Obama to Congress: I’ll decide what’s constitutional

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't give a fuck what a dead president did in the past, Do you fucking understand this? I care about what this goddamn president is doing. Do you understand this?

I think you had no idea this was common practice until now.

Did Reagan sign the NDAA?

 

[occupied]

I don't give a fuck what a dead president did in the past, Do you fucking understand this? I care about what this goddamn president is doing. Do you understand this?

I think you had no idea this was common practice until now.

Did Reagan sign the NDAA?

LOL, derailment fail.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think you had no idea this was common practice until now.

Did Reagan sign the NDAA?

LOL, derailment fail.

did Reagan sign the NDAA? You remember what the NDAA is don't you section 1021?

 

[g5000]

bigreb, I think there is more you don't understand.

Congress does not decide what is Constitutional. So if they pass a law and send it on to the President, he is on the exact same footing as they are in his opinion of that law.

So if he thinks Congress has overstepped its boundaries and encroached on his constitutional executive powers, he is not only allowed, he is obligated to say so.

He does this with a signing statement.

Most signing statements are along the lines of, "I congratulate Congress on passing this law." But once in a while a President will say, "Whoa! You are assuming powers that belong to the executive and I cannot abide by that."

That is not being a dictator. That is preserving the balance of powers.

So as I said, this is a very, very common back and forth that occurs between Presidents and Congresses.

Don't let your Obama Derangement Syndrome carry you away. Take a step back and acknowledge maybe you were wrong about this one.

 

[Liability]

The Executive Branch
The executive branch consists of the president, vice president and 15 Cabinet-level departments such as State, Defense, Interior, Transportation and Education. The primary power of the executive branch rests with the president, who chooses his vice president, and his Cabinet members who head the respective departments. A crucial function of the executive branch is to ensure that laws are carried out and enforced to facilitate such day-to-day responsibilities of the federal government as collecting taxes, safeguarding the homeland and representing the United States' political and economic interests around the world.

The Judicial Branch
The judicial branch consists of the United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Its primary function is to hear cases that challenge legislation or require interpretation of that legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court has nine Justices, who are chosen by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and have a lifetime appointment.

The Branches of Government

Citing somebody's standard and unexamined opinion is not exactly the same as supporting your point.

The CONSTITUTION said what the Court's role is. The COURT then took it upon themselves to make themselves the sole -- and exclusive -- arbiter of Constitutionality.

That was an over-reach then and it still is.

The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.
The Executive Branch | The White House

The President (font size of post notwithstanding) has the primary obligation to uphold the Constitution.

Look to the Constitution to see the OATH he is required to take upon becoming President.

Accordingly, he has ZERO obligation to enforce an Unconstitutional Law but a sworn duty to refuse to do so.

If he makes the bogus claim that a perfectly validly Constitutional law is "unconstitutional" as a way to avoid enforcing it, then the Courts might have to set his ass straight. But, if he is making a valid, careful assessment concerning the invalidity of some law on Constitutional grounds, then he is absolutely NOT obligated to give such a law any effect at all. Indeed, if he's right, he has an affirmative duty NOT to enforce it.

His calls on such matters are subject to review.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb, I think there is more you don't understand.

Congress does not decide what is Constitutional. So if they pass a law and send it on to the President, he is on the exact same footing as they are in his opinion of that law.

So if he thinks Congress has overstepped its boundaries and encroached on his constitutional executive powers, he is not only allowed, he is obligagted to say so.

He does this with a signing statements.

Most signing statements are along the lines of, "I congratulate Congress on passing this law." But once in a while a President will say, "Whoa! You are assuming powers that belong to the executive and I cannot abide by that."

That is not being a dictator. That is preserving the balance of powers.

So as I said, this is a very, very common back and forth that occurs between Presidents and Congresses.

Don't let your Obama Derangement Syndrome carry you away. Take a step back and acknowledge maybe you were wrong about this one.

There a lot more you never knew.
It's not obama's job to interpret it wasn't his job to lock American citizens up and hold them without a trial but now it is. How much more will the American people allow himn to get by with?
OH and the past president defense does not hold water to what is happening now.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Citing somebody's standard and unexamined opinion is not exactly the same as supporting your point.

