Obama Dares GOP: Go Ahead, ‘Have a Vote on Whether What I’m Doing Is Legal…I Will Veto’

[I.P.Freely]

Only as good as the Congress that is willing or not to take the illegalities on, as well as a doj to follow the Constitution.

So let me get this straight libs...if the pres can veto anything and everything,what good are checks and balances?

So we only get this with a total breakdown of government?
Never have I seen such disregard of the wishes of the American people.

Hell, he told Border Patrol that if they enforce the law, instead of ignoring it as he has decreed, their jobs and benefits are on the line, because "it's the right thing to do".

Congress had just as soon disband.

Congress is worthless as tits on a boar.

Dont know about you but I'm getting tired of being treated like a second class citizen in my own damn country.
We should give obama what he wants...a shooting war. Because I'm not seeing any other way to put an end to this bullshit.

Time will end his regime.

And he has given the next Republican President unprecedented powers.

next republican president

 

[depotoo]

I keep hoping they have a plan, we don't know about. But we have to make it known we want them to do their jobs they were elected to do. Make sure we show up at the polls. In states that allow open primaries, they need to be petitioned to be closed, as much manipulation goes on there. And we need to make inroads to the middle third, through factual evidence. And some degree of compromise has to be fashioned, as much as we don't like it, some works in our favor, rather than none.

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/TIGTA-Testimony.pdf
I don't know. Fortunately, as hard as they have tried to stop this investigation, they haven't been able to. And reading some of the testimony shows they are keeping under wraps some things that could hamper it. Here is a link to more of the testimony. It is a clean pdf.

It is real interesting that the irs removed their email servers to their own buildings from the federal building in 2011.

What needs to be done is things of this sort need to be shouted out within the walls of the internet and everyone else who is willing to listen and look at the body of evidence thus far. It is damning and those on the other side need to realize one day they could be victim to such behavior themselves, if they don't scream for this type of behavior to be stopped.

I used to find this type of video encouraging.
But after watching nothing come of them over the years my optimism has faded.
It'll get swept under the rug and nothing will come of it....just like always.

The problem as I see it is that the damage is done.
These people wont go to jail and we still have an America that is screwed up beyond belief.
How do you fix that when republicans ignore the reason they were elected?

 

[Oldstyle]

We have a Supreme Court who have the job of determining legalities such as what is being discussed. It's time for them to do that job and rule on the legalities of the things that President Obama is doing with Executive Actions since he lost control of the Congress.

 

[depotoo]

Did you hear the documents recovered from OBL, only 10% were even gone through? It was shut down, to delve deeper, due to, possibly, implications of this administrations want of an agreement with Iran.

 

[Jarhead]

.

So the GOP is saying it's going to have some kind of vote on the legality of Obama's actions, and Obama says he's going to veto the vote.

Clear as mud.

.

They are not voting on legislation. A president can veto legislation. What congress wants to do is take the minds of the legislative body and determine if, in fact, it is the view of the voted upon US legislative body, that his executive order was legal and within the confines of the US Constitution. He can veto their vote if he wants, but it will not change the findings of the legislative body.

If he were not arrogant, and truly wanted to ensure that his action was legal, he would welcome the vote and, if in fact, the vote shows a majority sees it as illegal...and if it is a bi partisan finding...he should sit down with the legislative body and discuss it.

Not simply say "I will veto it".

It is not how it is supposed to work...albeit, the law is written in a way where it may allow it...but when the law was written, it assumed the President would be a man or woman who was willing to ensure his or her actions were within the constraints of the constitution.

They did not expect a man as President with the attitude of "I am the smarte3st man in the land so what the majority of you guys says is irrelevant.

But that is what we have. Elections have consequences.

 

[Jarhead]

We have a Supreme Court who have the job of determining legalities such as what is being discussed. It's time for them to do that job and rule on the legalities of the things that President Obama is doing with Executive Actions since he lost control of the Congress.

I do not know the number...but I believe I heard 9 of his executive actions were deemed as unconstitutional....am I correct?

 

[Stephanie]

You people voted in Republicans to take charge of things and shut down Obama.

SO WHEN are you going to start SPEAKING UP?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Spoken like a true tyrant. Lawless Obama is gutter water and a cancer on Amercia

-Geaux
-------------------------

Pres. Obama is daring Republicans to vote on whether or not his executive actions are legal.

Discussing opposition to his executive amnesty orders at an immigration town hall Wednesday, Obama said he would veto the vote because his actions are “the right thing to do”:

“So in the short term, if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.”

