Discussion in 'Politics' started by Lovebears65, Dec 30, 2011.
Like I said yesterday on this same topic, If the republicans are serious about limiting the power of the executive branch then do it permanently. These temporary measures meant to limit Obama's executive power but to leave them in place for a future republican president are beneath contempt. Republicans made these extended executive powers but they only want republicans to wield them, make a bill that expressly addresses the war powers act and the way the executive branch can spend and perhaps I will support it, but it will not happen, the republicans will not make a big deal of it and these powers are further legitimized.
No, there isn't. The chain of command is from the President to whomever he delegates. Foreign command is only unconstitutional if exercised without the President's authorization.
When did we rewrite the constitution? It was unconstitutional for 200 years, yet you think it is a good idea now because Obama is president.
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.
Here is a link.
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People
Provide for us the relevant passage, clause or section that delineates to the President or the Executive the right to spend money not apportioned or authorized by Congress.
Look up the term "unitary executive" and quit pretending that it is only just now an issue.
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.