Obama: I’ll Break the Laws and Keep Violating the Constitutition

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Lovebears65, Dec 30, 2011.

  1. Lovebears65
    Offline

    Lovebears65 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    6,258
    Thanks Received:
    1,468
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +2,034
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Billy000
    Online

    Billy000 Democratic Socialist

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,131
    Thanks Received:
    1,240
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +4,264
    Spin.
     
  3. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,366
    Thanks Received:
    2,243
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,714
    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.
     
  4. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    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.
     
  5. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,508
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    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.
     
  7. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,508
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    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.
     
  8. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,366
    Thanks Received:
    2,243
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,714
    Look up the term "unitary executive" and quit pretending that it is only just now an issue.
     
  9. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,508
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,508
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    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.
     

Share This Page