I am going to smoke some pot.
Do you think that I just broke the law?
I hope you didn't envision it. That would be a serious thoughtcrime.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I am going to smoke some pot.
Do you think that I just broke the law?
I don't know.. There's a lot of stupid people out there.
The voters are not going to fall for you saying that Obama said things he did not say, that Obama did things he did not do.
You are stupid enough to try this, the American people aren't stupid enough to fall for it.
There is nothing ILLEGAL about saying that you will break the law.
Only actually breaking it is illegal.
Feel free to cite the laws that Obama has actually broken.
Gee, how about you try just saying that you are going to blow up the Sears Tower and see how fast you get a friendly little call from you local SWAT team!
Are you really comparing Obama's signing statement with a threat of terrorism?
Let's try something:
I am going to smoke some pot.
Do you think that I just broke the law?
We already have a specific limit on what a President and the Executive can spend, it is called the delineated powers of the Constitution. Perhaps you should read it?
ONLY Congress can authorize tax payer money to be spent. ONLY Congress can approve it being spent. More importantly Congress can be as specific as they want on what will and will not be spent, on what programs for what salaries, etc etc. The President has ZERO authority to spend money that Congress has ordered him not to spend. The Executive has ZERO authority to ignore Congress, ZERO authority to spend money on things Congress has specifically said money will NOT be spent on.
Look up the term "unitary executive" and quit pretending that it is only just now an issue.
The Constitution dictates the authority and power of the three branches of Government, I have provided a link, link for us IN the Constitution where the President can spend money not granted by Congress, where the Executive can unilaterally declare a law or portions of a Law unconstitutional and ignore it.
The Executives recourse to any law they disagree with is to take it to Court. Or refuse to sign it.
True.As directed by the US Constitution, once a Law is signed by the President it IS the law of the land. The Executive has No power, no authority, no right, to violate said laws. Further since in the specific case in point the President DID in fact sign said law, he can not claim he disapproves of it or finds it Unconstitutional.
He can issue a signing statement of ANY kind that is invalid because it breaks the law. Such signing statements are null and void. There is no authority in the Constitution for the Executive to simply ignore the Law of the Land or the legal binding dictates of the Congress.
All a signing statement can do is clarify the Presidents position on how the Executive will FOLLOW the law.
That anyone thinks the President has the power to simply ignore laws of the land would be hilarious if not so frightening.
Part of checks and balances is the testing of limits. A president must be viligant to preserve the executive office and would be wrong in ignoring challenges. He hasn't seem to be expanding his powers, but attempting to preserve them. Not an Obama fan, but can't really fault him here.
Look up the term "unitary executive" and quit pretending that it is only just now an issue.
The Constitution dictates the authority and power of the three branches of Government, I have provided a link, link for us IN the Constitution where the President can spend money not granted by Congress, where the Executive can unilaterally declare a law or portions of a Law unconstitutional and ignore it.
The Executives recourse to any law they disagree with is to take it to Court. Or refuse to sign it.
This all didn't seem to be a problem for Ronald Reagan..did it? He directly violated congressional authority and funded the Contras.
Nor was it a problem for George W. Bush..who had something of a record with signing statements.
Now? It's a problem.
What's changed?
Gee, how about you try just saying that you are going to blow up the Sears Tower and see how fast you get a friendly little call from you local SWAT team!
Are you really comparing Obama's signing statement with a threat of terrorism?
Let's try something:
I am going to smoke some pot.
Do you think that I just broke the law?
Is it growing on your windowsill? Obviously my point went over your head like a 747.
Are you really comparing Obama's signing statement with a threat of terrorism?
Let's try something:
I am going to smoke some pot.
Do you think that I just broke the law?
Is it growing on your windowsill? Obviously my point went over your head like a 747.
Feel free to explain your "point" then.
Is it growing on your windowsill? Obviously my point went over your head like a 747.
Feel free to explain your "point" then.
You stated a generality which wasn't worth a damn. That was easy to illustrate.
There is nothing ILLEGAL about saying that you will break the law.
Only actually breaking it is illegal.
Feel free to cite the laws that Obama has actually broken.
They are all illegal as far as I am concerned but thanks to thirty years of neo-con political theory we now have them and will not be free of them as long as republicans have any say in the matter.
True.As directed by the US Constitution, once a Law is signed by the President it IS the law of the land. The Executive has No power, no authority, no right, to violate said laws. Further since in the specific case in point the President DID in fact sign said law, he can not claim he disapproves of it or finds it Unconstitutional.