Obama Dares GOP Go Ahead Have a Vote on Whether What I m Doing Is Legal I Will Veto MRCTV

When did the veto become illegal?

Because lawmakers rule his action illegal

-Geaux

lol. You're an idiot. Keep posting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

Presidents can veto a vote?

.

In a way. It's in Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution - for those folks who love to talk about the Constitution but just can't seem to get around to actually reading it.

Because whether something is legal or not is up for debate. Yet Obama's comments about the right thing to do are irrelevant and based on emotion.

-Geaux

They're impeaching the president?

lol, link us to that..

 

[depotoo]

I am not sure how many, but there have been a number of them. Before him, there had only ever been 2.

We have a Supreme Court who have the job of determining legalities such as what is being discussed. It's time for them to do that job and rule on the legalities of the things that President Obama is doing with Executive Actions since he lost control of the Congress.

I do not know the number...but I believe I heard 9 of his executive actions were deemed as unconstitutional....am I correct?

 

[PratchettFan]

.

Presidents can veto a vote?

.

In a way. It's in Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution - for those folks who love to talk about the Constitution but just can't seem to get around to actually reading it.

Because whether something is legal or not is up for debate. Yet Obama's comments about the right thing to do are irrelevant and based on emotion.

-Geaux

No, it is not up for debate. If something is legal or not is a matter to be determined by the Judicial branch of the government. The Congress can make a law to make something the President is doing illegal, but not retroactively. And the President can veto that bill. That's how the government works and it doesn't suddenly work some other way just because your guy didn't get elected.

The only person basing an argument on emotion is you.

Whether something is legal or not doesn't make it right.

But as your dear leader said... Its the right thing to do

-Geaux

Whether something is "right" or not is a matter of opinion. I don't consider it unexpected the President would do something he thought was right as opposed to something he thought was wrong. The President is expected to exercise the powers of the Presidency. That is what he is paid to do. No President does that with the full agreement of the citizenry. There is always going to be some who think his policies are bad. Those people have the option of voting for someone else the next election.

 

[Jarhead]

.

Presidents can veto a vote?

.

In a way. It's in Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution - for those folks who love to talk about the Constitution but just can't seem to get around to actually reading it.

Because whether something is legal or not is up for debate. Yet Obama's comments about the right thing to do are irrelevant and based on emotion.

-Geaux

No, it is not up for debate. If something is legal or not is a matter to be determined by the Judicial branch of the government. The Congress can make a law to make something the President is doing illegal, but not retroactively. And the President can veto that bill. That's how the government works and it doesn't suddenly work some other way just because your guy didn't get elected.

The only person basing an argument on emotion is you.

Whether something is legal or not doesn't make it right.

But as your dear leader said... Its the right thing to do

-Geaux

Whether something is "right" or not is a matter of opinion. I don't consider it unexpected the President would do something he thought was right as opposed to something he thought was wrong. The President is expected to exercise the powers of the Presidency. That is what he is paid to do. No President does that with the full agreement of the citizenry. There is always going to be some who think his policies are bad. Those people have the option of voting for someone else the next election.

missing the point.

He can not veto a finding.

The vote is for a finding.

He is well aware that President may misinterpret the law as he believed Bush did with waterboarding and whether or not it was torture.

So why say "I will veto" a vote that may show a heavy bipartisan majority finding it was illegal? Shouldn't he be willing to listen?

It is his holier than thou...smartest man in the land attitude that concerns me.

 

[PratchettFan]

In a way. It's in Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution - for those folks who love to talk about the Constitution but just can't seem to get around to actually reading it.

Because whether something is legal or not is up for debate. Yet Obama's comments about the right thing to do are irrelevant and based on emotion.

-Geaux

No, it is not up for debate. If something is legal or not is a matter to be determined by the Judicial branch of the government. The Congress can make a law to make something the President is doing illegal, but not retroactively. And the President can veto that bill. That's how the government works and it doesn't suddenly work some other way just because your guy didn't get elected.

The only person basing an argument on emotion is you.

Whether something is legal or not doesn't make it right.

But as your dear leader said... Its the right thing to do

-Geaux

Whether something is "right" or not is a matter of opinion. I don't consider it unexpected the President would do something he thought was right as opposed to something he thought was wrong. The President is expected to exercise the powers of the Presidency. That is what he is paid to do. No President does that with the full agreement of the citizenry. There is always going to be some who think his policies are bad. Those people have the option of voting for someone else the next election.

missing the point.

He can not veto a finding.

The vote is for a finding.

He is well aware that President may misinterpret the law as he believed Bush did with waterboarding and whether or not it was torture.

