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

[Polk]

Actually, part of his job IS to determine what is or is not Constitutional. (That is, it could be a good basis to veto a bill, for example.)

His problem is: he has no fucking clue about what qualifies something as Constitutional or unConstitutional.

That's the Courts role, you know that. He can Veto Anything he doesn't like, just because he doesn't agree with it. That is within his power. His Power is mostly Executive, Commander in Chief, and Presidential Order. For Each, he is accountable. Here, he is putting himself above the Court and many times over, Due Process and Oversight. He has decreed that the Rule of Law is what he says it is. His terms are a fail and a threat.

I feel queasy saying this, but Liability had it right. The President takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution. It is implicit to the furtherance of that responsibility that the President make determinations about how to interpret provisions. This is why the outrage over Bush's use of signing statements was overblown to some extent (though it was still an issue in cases where he simply said he'd ignore the plain text of the law).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

How many god damn times must I repeat this I do not give a fuck about what a past president did or did not do. My concern is what the current president is doing. DO WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING ON THIS?

 

[Polk]

Actually, part of his job IS to determine what is or is not Constitutional. (That is, it could be a good basis to veto a bill, for example.)

His problem is: he has no fucking clue about what qualifies something as Constitutional or unConstitutional.

No it is not his job is to make sure the law of the land is enforced, The Supreme court's job is to make sure what is Constitutional and what isn't.

Of course it's his job to make sure the law of the land is enforced. That's what the executive branch does. It applies the law.

 

[occupied]

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.

Oh I remember all right, in fact I remember republicans always pushing the boundaries of executive privilege time and again knowing that no president has ever refused the powers defined to him and no republican would ever dream of limiting those powers permanently. So they bitch and complain while democrats use the powers they demand while in office. It's the situation they created, they need to quit bitching before someone takes them seriously and actually reforms those powers they so dearly love.

 

[Polk]

What is with you people that can't read?

Where does Obama say "I will decide what is constitutional"?

I have advised Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient

The only mention of the Constitution is his "constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress's consideration".


The Constitution gives the President the responsibility to make recommendations that he feels are important.


Any other interpretation is so ludicrous that only sheep will believe it!

No it does not it's his job to ensure the law of the land is carried out, it's not his job to interpret anything.

Then, please, explain the role of the executive branch. You've already said it is not to enforce or interpret the law. It's also obvious not to write the law, as the legislative branch does that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually, part of his job IS to determine what is or is not Constitutional. (That is, it could be a good basis to veto a bill, for example.)

His problem is: he has no fucking clue about what qualifies something as Constitutional or unConstitutional.

That's the Courts role, you know that. He can Veto Anything he doesn't like, just because he doesn't agree with it. That is within his power. His Power is mostly Executive, Commander in Chief, and Presidential Order. For Each, he is accountable. Here, he is putting himself above the Court and many times over, Due Process and Oversight. He has decreed that the Rule of Law is what he says it is. His terms are a fail and a threat.

I feel queasy saying this, but Liability had it right. The President takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution. It is implicit to the furtherance of that responsibility that the President make determinations about how to interpret provisions. This is why the outrage over Bush's use of signing statements was overblown to some extent (though it was still an issue in cases where he simply said he'd ignore the plain text of the law).

The white house dot gov website disagree's


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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What is with you people that can't read?

Where does Obama say "I will decide what is constitutional"?





The only mention of the Constitution is his "constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress's consideration".


The Constitution gives the President the responsibility to make recommendations that he feels are important.


Any other interpretation is so ludicrous that only sheep will believe it!

No it does not it's his job to ensure the law of the land is carried out, it's not his job to interpret anything.

Then, please, explain the role of the executive branch. You've already said it is not to enforce or interpret the law. It's also obvious not to write the law, as the legislative branch does that.

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Oh I remember all right, in fact I remember republicans always pushing the boundaries of executive privilege time and again knowing that no president has ever refused the powers defined to him and no republican would ever dream of limiting those powers permanently. So they bitch and complain while democrats use the powers they demand while in office. It's the situation they created, they need to quit bitching before someone takes them seriously and actually reforms those powers they so dearly love.

Damn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! when your taken away will you say I remember what the republicans did? Will you care what a president did or didn't do from the past?

 

[Liability]

Actually, part of his job IS to determine what is or is not Constitutional. (That is, it could be a good basis to veto a bill, for example.)

