Is a Constitutional Crisis on the way?

[Contumacious]

Is a Constitutional Crisis on the way?.

The EFFECTS of the UNconstitutional laws will WORSEN the Constitutional crisis begun in 1913,

.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

To be a bit more direct. In the Immigration crisis Texas is now taking matters into their own hands. They have told the POTUS to basically FO...................

How are they "taking matters into their own hands"? What are they doing, exactly?



Are we still talking about Obamacare? If so - the reason is pretty simple.

No one actually wants the law to be implemented as written.

The new EPA mandates without Congressional Consent. Tie his ass up in court again and force a delay on implementation and drag it out through appeals and requests for extensions until his butt is out of office.

EPA "mandates" have never needed Congressional consent.

1. Texas is raising funds and using these funds to protect the border. Patrol Boat the the Texas Department of Safety and using those personnel to guard the border. Texas has deployed the Guard for the same reason. They are now setting up detainment areas via tent cities.

2. "No one actually wants the law to be implemented as written" Then change the dang law.............They have to obey the law, or fix the dang thing. You can't have it both ways, and by refusing to follow the law you are in VIOLATION of our NATIONS LAWS. FIX IT.

3 The EPA. So says you. Cap and Trade was rejected. Using ancient Acts to justify doing anything you please is BS. They are an abuse of power. These new regulations should have SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL LAWS TO BACK THEM. They simply don't have that now.

1. In other words, they're doing the same thing on a state level that Obama is doing on a national level. How is that "taking it into their own hands"? Is Texas deporting people?

2. As you pointed out, the President can't "change the dang thing" on his own - and Congress hasn't exactly been cooperating with him. You'll notice that Congress didn't try to stop him when he actually did the extensions - they wanted those extensions as much as he did. But they also wanted to be able to attack him on it.

3. So says the Supreme Court, actually.

 

[eagle1462010]

How are they "taking matters into their own hands"? What are they doing, exactly?



Are we still talking about Obamacare? If so - the reason is pretty simple.

No one actually wants the law to be implemented as written.



EPA "mandates" have never needed Congressional consent.

1. Texas is raising funds and using these funds to protect the border. Patrol Boat the the Texas Department of Safety and using those personnel to guard the border. Texas has deployed the Guard for the same reason. They are now setting up detainment areas via tent cities.

2. "No one actually wants the law to be implemented as written" Then change the dang law.............They have to obey the law, or fix the dang thing. You can't have it both ways, and by refusing to follow the law you are in VIOLATION of our NATIONS LAWS. FIX IT.

3 The EPA. So says you. Cap and Trade was rejected. Using ancient Acts to justify doing anything you please is BS. They are an abuse of power. These new regulations should have SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL LAWS TO BACK THEM. They simply don't have that now.

1. In other words, they're doing the same thing on a state level that Obama is doing on a national level. How is that "taking it into their own hands"? Is Texas deporting people?

2. As you pointed out, the President can't "change the dang thing" on his own - and Congress hasn't exactly been cooperating with him. You'll notice that Congress didn't try to stop him when he actually did the extensions - they wanted those extensions as much as he did. But they also wanted to be able to attack him on it.

3. So says the Supreme Court, actually.

1. They are holding them for ICE, which is a Federal Job to begin with. They are working with the Border Agents in all of this.

2. Because it's a chit bill, but some of the changes are not legally binding. They shouldn't have wrote that BS into the law to begin with. But they don't have the authority to decide when and if they obey the laws of the land. The GOP will gladly help them get rid of those provisions..............so do it.

3. Every act hasn't been challenged. And this is another reason to have a Constitutional Convention of the States.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

1. Texas is raising funds and using these funds to protect the border. Patrol Boat the the Texas Department of Safety and using those personnel to guard the border. Texas has deployed the Guard for the same reason. They are now setting up detainment areas via tent cities.

2. "No one actually wants the law to be implemented as written" Then change the dang law.............They have to obey the law, or fix the dang thing. You can't have it both ways, and by refusing to follow the law you are in VIOLATION of our NATIONS LAWS. FIX IT.

3 The EPA. So says you. Cap and Trade was rejected. Using ancient Acts to justify doing anything you please is BS. They are an abuse of power. These new regulations should have SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL LAWS TO BACK THEM. They simply don't have that now.

1. In other words, they're doing the same thing on a state level that Obama is doing on a national level. How is that "taking it into their own hands"? Is Texas deporting people?

2. As you pointed out, the President can't "change the dang thing" on his own - and Congress hasn't exactly been cooperating with him. You'll notice that Congress didn't try to stop him when he actually did the extensions - they wanted those extensions as much as he did. But they also wanted to be able to attack him on it.

3. So says the Supreme Court, actually.

1. They are holding them for ICE, which is a Federal Job to begin with. They are working with the Border Agents in all of this.