The CONSTITUTION said what the Court's role is. The COURT then took it upon themselves to make themselves the sole -- and exclusive -- arbiter of Constitutionality.

That was an over-reach then and it still is.

The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.
The Executive Branch | The White House

The President (font size of post notwithstanding) has the primary obligation to uphold the Constitution.

Look to the Constitution to see the OATH he is required to take upon becoming President.

Accordingly, he has ZERO obligation to enforce an Unconstitutional Law but a sworn duty to refuse to do so.

If he makes the bogus claim that a perfectly validly Constitutional law is "unconstitutional" as a way to avoid enforcing it, then the Courts might have to set his ass straight. But, if he is making a valid, careful assessment concerning the invalidity of some law on Constitutional grounds, then he is absolutely NOT obligated to give such a law any effect at all. Indeed, if he's right, he has an affirmative duty NOT to enforce it.

His calls on such matters are subject to review.

SO YOUR DISAGREEING WITH WHITE HOUSE. GOV?
Well there's the burr in the saddle, when the president creates unconstitutional laws.

 

[occupied]

The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.
The Executive Branch | The White House

The President (font size of post notwithstanding) has the primary obligation to uphold the Constitution.

Look to the Constitution to see the OATH he is required to take upon becoming President.

Accordingly, he has ZERO obligation to enforce an Unconstitutional Law but a sworn duty to refuse to do so.

If he makes the bogus claim that a perfectly validly Constitutional law is "unconstitutional" as a way to avoid enforcing it, then the Courts might have to set his ass straight. But, if he is making a valid, careful assessment concerning the invalidity of some law on Constitutional grounds, then he is absolutely NOT obligated to give such a law any effect at all. Indeed, if he's right, he has an affirmative duty NOT to enforce it.

His calls on such matters are subject to review.

Well there's the burr in the saddle, when the president creates unconstitutional laws.

Did you sleep through civics class?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The President (font size of post notwithstanding) has the primary obligation to uphold the Constitution.

Look to the Constitution to see the OATH he is required to take upon becoming President.

Accordingly, he has ZERO obligation to enforce an Unconstitutional Law but a sworn duty to refuse to do so.

If he makes the bogus claim that a perfectly validly Constitutional law is "unconstitutional" as a way to avoid enforcing it, then the Courts might have to set his ass straight. But, if he is making a valid, careful assessment concerning the invalidity of some law on Constitutional grounds, then he is absolutely NOT obligated to give such a law any effect at all. Indeed, if he's right, he has an affirmative duty NOT to enforce it.

His calls on such matters are subject to review.

Well there's the burr in the saddle, when the president creates unconstitutional laws.

Did you sleep through civics class?

Did you? You must have or you would not be defending it.

 

[Wiseacre]

Citing somebody's standard and unexamined opinion is not exactly the same as supporting your point.

The CONSTITUTION said what the Court's role is. The COURT then took it upon themselves to make themselves the sole -- and exclusive -- arbiter of Constitutionality.

That was an over-reach then and it still is.

The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.
The Executive Branch | The White House

The President (font size of post notwithstanding) has the primary obligation to uphold the Constitution.

Look to the Constitution to see the OATH he is required to take upon becoming President.

Accordingly, he has ZERO obligation to enforce an Unconstitutional Law but a sworn duty to refuse to do so.

If he makes the bogus claim that a perfectly validly Constitutional law is "unconstitutional" as a way to avoid enforcing it, then the Courts might have to set his ass straight. But, if he is making a valid, careful assessment concerning the invalidity of some law on Constitutional grounds, then he is absolutely NOT obligated to give such a law any effect at all. Indeed, if he's right, he has an affirmative duty NOT to enforce it.

His calls on such matters are subject to review.

I always thought it was up to the Judicial Branch to determine what's constitutional and what isn't. The executive has no authority to make that call, and until any law is declared unconstitutional he has a sworn duty to uphold it whether he likes it or not.

 

[occupied]

Well there's the burr in the saddle, when the president creates unconstitutional laws.

Did you sleep through civics class?

Did you? You must have or you would not be defending it.

How does the president "create" unconstitutional laws?