So why say "I will veto" a vote that may show a heavy bipartisan majority finding it was illegal? Shouldn't he be willing to listen?

It is his holier than thou...smartest man in the land attitude that concerns me.

I am not missing the point. Of course he can't veto a finding. Frankly, I'm not sure there is any such thing. If the Congress is going to actually do something, all they can do is pass a bill. A finding has no legal weight of any kind. The President doesn't have to veto it, he can just ignore it. So I am assuming what the President meant was he will veto any bill sent to him that would render what he is doing illegal.

His attitude does not concern me. I really don't think the Presidency is a place for someone with a small ego. Whether or not I agree with a President's policies, I'd prefer he was forceful rather than weak about them.

 

[Jarhead]

Because whether something is legal or not is up for debate. Yet Obama's comments about the right thing to do are irrelevant and based on emotion.

-Geaux

No, it is not up for debate. If something is legal or not is a matter to be determined by the Judicial branch of the government. The Congress can make a law to make something the President is doing illegal, but not retroactively. And the President can veto that bill. That's how the government works and it doesn't suddenly work some other way just because your guy didn't get elected.

The only person basing an argument on emotion is you.

Whether something is legal or not doesn't make it right.

But as your dear leader said... Its the right thing to do

-Geaux

Whether something is "right" or not is a matter of opinion. I don't consider it unexpected the President would do something he thought was right as opposed to something he thought was wrong. The President is expected to exercise the powers of the Presidency. That is what he is paid to do. No President does that with the full agreement of the citizenry. There is always going to be some who think his policies are bad. Those people have the option of voting for someone else the next election.

missing the point.

He can not veto a finding.

The vote is for a finding.

He is well aware that President may misinterpret the law as he believed Bush did with waterboarding and whether or not it was torture.

So why say "I will veto" a vote that may show a heavy bipartisan majority finding it was illegal? Shouldn't he be willing to listen?

It is his holier than thou...smartest man in the land attitude that concerns me.

I am not missing the point. Of course he can't veto a finding. Frankly, I'm not sure there is any such thing. If the Congress is going to actually do something, all they can do is pass a bill. A finding has no legal weight of any kind. The President doesn't have to veto it, he can just ignore it. So I am assuming what the President meant was he will veto any bill sent to him that would render what he is doing illegal.

His attitude does not concern me. I really don't think the Presidency is a place for someone with a small ego. Whether or not I agree with a President's policies, I'd prefer he was forceful rather than weak about them.

what I put in bold...

You should have simply said "I have no idea about what he said"...as opposed to debating it.

You obviously have no idea what took place.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, it is not up for debate. If something is legal or not is a matter to be determined by the Judicial branch of the government. The Congress can make a law to make something the President is doing illegal, but not retroactively. And the President can veto that bill. That's how the government works and it doesn't suddenly work some other way just because your guy didn't get elected.

The only person basing an argument on emotion is you.

Whether something is legal or not doesn't make it right.

But as your dear leader said... Its the right thing to do

-Geaux

Whether something is "right" or not is a matter of opinion. I don't consider it unexpected the President would do something he thought was right as opposed to something he thought was wrong. The President is expected to exercise the powers of the Presidency. That is what he is paid to do. No President does that with the full agreement of the citizenry. There is always going to be some who think his policies are bad. Those people have the option of voting for someone else the next election.

missing the point.

He can not veto a finding.

The vote is for a finding.

He is well aware that President may misinterpret the law as he believed Bush did with waterboarding and whether or not it was torture.

So why say "I will veto" a vote that may show a heavy bipartisan majority finding it was illegal? Shouldn't he be willing to listen?

It is his holier than thou...smartest man in the land attitude that concerns me.

I am not missing the point. Of course he can't veto a finding. Frankly, I'm not sure there is any such thing. If the Congress is going to actually do something, all they can do is pass a bill. A finding has no legal weight of any kind. The President doesn't have to veto it, he can just ignore it. So I am assuming what the President meant was he will veto any bill sent to him that would render what he is doing illegal.

His attitude does not concern me. I really don't think the Presidency is a place for someone with a small ego. Whether or not I agree with a President's policies, I'd prefer he was forceful rather than weak about them.

what I put in bold...

You should have simply said "I have no idea about what he said"...as opposed to debating it.

You obviously have no idea what took place.

What took place was a speech.

 

[Dan Daly]

Spoken like a true tyrant. Lawless Obama is gutter water and a cancer on Amercia

-Geaux
-------------------------

Pres. Obama is daring Republicans to vote on whether or not his executive actions are legal.

