspensions of certain Rights in a national Emergency, through the Declaration of marshal law.

Sounds like you're participating.

 

[Clementine]

Sounds like your fishing for a specific application. The Constitution doesn't allow it. That doesn't mean violations can't happen and the President may or may not suffer the consequences.

Correct. Our basic rights are unconditional, not subject to the whims of any dictator.

 

[Mustang]

While there are only five votes (1 conservative, two liberals, and two independents/moderates), they're all no votes.

 

[saveliberty]

Yet we still have the Patriot Act...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Stated again a little more clearly than the subject line allows...

Does the President of the United States have the right, as both President and Commander in Chief to break the law or violate the Constitutional protections afforded to Americans under the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 Amendments to the US Constition?

That depends on who you ask. Obama, like every other president, says yes. Almost everyone else says no.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Stated again a little more clearly than the subject line allows...

Does the President of the United States have the right, as both President and Commander in Chief to break the law or violate the Constitutional protections afforded to Americans under the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 Amendments to the US Constition?

You left out the options:

Conservative Presidents - NO
Liberal Presidents - YES

 

[Intense]

Stated again a little more clearly than the subject line allows...

Does the President of the United States have the right, as both President and Commander in Chief to break the law or violate the Constitutional protections afforded to Americans under the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 Amendments to the US Constition?

That depends on who you ask. Obama, like every other president, says yes. Almost everyone else says no.

Here is what our response should look like every time He ignores the Constitution.


===========================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,
Respondents.
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Eleventh Circuit
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------




http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Supreme Court FL Obamacare Amicus.pdf

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sounds like your fishing for a specific application. The Constitution doesn't allow it. That doesn't mean violations can't happen and the President may or may not suffer the consequences.

Correct. Our basic rights are unconditional, not subject to the whims of any dictator.

You beat me too it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

While there are only five votes (1 conservative, two liberals, and two independents/moderates), they're all no votes.

I didn't vote by checking a box, I voted by stating my belief. Rights are protected and cannot be lost without due process of the law. I don't give a fuck who is president they have no right to do it.

 

[Mustang]

Stated again a little more clearly than the subject line allows...

Does the President of the United States have the right, as both President and Commander in Chief to break the law or violate the Constitutional protections afforded to Americans under the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 Amendments to the US Constition?

You left out the options:

Conservative Presidents - NO
Liberal Presidents - YES

This is not, at least it should not be, a partisan issue. This is not about Republican versus Democrat or conservative versus liberal. Anyone who tries to paint it that way is doing a disservice to the constitutional question at hand and is actually debasing the debate. And the reason for that is simple. Whether one answers yes or no to the question (and I hope anyone who answers yes can actually cite the justification(s) why they voted that way), then the answer is yes, regardless of which party is in control of the presidency.

 

[Mustang]

Stated again a little more clearly than the subject line allows...

Does the President of the United States have the right, as both President and Commander in Chief to break the law or violate the Constitutional protections afforded to Americans under the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 Amendments to the US Constition?

That depends on who you ask. Obama, like every other president, says yes. Almost everyone else says no.

Here is what our response should look like every time He ignores the Constitution.


===========================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,
Respondents.
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Eleventh Circuit
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------




http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Supreme Court FL Obamacare Amicus.pdf

What I gather from a brief reading of Levin's law firm's legal brief is that he is challenging the constitutionality of the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (which is commonly referred to as Obamacare). That was a Bill that Congress passed and President Obama signed into law. The constitionality of that law will be decided in the SC, probably next year.

However, that law is not a single act of the President of the United States acting under his sole authority as president and commander in chief. A better example, if you could find one, would be an executive order, issued by any president, that either violates the law, or denies someone or some group, their rights under the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution

 

[Liability]

Perhaps if you explain how he is doing so?

At its heart, this is a Constitutional question. As such, the specific laws that are (assumed to be) broken by this or any other president are less relevant than whether or not the president has a right to do so as president and commander in chief.

Not really. Such "questions" tend to be VERY much fact-specific.

What YOU might label a "violation" of "law," others may contend was NEVER a real "law" in the first place, for example.

And what YOU might contend was a violation of the Constitution, OTHERS might contend was never a violation in the first place.

So, yeah. It ALL comes down -- on a very much case by case basis -- to the FACTS of the specific case.

 

[Mustang]

Perhaps if you explain how he is doing so?

At its heart, this is a Constitutional question. As such, the specific laws that are (assumed to be) broken by this or any other president are less relevant than whether or not the president has a right to do so as president and commander in chief.

Not really. Such "questions" tend to be VERY much fact-specific.

What YOU might label a "violation" of "law," others may contend was NEVER a real "law" in the first place, for example.

And what YOU might contend was a violation of the Constitution, OTHERS might contend was never a violation in the first place.

So, yeah. It ALL comes down -- on a very much case by case basis -- to the FACTS of the specific case.

That's not necessarily so. Just because some people yell, "unconstitutional" every time something happens that they don't like, doesn't make it so.

Nixon CLEARLY broke the law with the Watergate burglary, the subsequent coverup and slush fund payments, and then engaged in obstruction of justice by trying to deny Congress their constitutional right to investigate the matter.

There was no ambiguity in that case, at all.

 

[Intense]

That depends on who you ask. Obama, like every other president, says yes. Almost everyone else says no.

Here is what our response should look like every time He ignores the Constitution.


===========================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,
Respondents.
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Eleventh Circuit
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------




http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Supreme Court FL Obamacare Amicus.pdf

What I gather from a brief reading of Levin's law firm's legal brief is that he is challenging the constitutionality of the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (which is commonly referred to as Obamacare). That was a Bill that Congress passed and President Obama signed into law. The constitionality of that law will be decided in the SC, probably next year.

However, that law is not a single act of the President of the United States acting under his sole authority as president and commander in chief. A better example, if you could find one, would be an executive order, issued by any president, that either violates the law, or denies someone or some group, their rights under the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution

He has allot more influence than you are giving him credit for in relation to Health Care Legislation. Plenty of example there of ignoring Law and Precedent. His finger prints are all over that. In relation to Executive Orders, in relation to Drone Attacks and flying over Sovereign Territory, He is way off of the Reservation. I guess he is practicing for when he becomes Caliphate.

 

[Intense]

At its heart, this is a Constitutional question. As such, the specific laws that are (assumed to be) broken by this or any other president are less relevant than whether or not the president has a right to do so as president and commander in chief.

Not really. Such "questions" tend to be VERY much fact-specific.

What YOU might label a "violation" of "law," others may contend was NEVER a real "law" in the first place, for example.

And what YOU might contend was a violation of the Constitution, OTHERS might contend was never a violation in the first place.

So, yeah. It ALL comes down -- on a very much case by case basis -- to the FACTS of the specific case.

That's not necessarily so. Just because some people yell, "unconstitutional" every time something happens that they don't like, doesn't make it so.

Nixon CLEARLY broke the law with the Watergate burglary, the subsequent coverup and slush fund payments, and then engaged in obstruction of justice by trying to deny Congress their constitutional right to investigate the matter.

There was no ambiguity in that case, at all.

It was from that case that Hillary both learned to use a paper shredder, and to forget details. That sure saved her ass, later.