Nor can Congress or the general public including you; only the courts can determine an act by the Executive or Legislative un-Constitutional.
He can issue a signing statement of ANY kind that is invalid because it breaks the law. Such signing statements are null and void. There is no authority in the Constitution for the Executive to simply ignore the Law of the Land or the legal binding dictates of the Congress.
All a signing statement can do is clarify the Presidents position on how the Executive will FOLLOW the law.
That anyone thinks the President has the power to simply ignore laws of the land would be hilarious if not so frightening.
We can assume youll exhibit similar aggressive condemnation when a future republican president does the exact same thing.
Part of checks and balances is the testing of limits. A president must be viligant to preserve the executive office and would be wrong in ignoring challenges. He hasn't seem to be expanding his powers, but attempting to preserve them. Not an Obama fan, but can't really fault him here.
Correct, and at least youre consistent. Indeed, acts of the Executive or Legislative are presumed Constitutional until determined otherwise by the courts.
The Constitution dictates the authority and power of the three branches of Government, I have provided a link, link for us IN the Constitution where the President can spend money not granted by Congress, where the Executive can unilaterally declare a law or portions of a Law unconstitutional and ignore it.
The Executives recourse to any law they disagree with is to take it to Court. Or refuse to sign it.
This all didn't seem to be a problem for Ronald Reagan..did it? He directly violated congressional authority and funded the Contras.
Nor was it a problem for George W. Bush..who had something of a record with signing statements.
Now? It's a problem.
What's changed?
I'm with you on Iran-Contra, but what laws did W break? besides the Plame affair; that's Cheney.
The Constitution dictates the authority and power of the three branches of Government, I have provided a link, link for us IN the Constitution where the President can spend money not granted by Congress, where the Executive can unilaterally declare a law or portions of a Law unconstitutional and ignore it.
The Executives recourse to any law they disagree with is to take it to Court. Or refuse to sign it.
This all didn't seem to be a problem for Ronald Reagan..did it? He directly violated congressional authority and funded the Contras.
Nor was it a problem for George W. Bush..who had something of a record with signing statements.
Now? It's a problem.
What's changed?
I'm with you on Iran-Contra, but what laws did W break? besides the Plame affair; that's Cheney.
When a President SPECIFICALLY STATES he will ignore the law and that he is the judge of what is and is not Constitutional in regards a law then NO one does not have to assume he is Constitutionally correct.
As directed by the US Constitution, once a Law is signed by the President it IS the law of the land. The Executive has No power, no authority, no right, to violate said laws. Further since in the specific case in point the President DID in fact sign said law, he can not claim he disapproves of it or finds it Unconstitutional.
He can issue a signing statement of ANY kind that is invalid because it breaks the law. Such signing statements are null and void. There is no authority in the Constitution for the Executive to simply ignore the Law of the Land or the legal binding dictates of the Congress.
All a signing statement can do is clarify the Presidents position on how the Executive will FOLLOW the law.
That anyone thinks the President has the power to simply ignore laws of the land would be hilarious if not so frightening.
Don't get me wrong here, I am not necessarily supporting anything, just pointing out that these executive powers that seem to be against the rules are the brainchildren and cherished tools of the republican party, they go hand-in-hand with the traditional republican view of how the president should act. Usually they absolutely fine with the president acting unilaterally as long as it is a republican but since it is Obama they now want to put them on hold until they get back in. They need to either take a stand and clearly redefine the office to be weaker or shut the hell up and wait for their turn at the wheel.
There is nothing ILLEGAL about saying that you will break the law.
Only actually breaking it is illegal.
Feel free to cite the laws that Obama has actually broken.
There is nothing ILLEGAL about saying that you will break the law.
Only actually breaking it is illegal.
Feel free to cite the laws that Obama has actually broken.
Gee, how about you try just saying that you are going to blow up the Sears Tower and see how fast you get a friendly little call from you local SWAT team!
Are you really comparing Obama's signing statement with a threat of terrorism?
Let's try something:
I am going to smoke some pot.
Do you think that I just broke the law?
The voters are not going to fall for you saying that Obama said things he did not say, that Obama did things he did not do.
You are stupid enough to try this, the American people aren't stupid enough to fall for it.
There is nothing ILLEGAL about saying that you will break the law.
Only actually breaking it is illegal.
Feel free to cite the laws that Obama has actually broken.
The War Powers Act.