 

[Wiseacre]

did you sleep through civics class?

did you? You must have or you would not be defending it.

how does the president "create" unconstitutional laws?

epa? Nlrb?

 

[occupied]

did you? You must have or you would not be defending it.

how does the president "create" unconstitutional laws?

epa? Nlrb?

There is difference between policy and law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Did you sleep through civics class?

Did you? You must have or you would not be defending it.

How does the president "create" unconstitutional laws?

By signing them

 

[occupied]

Did you? You must have or you would not be defending it.

How does the president "create" unconstitutional laws?

By signing them

How many times are republicans going to react in shock every time a signing statement is issued? It's starting to get ridiculous just how short your memories are.

 

[g5000]

There a lot more you never knew.
It's not obama's job to interpret it wasn't his job to lock American citizens up and hold them without a trial but now it is. How much more will the American people allow himn to get by with?
OH and the past president defense does not hold water to what is happening now.

Wow. You are covering up your embarassing ignorance by changing the subject? You started a topic about a spending bill with a gun control advocacy signing statement, and now you are jumping over to the NDAA?

Talk about moving the goalposts!

It so happens I am very much opposed to the NDAA. There have been at least two topics on that subject in the past 24 hours, and I have expressed my support of Ron Paul's position on the matter in both. Which I am pretty sure you know.

As for the "past president defense", it is called legal precedence, you buffoon!

 

[Liability]

How does the president "create" unconstitutional laws?

By signing them

How many times are republicans going to react in shock every time a signing statement is issued? It's starting to get ridiculous just how short your memories are.

Don't go hypocritical.

Democratics were aghast that "W" had the audacity to resort to signing statements.

Your memory is of very short duration, it seems.

 

[Liability]

The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.
The Executive Branch | The White House

The President (font size of post notwithstanding) has the primary obligation to uphold the Constitution.

Look to the Constitution to see the OATH he is required to take upon becoming President.

Accordingly, he has ZERO obligation to enforce an Unconstitutional Law but a sworn duty to refuse to do so.

If he makes the bogus claim that a perfectly validly Constitutional law is "unconstitutional" as a way to avoid enforcing it, then the Courts might have to set his ass straight. But, if he is making a valid, careful assessment concerning the invalidity of some law on Constitutional grounds, then he is absolutely NOT obligated to give such a law any effect at all. Indeed, if he's right, he has an affirmative duty NOT to enforce it.

His calls on such matters are subject to review.

I always thought it was up to the Judicial Branch to determine what's constitutional and what isn't. The executive has no authority to make that call, and until any law is declared unconstitutional he has a sworn duty to uphold it whether he likes it or not.

You always thought that because that's the way it has been taught. The SCOTUS itself declared as much.

My contention goes back a bit.

What does the Constitution itself say?

And who would AGREE to grant the SCOTUS such unilateral authority under the system of government we crafted (especially considering the REASONS we crafted it in that way)?

 

[g5000]

I always thought it was up to the Judicial Branch to determine what's constitutional and what isn't. The executive has no authority to make that call, and until any law is declared unconstitutional he has a sworn duty to uphold it whether he likes it or not.

You always thought that because that's the way it has been taught. The SCOTUS itself declared as much.

My contention goes back a bit.

Waht does the Constitution itself say?

And who would AGREE to grant the SCOTUS such unilateral authority under the system of government we crafted (especially considering the REASONS we crafted it in that way)?

In the context of the signing statement, Obama is entirely within his Constitutional duties.

 

[Liability]

I always thought it was up to the Judicial Branch to determine what's constitutional and what isn't. The executive has no authority to make that call, and until any law is declared unconstitutional he has a sworn duty to uphold it whether he likes it or not.

You always thought that because that's the way it has been taught. The SCOTUS itself declared as much.

My contention goes back a bit.

Waht does the Constitution itself say?

And who would AGREE to grant the SCOTUS such unilateral authority under the system of government we crafted (especially considering the REASONS we crafted it in that way)?

In the context of the signing statement, Obama is entirely within his Constitutional duties.

Actually, it's not that simple. In reality, it is debatable.

On balance, I do not object to signing statements.

But it can also be said that if a law is clearly in contravention of the Constitution, maybe a President would be better served by refusing to sign it.