His problem is: he has no fucking clue about what qualifies something as Constitutional or unConstitutional.

No it is not his job is to make sure the law of the land is enforced, The Supreme court's job is to make sure what is Constitutional and what isn't.

Of course it's his job to make sure the law of the land is enforced. That's what the executive branch does. It applies the law.

I hate to ruin Polk's day. But let's go one step further to illustrate a point.

I STIPULATE that a President's general job description involves enforcing the laws. On the other hand, he also has a DUTY to uphold the Constitution. Now let's add a goodly measure of THIS to the discussion. It is a TRUISM that any law passed that is in derogation of the Constitution is a nullity. It is void from jump street. It is -- in short -- no law at all.

Add these things together in the right proportions and stir and bake at 350 degrees for one hour or until golden brown. The result is: The President MUST not enforce a nominal "law" that is not really a law at all inasmuch as it violates the Constitution which he is obligated to uphold and protect. And he can't wait for a ruling from the SCOTUS refs, either. Their rulings come later. HE has to make the call. Now. He necessarily has the power and the authority to do so.

 

[occupied]

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.

Oh I remember all right, in fact I remember republicans always pushing the boundaries of executive privilege time and again knowing that no president has ever refused the powers defined to him and no republican would ever dream of limiting those powers permanently. So they bitch and complain while democrats use the powers they demand while in office. It's the situation they created, they need to quit bitching before someone takes them seriously and actually reforms those powers they so dearly love.

Damn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! when your taken away will you say I remember what the republicans did? Will you care what a president did or didn't do from the past?

A little late with the outrage, most of us have had a decade or more to get used to it. It's not going to change no matter who is in office so chill the hell out.

 

[Polk]

That's the Courts role, you know that. He can Veto Anything he doesn't like, just because he doesn't agree with it. That is within his power. His Power is mostly Executive, Commander in Chief, and Presidential Order. For Each, he is accountable. Here, he is putting himself above the Court and many times over, Due Process and Oversight. He has decreed that the Rule of Law is what he says it is. His terms are a fail and a threat.

I feel queasy saying this, but Liability had it right. The President takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution. It is implicit to the furtherance of that responsibility that the President make determinations about how to interpret provisions. This is why the outrage over Bush's use of signing statements was overblown to some extent (though it was still an issue in cases where he simply said he'd ignore the plain text of the law).

The white house dot gov website disagree's


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

How do you define that as disagreement? The White House website doesn't have a detailed history of presidential powers? Shocking. It's almost as if the stuff is designed for a mass audience.

To get some historic context:

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.

President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding the Bank of the United States; July 10, 1832

 

[g5000]

The white house dot gov website disagree's


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

You should have looked past the first page. The President's signing statements are on that website, too.

http://search.whitehouse.gov/search?affiliate=wh&query=signing+statements&form_id=usasearch_box


But hey, keep digging that hole you're in.

 

[Polk]

No it does not it's his job to ensure the law of the land is carried out, it's not his job to interpret anything.

Then, please, explain the role of the executive branch. You've already said it is not to enforce or interpret the law. It's also obvious not to write the law, as the legislative branch does that.

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

That wasn't what you were saying just a few minutes ago...

No it is not his job is to make sure the law of the land is enforced, The Supreme court's job is to make sure what is Constitutional and what isn't.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sounds like he is not going to let congress dictate policy to the executive branch. I wonder why he would do that?

Congress has sole power to determine what tax payer money will or will not be spent on. Not the Executive. He has no authority to sign a bill and then declare he finds it questionable under the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The white house dot gov website disagree's


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

You should have looked past the first page. The President's signing statements are on that website, too.

signing statements - The White House Search Results


But hey, keep digging that hole you're in.

You should look at whats there in front of you. the president does not have any authority to interpret laws he's the executor not the justice.

 

[Polk]

No it is not his job is to make sure the law of the land is enforced, The Supreme court's job is to make sure what is Constitutional and what isn't.

Of course it's his job to make sure the law of the land is enforced. That's what the executive branch does. It applies the law.

I hate to ruin Polk's day. But let's go one step further to illustrate a point.

I STIPULATE that a President's general job description involves enforcing the laws. On the other hand, he also has a DUTY to uphold the Constitution. Now let's add a goodly measure of THIS to the discussion. It is a TRUISM that any law passed that is in derogation of the Constitution is a nullity. It is void from jump street. It is -- in short -- no law at all.

