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

[Lovebears65]

Obama: I

 

[Billy000]

Obama: I

Spin.

 

[occupied]

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.

 

[Dragon]

There is a serious question whether foreign command can ever be constitutional.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a serious question whether foreign command can ever be constitutional.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[occupied]

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.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

 

[occupied]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

You are a partisan hack. Go ahead cite for us ANY signing Statement by a Republican President that specifically said " I will violate the law cause I disagree with it" Go ahead provide for us any ILLEGAL signing statements by Bush.

 

[occupied]

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.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

Ron Paul Had Accurate Conspiracy Theory: CIA Was Tied To Drug Traffickers

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Don't faint all at once libs.

 

[The Infidel]

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.

Just for the record.... I happen to be one of those 'Republicans' (for arguement sake) that want EVERY president to follow 'The Constitution'. Bush made me crazy quite often.

So it is not 'just now a problem'.... its not about Obama, it is about 'The Constitution'.

 

[The Infidel]

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.

Don't faint all at once libs.

As long as someone reigns him in... he can 'try' whatever he wants.

 

[Sunshine]

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!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?