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

[Greenbeard]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama: I

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.

 

[elvis]

Obama: I

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.

I don't know.. There's a lot of stupid people out there.

 

[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!

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.

 

[Sallow]

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.

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?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

True.

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 you’ll 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 you’re consistent. Indeed, acts of the Executive or Legislative are presumed Constitutional until determined otherwise by the courts.

 

[elvis]

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?

I'm with you on Iran-Contra, but what laws did W break? besides the Plame affair; that's Cheney.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Feel free to explain your "point" then.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

You stated a generality which wasn't worth a damn. That was easy to illustrate.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

No, my statement stands.

Threats of terrorism or violence are, in themselves, "breaking the law".

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Wrong as usual. A signing Statement is nothing more then a clarification from the President on how he intends to implement or run Executive orders or Departments. They are perfectly legal as the President controls ( By the Constitution) the Executive branch.

I repeat, cite for us a signing statement from Bush that specifically stated he intended to break the law. Or admit you are a political hack that will defend even illegal actions as long as your guy does them.

 

[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.

True.

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 you’ll 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 you’re consistent. Indeed, acts of the Executive or Legislative are presumed Constitutional until determined otherwise by the courts.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Cheney had nothing to do with Plame. The person that outed her admitted he did it and that he was NOT told to do so by Cheney. Care to cite for us a court case where anyone was even accused of outing her?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Reagan did not use tax payer funds and further we know from the testimony of a Congressional witch hunt he did not even know how it was funded. You see I watched the supposed fair and impartial hearings on that Congressional witch hunt. Or perhaps you can cite for us a court case where he was charged? Or perhaps a document from Congress accusing him of it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

This makes no difference, the Executive may state whatever he likes, specifically or not – constitutionality is determined by the courts only per judicial review. Whether one assumes the actions Constitutional or not is irrelevant; nor are those who infer constitutionality wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Grow up. If these are the cherished tools of the Republican party, why have so many Republicans spoken out against them? What they are are cherished tools of the assholes who sit in the Oval Office, which is why Congress is always making an issue of it, no matter which party the president is. Some partisan jerks applaud the president doing this when a president from their party is in control, but neither party actually likes it, and most politicians in Congress hate it no matter what because it takes away their power.

Blaming the party you don't like just makes you look really stupid, which isn't that hard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

My opinion on whether you broke the law won't matter if a SWAT team breaks into your house and "accidently" shoots you. If it makes you feel better, I will think they should be charged with murder, another opinion which will not really matter, because they will probably get a medal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama: I

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.

This from the guy that thinks I am a Republican.

 

[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.

The War Powers Act.

Someone could probably make a case for that. Then again, someone could make a case for nearly every other President we've had since the War Powers Act violating it as well.

That's why nothing will ever come of it - if it comes to that, the War Powers Act will end up before the Supreme Court.

And neither side wants that to happen.