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

[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?

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.

While I think I agree with you in spirit, I think we might have veered off the topic I was talking about a little bit.

 

[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.

True.

Nor can Congress or the general public – including you; only the courts can determine an act by the Executive or Legislative un-Constitutional.

Wrong. Anyone can determine it, which is why it happens every single day. Obama recently decided that DOMA was unconstitutional, I don't remember you screaming and crying because he did not have the authority to do that.

By the way, if we actually accepted that only the courts can do it you would still be wrong. The 9th has ruled things unconstitutional quite often, most of them are still constitutional though because SCOTUS has over ruled them more often than not. That would indicate to me that only SCOTUS could make that decision, not any court.

We can assume you’ll exhibit similar aggressive condemnation when a future republican resident does the exact same thing.

After you condemn Obama for doing it right now you will be free to assume anything you want. Until then, I will just assume you are a liar

 

[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.

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.

It is true that every president stretches it a little further, most past the point of breaking it, and that it will never actually get to court. It does not change the fact that I had no problem naming a law Obama has broken.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

While I think I agree with you in spirit, I think we might have veered off the topic I was talking about a little bit.

That wouldn't matter to the police.

I am being snarky, so feel free to ignore me.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

It is true that every president stretches it a little further, most past the point of breaking it, and that it will never actually get to court. It does not change the fact that I had no problem naming a law Obama has broken.

You're right.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

Lying about citizenship to get elected. The healthcare bill he pushed on us. Too many to name. I am tired.

 

[elvis]

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?

So because he was never accused, it means he didn't do it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

So because he was never accused, it means he didn't do it?

Under our laws it means you are committing Libel when you make a statement of fact when the REAL facts are that the person that DID Out her was not charged and was not ordered to do so by Cheney. a 3 year investigation and the only thing they could claim was perjury and not even perjury in regards the original complaint.

By the way check out Federal law, it is ILLEGAL under Federal law to base an entire investigation on perjury alone. The prosecuting Attorney violated the very law he was supposed to enforce.

No one was EVER charged with outing Plame. NO ONE. Not even the guy that admitted he did it. The US Attorney violated the law by conducting a 2 year investigation to only charge perjury.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

So because he was never accused, it means he didn't do it?

So because he was accused and there is absolutely no evidence he did it he is guilty?

 

[elvis]

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?

So because he was never accused, it means he didn't do it?

Under our laws it means you are committing Libel when you make a statement of fact when the REAL facts are that the person that DID Out her was not charged and was not ordered to do so by Cheney. a 3 year investigation and the only thing they could claim was perjury and not even perjury in regards the original complaint.

By the way check out Federal law, it is ILLEGAL under Federal law to base an entire investigation on perjury alone. The prosecuting Attorney violated the very law he was supposed to enforce.

No one was EVER charged with outing Plame. NO ONE. Not even the guy that admitted he did it. The US Attorney violated the law by conducting a 2 year investigation to only charge perjury.

So you're libeling the us attorney here since he was never accused of violating us law ?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So because he was never accused, it means he didn't do it?

Under our laws it means you are committing Libel when you make a statement of fact when the REAL facts are that the person that DID Out her was not charged and was not ordered to do so by Cheney. a 3 year investigation and the only thing they could claim was perjury and not even perjury in regards the original complaint.

By the way check out Federal law, it is ILLEGAL under Federal law to base an entire investigation on perjury alone. The prosecuting Attorney violated the very law he was supposed to enforce.

No one was EVER charged with outing Plame. NO ONE. Not even the guy that admitted he did it. The US Attorney violated the law by conducting a 2 year investigation to only charge perjury.

So you're libeling the us attorney here since he was never accused of violating us law ?

No my facts support the charge. He conducted 2 years of a 3 year investigation for the sole purpose of charging someone with Perjury. THAT is AGAINST Federal Law. Of course he wasn't charged. Just like when cops kill the wrong guy in a botched raid, no one is ever charged.

But back to the point... according to you, with absolutely no evidence you have decided because someone accused Cheney that makes him guilty. No charges ever filed. No evidence to support the claim.

 

[Sunshine]

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?

So because he was never accused, it means he didn't do it?

Under our laws it means you are committing Libel when you make a statement of fact when the REAL facts are that the person that DID Out her was not charged and was not ordered to do so by Cheney. a 3 year investigation and the only thing they could claim was perjury and not even perjury in regards the original complaint.

By the way check out Federal law, it is ILLEGAL under Federal law to base an entire investigation on perjury alone. The prosecuting Attorney violated the very law he was supposed to enforce.

No one was EVER charged with outing Plame. NO ONE. Not even the guy that admitted he did it. The US Attorney violated the law by conducting a 2 year investigation to only charge perjury.

Public figures and libel:

Public figure is a legal term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth[1] ). The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure.


The controlling precedent in the United States was set in 1964 by the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. It is considered a key decision in supporting the First Amendment and freedom of the press.

A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate people to public figure status. Typically, they must either be:

a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted.
According to attorney Aaron Larson,[citation needed][2]

A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established... A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, [jokes about]... Terry Rakolta [an activist who spearheaded a boycott of the show Married With Children] were fair comments... within the confines of her public conduct [and] protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

Public figure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Full-Auto]

Obama: I

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Grow up, QWB: Bush used signing declarations from the get go.

Presidents from both parties do it, and they should be forbidden by law from doing so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Grow up, QWB: Bush used signing declarations from the get go.

Presidents from both parties do it, and they should be forbidden by law from doing so.

Wow, a master of the obvious. I am impressed.

NOT

If you go back and actually read my post you will see where I said that signing statements are the cherished tools of the assholes who sit in the Oval Office. That, in case you have difficulty, includes James Monroe, the very first president to use signing statements, and every president since then, including Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then point at everybody equally, bright eyes, instead of trying to make it sound as if Obama is doing something brand new and diabolical. You are certainly not the Professor Moriarity of this thread.