Add these things together in the right proportions and stir and bake at 350 degrees for one hour or until golden brown. The result is: The President MUST not enforce a nominal "law" that is not really a law at all inasmuch as it violates the Constitution which he is obligated to uphold and protect. And he can't wait for a ruling from the SCOTUS refs, either. Their rulings come later. HE has to make the call. Now. He necessarily has the power and the authority to do so.

I would say he should veto the law in that case, but assuming the veto is overridden, I would concur.

 

[Liability]

Of course it's his job to make sure the law of the land is enforced. That's what the executive branch does. It applies the law.

I hate to ruin Polk's day. But let's go one step further to illustrate a point.

I STIPULATE that a President's general job description involves enforcing the laws. On the other hand, he also has a DUTY to uphold the Constitution. Now let's add a goodly measure of THIS to the discussion. It is a TRUISM that any law passed that is in derogation of the Constitution is a nullity. It is void from jump street. It is -- in short -- no law at all.

Add these things together in the right proportions and stir and bake at 350 degrees for one hour or until golden brown. The result is: The President MUST not enforce a nominal "law" that is not really a law at all inasmuch as it violates the Constitution which he is obligated to uphold and protect. And he can't wait for a ruling from the SCOTUS refs, either. Their rulings come later. HE has to make the call. Now. He necessarily has the power and the authority to do so.

I would say he should veto the law in that case, but assuming the veto is overridden, I would concur.

Ideally, I agree. But in a practical real-world scenario, that isn't always possible. Like a defense authorization bill might NEED to be signed even if some of the riders are a bunch of irrational and patently unconstitutional horseshit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then, please, explain the role of the executive branch. You've already said it is not to enforce or interpret the law. It's also obvious not to write the law, as the legislative branch does that.

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

That wasn't what you were saying just a few minutes ago...

No it is not his job is to make sure the law of the land is enforced, The Supreme court's job is to make sure what is Constitutional and what isn't.

It's not his job to interpret laws. It his his job to execute them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Of course it's his job to make sure the law of the land is enforced. That's what the executive branch does. It applies the law.

I hate to ruin Polk's day. But let's go one step further to illustrate a point.

I STIPULATE that a President's general job description involves enforcing the laws. On the other hand, he also has a DUTY to uphold the Constitution. Now let's add a goodly measure of THIS to the discussion. It is a TRUISM that any law passed that is in derogation of the Constitution is a nullity. It is void from jump street. It is -- in short -- no law at all.

Add these things together in the right proportions and stir and bake at 350 degrees for one hour or until golden brown. The result is: The President MUST not enforce a nominal "law" that is not really a law at all inasmuch as it violates the Constitution which he is obligated to uphold and protect. And he can't wait for a ruling from the SCOTUS refs, either. Their rulings come later. HE has to make the call. Now. He necessarily has the power and the authority to do so.

I would say he should veto the law in that case, but assuming the veto is overridden, I would concur.

A law cannot be vetoed a Bill can.

 

[Polk]

I hate to ruin Polk's day. But let's go one step further to illustrate a point.

I STIPULATE that a President's general job description involves enforcing the laws. On the other hand, he also has a DUTY to uphold the Constitution. Now let's add a goodly measure of THIS to the discussion. It is a TRUISM that any law passed that is in derogation of the Constitution is a nullity. It is void from jump street. It is -- in short -- no law at all.

Add these things together in the right proportions and stir and bake at 350 degrees for one hour or until golden brown. The result is: The President MUST not enforce a nominal "law" that is not really a law at all inasmuch as it violates the Constitution which he is obligated to uphold and protect. And he can't wait for a ruling from the SCOTUS refs, either. Their rulings come later. HE has to make the call. Now. He necessarily has the power and the authority to do so.

I would say he should veto the law in that case, but assuming the veto is overridden, I would concur.

Ideally, I agree. But in a practical real-world scenario, that isn't always possible. Like a defense authorization bill might NEED to be signed even if some of the riders are a bunch of irrational and patently unconstitutional horseshit.

This is the point at which we'll disagree. The President doesn't have the authority to chop legislation in to pieces. He doesn't have a line item veto (I think there is merit to the idea of amending the Constitution to give him on budgetary matters, but that's a different issue).