2. Because it's a chit bill, but some of the changes are not legally binding. They shouldn't have wrote that BS into the law to begin with. But they don't have the authority to decide when and if they obey the laws of the land. The GOP will gladly help them get rid of those provisions..............so do it.

3. Every act hasn't been challenged. And this is another reason to have a Constitutional Convention of the States.

1. In other words, they're not taking anything into their own hands.

2. Why haven't they, then? If the GOP is so willing to do it, why haven't they?

3. Many of them have, though - and the Supreme Court has upheld almost all the EPA regulations that have come across the bench.

 

[eagle1462010]

Doc. This is what you get when a Temporary Majority goes amuk.............and passes laws as my way or the highway....................

The Dems have no one to blame but themselves on this..............They own it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Doc. This is what you get when a Temporary Majority goes amuk.............and passes laws as my way or the highway....................

The Dems have no one to blame but themselves on this..............They own it.

Well, you see it that way because you want it to be that way.

It's not true, though. Both sides are equally at fault.

 

[eagle1462010]

Doc. This is what you get when a Temporary Majority goes amuk.............and passes laws as my way or the highway....................

The Dems have no one to blame but themselves on this..............They own it.

Well, you see it that way because you want it to be that way.

It's not true, though. Both sides are equally at fault.

Obamacare went down party lines.

On immigration Bush helped encourage this by passing the laws on the children. With a Dem Congress to boot. And now sending mixed signals by Obama..........

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Doc. This is what you get when a Temporary Majority goes amuk.............and passes laws as my way or the highway....................

The Dems have no one to blame but themselves on this..............They own it.

Well, you see it that way because you want it to be that way.

It's not true, though. Both sides are equally at fault.

Obamacare went down party lines.

On immigration Bush helped encourage this by passing the laws on the children. With a Dem Congress to boot. And now sending mixed signals by Obama..........

You realize that the fact that Obamacare was passed straight down party lines proves my point?

In terms of the immigration issue, it's not anyone's fault.

 

[eagle1462010]

Well, you see it that way because you want it to be that way.

It's not true, though. Both sides are equally at fault.

Obamacare went down party lines.

On immigration Bush helped encourage this by passing the laws on the children. With a Dem Congress to boot. And now sending mixed signals by Obama..........

You realize that the fact that Obamacare was passed straight down party lines proves my point?

In terms of the immigration issue, it's not anyone's fault.

It proves my point as well. As the laws no one wants were passed by one party alone. Their theme song is All By Myself................which is why it's a BS law.

Immigration policy is the fault of both parties. Not to encourage more to come here as there are a couple of hundred million down there who might want to join them. The fault and cause is the massive poverty in Central America.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Obamacare went down party lines.

On immigration Bush helped encourage this by passing the laws on the children. With a Dem Congress to boot. And now sending mixed signals by Obama..........

You realize that the fact that Obamacare was passed straight down party lines proves my point?

In terms of the immigration issue, it's not anyone's fault.

It proves my point as well. As the laws no one wants were passed by one party alone. Their theme song is All By Myself................which is why it's a BS law.

Immigration policy is the fault of both parties. Not to encourage more to come here as there are a couple of hundred million down there who might want to join them. The fault and cause is the massive poverty in Central America.

See, here's the thing about Obamacare - all those Republicans who voted against it still helped write it. They still added plenty of pork for their districts, etc etc.

Politics is a lot more complicated than what the public consumes.

 

[OKTexas]

So they are seeking an injunction against Obama?

They are looking to set a precedent that the president can't just change the way a law is implement or enforced without the consent of congress. The ACA is just the easiest example of delaying implementation for political gain and the courts have the power to put a stop to it.

Don't get me wrong here.........I agree with you that he is in clear violation of the laws.

.....Federal Judge takes the case and rules against the POTUS and Federal Gov't for non-compliance with the law..............appeal appeal SCOTUS rules the same.................

Orders the Gov't to comply with the law.

Again, POTUS ignores them.............Just as he did a contempt charge on Oil Platform Permits in the Gulf of Mexico................

Then what........................

Then the case for impeachment is strong and the commies in the senate would have a hard time calling it a stunt or a political witch hunt. How would the justify a vote to acquit if he's in contempt of SCOTUS, I think that would qualify as a high crime.

 

[OKTexas]

To be a bit more direct. In the Immigration crisis Texas is now taking matters into their own hands. They have told the POTUS to basically FO...................

How are they "taking matters into their own hands"? What are they doing, exactly?

Why aren't the states doing the same and just implement the law completely in the States as the POTUS has no authority to change the law as he pleases. The changes are unlawful and against the Constitution. Therefore, they are invalid. Force the POTUS to sue the States instead.

Are we still talking about Obamacare? If so - the reason is pretty simple.

No one actually wants the law to be implemented as written.

The new EPA mandates without Congressional Consent. Tie his ass up in court again and force a delay on implementation and drag it out through appeals and requests for extensions until his butt is out of office.