Discussing opposition to his executive amnesty orders at an immigration town hall Wednesday, Obama said he would veto the vote because his actions are “the right thing to do”:

“So in the short term, if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.”

Obama Dares GOP Go Ahead Have a Vote on Whether What I m Doing Is Legal I Will Veto MRCTV

Cool, then I have no problem telling the government to go fk themselves over any law or regulation I don't agree with because hey, I am confident that it's the right thing to do.

 

[Oldstyle]

Because whether something is legal or not is up for debate. Yet Obama's comments about the right thing to do are irrelevant and based on emotion.

-Geaux

No, it is not up for debate. If something is legal or not is a matter to be determined by the Judicial branch of the government. The Congress can make a law to make something the President is doing illegal, but not retroactively. And the President can veto that bill. That's how the government works and it doesn't suddenly work some other way just because your guy didn't get elected.

The only person basing an argument on emotion is you.

Whether something is legal or not doesn't make it right.

But as your dear leader said... Its the right thing to do

-Geaux

Whether something is "right" or not is a matter of opinion. I don't consider it unexpected the President would do something he thought was right as opposed to something he thought was wrong. The President is expected to exercise the powers of the Presidency. That is what he is paid to do. No President does that with the full agreement of the citizenry. There is always going to be some who think his policies are bad. Those people have the option of voting for someone else the next election.

missing the point.

He can not veto a finding.

The vote is for a finding.

He is well aware that President may misinterpret the law as he believed Bush did with waterboarding and whether or not it was torture.

So why say "I will veto" a vote that may show a heavy bipartisan majority finding it was illegal? Shouldn't he be willing to listen?

It is his holier than thou...smartest man in the land attitude that concerns me.

I am not missing the point. Of course he can't veto a finding. Frankly, I'm not sure there is any such thing. If the Congress is going to actually do something, all they can do is pass a bill. A finding has no legal weight of any kind. The President doesn't have to veto it, he can just ignore it. So I am assuming what the President meant was he will veto any bill sent to him that would render what he is doing illegal.

His attitude does not concern me. I really don't think the Presidency is a place for someone with a small ego. Whether or not I agree with a President's policies, I'd prefer he was forceful rather than weak about them.

If only this President was as "forceful" with foreign policy as he is dealing with the opposition party! Just saying...

 

[Jarhead]

No, it is not up for debate. If something is legal or not is a matter to be determined by the Judicial branch of the government. The Congress can make a law to make something the President is doing illegal, but not retroactively. And the President can veto that bill. That's how the government works and it doesn't suddenly work some other way just because your guy didn't get elected.

The only person basing an argument on emotion is you.

Whether something is legal or not doesn't make it right.

But as your dear leader said... Its the right thing to do

-Geaux

Whether something is "right" or not is a matter of opinion. I don't consider it unexpected the President would do something he thought was right as opposed to something he thought was wrong. The President is expected to exercise the powers of the Presidency. That is what he is paid to do. No President does that with the full agreement of the citizenry. There is always going to be some who think his policies are bad. Those people have the option of voting for someone else the next election.

missing the point.

He can not veto a finding.

The vote is for a finding.

He is well aware that President may misinterpret the law as he believed Bush did with waterboarding and whether or not it was torture.

So why say "I will veto" a vote that may show a heavy bipartisan majority finding it was illegal? Shouldn't he be willing to listen?

It is his holier than thou...smartest man in the land attitude that concerns me.

I am not missing the point. Of course he can't veto a finding. Frankly, I'm not sure there is any such thing. If the Congress is going to actually do something, all they can do is pass a bill. A finding has no legal weight of any kind. The President doesn't have to veto it, he can just ignore it. So I am assuming what the President meant was he will veto any bill sent to him that would render what he is doing illegal.

His attitude does not concern me. I really don't think the Presidency is a place for someone with a small ego. Whether or not I agree with a President's policies, I'd prefer he was forceful rather than weak about them.

If only this President was as "forceful" with foreign policy as he is dealing with the opposition party! Just saying...

it doesn't take forcefulness to deal with the opposing party when you are president. It takes the ability to be president and work for all of the people. Not just a select few.

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama has replaced the US Constitution, our laws, and our representatives in congress with his "It was the right thing to do" doctrine, wow.

 

[Jarhead]

Obama has replaced the US Constitution, our laws, and our representatives in congress with his "It was the right thing to do" doctrine, wow.

his two favorite lines:

"it was the right thing to do"

"commonsense solutions"

They both mean the same thing...

"I am the smartest man in the land and I know what is best for all"