EPA "mandates" have never needed Congressional consent.

Wrong answer there hero, EPA can only do things consistent with existing law, anything else requires legislation.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

To be a bit more direct. In the Immigration crisis Texas is now taking matters into their own hands. They have told the POTUS to basically FO...................

How are they "taking matters into their own hands"? What are they doing, exactly?



Are we still talking about Obamacare? If so - the reason is pretty simple.

No one actually wants the law to be implemented as written.

The new EPA mandates without Congressional Consent. Tie his ass up in court again and force a delay on implementation and drag it out through appeals and requests for extensions until his butt is out of office.

EPA "mandates" have never needed Congressional consent.

Wrong answer there hero, EPA can only do things consistent with existing law, anything else requires legislation.

"Existing law" is quite a broad category.

Which EPA regulations are not consistent with existing law?

 

[MaxGrit]

The lawsuit has nothing to do with EOs.

Please explain it then Doctor...............

It stems from his ignoring and extending hard deadlines in the ACA law, essentially rewriting the law, which he has no authority to do.

Per Constitution the Executive has authority to execute laws. All O is doing is not executing those provisions until later.

 

[OKTexas]

How are they "taking matters into their own hands"? What are they doing, exactly?



Are we still talking about Obamacare? If so - the reason is pretty simple.

No one actually wants the law to be implemented as written.



EPA "mandates" have never needed Congressional consent.

Wrong answer there hero, EPA can only do things consistent with existing law, anything else requires legislation.

"Existing law" is quite a broad category.

Which EPA regulations are not consistent with existing law?

Existing law does not allow them to regulate carbon dioxide that was done by the courts, which they have no more power to amend existing law than the president. Of course they seem to lack that knowledge as they have demonstrated many times.

 

[eagle1462010]

Please explain it then Doctor...............

It stems from his ignoring and extending hard deadlines in the ACA law, essentially rewriting the law, which he has no authority to do.

Per Constitution the Executive has authority to execute laws. All O is doing is not executing those provisions until later.

The law was had a specific date...........

 

[MaxGrit]

To be a bit more direct. In the Immigration crisis Texas is now taking matters into their own hands. They have told the POTUS to basically FO...................

Why aren't the states doing the same and just implement the law completely in the States as the POTUS has no authority to change the law as he pleases. The changes are unlawful and against the Constitution. Therefore, they are invalid. Force the POTUS to sue the States instead.

The new EPA mandates without Congressional Consent. Tie his ass up in court again and force a delay on implementation and drag it out through appeals and requests for extensions until his butt is out of office.

That is one method. The Federal Government is monstrous beast.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Wrong answer there hero, EPA can only do things consistent with existing law, anything else requires legislation.

"Existing law" is quite a broad category.

Which EPA regulations are not consistent with existing law?

Existing law does not allow them to regulate carbon dioxide that was done by the courts, which they have no more power to amend existing law than the president. Of course they seem to lack that knowledge as they have demonstrated many times.

So, you're gonna go with the "I know better than the SCOTUS does" argument?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The lawsuit has nothing to do with EOs.

Please explain it then Doctor...............

It stems from his ignoring and extending hard deadlines in the ACA law, essentially rewriting the law, which he has no authority to do.

Incorrect.

The president did not 'ignore' any deadlines with regard to the ACA, and the president 'rewrote' no laws, nor did he 'violate' any laws:

According to the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, the delay is based on the Treasury Department’s “transition relief” authority under Section 7805(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, which has been used to delay the application of new mandates of this kind by prior administrations (including the Bush administration) on a number of prior occasions.

Boehner lawsuit against Obama: ?There?s no there there? - The Washington Post

In Sunday's Washington Post, Bush II Health & Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt concurred*that "The [Obama] Administration's decision to delay the employer mandate was wise," in light of the Bush Administration's initially bumpy but ultimately successful phase-in of the 2004 prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Though "wise," is the current postponement "illegal"? On the contrary, Treasury's Mazur wrote to Chair Upton, such temporary postponements of tax reporting and payment requirements are routine, citing numerous examples of such postponements by Republican and Democratic administrations when statutory deadlines proved unworkable.

In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion.

Delaying Parts of Obamacare: 'Blatantly Illegal' or Routine Adjustment? - The Atlantic

Consequently, Boehner's 'lawsuit' is completely devoid of merit, given the fact President Obama acted in accordance with the law and legal precedent authorizing the delay of implementation of regulatory policy.

 

[MaxGrit]

It stems from his ignoring and extending hard deadlines in the ACA law, essentially rewriting the law, which he has no authority to do.

Per Constitution the Executive has authority to execute laws. All O is doing is not executing those provisions until later.

The law was had a specific date...........

Do you realize how I see our government in history? Branches oo whatsoever even without prior precedence and grab power.

Look at how the Courts have a portion of the legislative power to make new laws.

Or how we have a Bureaucratic form of government.