O's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013

[Kosh]

Saw where are you from? Al-Kosh?

Yemen or Saudi Arabia?

In either case watch out for Drones..

Could be fatal.

And the far left Obama drones continue on with their personal attacks as they have no fact s to back up their belief in their messiah Obama.

What personal attack?

You should be proud of your Arabic heritage.

Again the far left Obama drone trolling continues without posting any facts.

 

[Sallow]

Hey, dipshit. I quoted the ACA, not the Senator. Looks like you are the one who does not know what is in it.

I provided the letters exchanged between Sebelius and some Democrats to show Sebelius is using the "hardship exemption" in the ACA as her justification.


Seriously, you should stick to your robotic one-liners.

Gotta give it to Al-Kosh.

His English isn't that bad.

I couldn't make heads or tails of his native language.

And still no sense of individuality from the far left Obama drones.

And still has not posted on fact to support their belief n their messiah Obama.

What's messiah?

Sound's middle eastern.

Oh yeah..that another Arabic thingie..right?

 

[Kosh]

Gotta give it to Al-Kosh.

His English isn't that bad.

I couldn't make heads or tails of his native language.

And still no sense of individuality from the far left Obama drones.

And still has not posted on fact to support their belief n their messiah Obama.

What's messiah?

Sound's middle eastern.

Oh yeah..that another Arabic thingie..right?

Trollin, Trollin, Trollin, rawhide!

 

[Sallow]

And the far left Obama drones continue on with their personal attacks as they have no fact s to back up their belief in their messiah Obama.

What personal attack?

You should be proud of your Arabic heritage.

Again the far left Obama drone trolling continues without posting any facts.

Okay.

How about you post some facts.

Like what part of Saudi Arabia you were born in?

Was it sandy?

 

[Kosh]

What personal attack?

You should be proud of your Arabic heritage.

Again the far left Obama drone trolling continues without posting any facts.

Okay.

How about you post some facts.

Like what part of Saudi Arabia you were born in?

Was it sandy?

Still no facts from the far left Obama drone trolls.

 

[Flopper]

Nothing about all that is unconstitutional. Disagreeable, but not unconstitutional.

No, the president is supposed to execute the laws. Obama is not executing the laws. He is making law. That is unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers basis for the government,

Article 2, Section 3: he (the president) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

The Administrative Procedure Act recognized that there are legitimate reasons for delaying a law and recognizes that unreasonable delays are illegal.

You're welcome to your opinion although I doubt the courts are likely to agree with you because Congress has given the president a lot of discretion in implementing and interpreting laws.

Republicans have done everything possible to subvert the law and then call it unconstitutional when Obama does exactly what they have been trying to do.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nothing about all that is unconstitutional. Disagreeable, but not unconstitutional.

No, the president is supposed to execute the laws. Obama is not executing the laws. He is making law. That is unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers basis for the government,

Article 2, Section 3: he (the president) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

The Administrative Procedure Act recognized that there are legitimate reasons for delaying a law and recognizes that unreasonable delays are illegal.

You're welcome to your opinion although I doubt the courts are likely to agree with you because Congress has given the president a lot of description in implementing and interpreting laws.

Republicans have done everything possible to subvert the law and then call it unconstitutional when Obama does exactly what they have been trying to do.

Saying I will not enforce a law is not faithfully executing it. Sorry.
Another flop.

 

[SwimExpert]

Nothing about all that is unconstitutional. Disagreeable, but not unconstitutional.

No, the president is supposed to execute the laws. Obama is not executing the laws. He is making law. That is unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers basis for the government,

The President and executive agencies also have discretion in the execution of those laws. Nothing in the above is an action that creates law. It is simply an exercise of discretion in how forcefully it will execute the laws. THAT is what separation of powers is all about. If the Framers wanted 100% of laws to be executed with 100% force 100% of the time, they would have given enforcement power to Congress. But that's not what they did. Executive discretion allows the President to exercise a degree of check over the Congress. And we should be grateful for that fact. The next President can take a significant dent out of the Obamacare catastrophe even if Congress fails to repeal it. But that will take a Republican President. And in order to make that happen in 2016, we need focus on the failures of current policies and present ourselves a real, better alternative. Grasping at straws in an effort to sensationalize things has repeated failed us.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's not Unconstitutional to change the law without actually passing legislation by way of the Constitutionally-prescribed method? Please explain this to me.

It's not a question of changing law. It's a matter of discretion in enforcing the law. This discretion up to the Executive. It's the reason why the federal government can (and should) cease enforcing marijuana laws in states that have legalized it. It's the reason why the federal government can choose to not devote very much effort or resources to enforce immigration laws (even though I strongly disapprove of this).

Does Obama deserve criticism for not fully enforcing laws? Probably. But when it comes to Obamacare, I support him delaying enforcement.

 

[bripat9643]

Nothing about all that is unconstitutional. Disagreeable, but not unconstitutional.

No, the president is supposed to execute the laws. Obama is not executing the laws. He is making law. That is unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers basis for the government,

The President and executive agencies also have discretion in the execution of those laws. Nothing in the above is an action that creates law. It is simply an exercise of discretion in how forcefully it will execute the laws. THAT is what separation of powers is all about. If the Framers wanted 100% of laws to be executed with 100% force 100% of the time, they would have given enforcement power to Congress. But that's not what they did. Executive discretion allows the President to exercise a degree of check over the Congress. And we should be grateful for that fact. The next President can take a significant dent out of the Obamacare catastrophe even if Congress fails to repeal it. But that will take a Republican President. And in order to make that happen in 2016, we need focus on the failures of current policies and present ourselves a real, better alternative. Grasping at straws in an effort to sensationalize things has repeated failed us.

You claim to be a Republican and even a conservative, but you're always defending Obama and the DimoRATs.

Why is that?

 

[DiamondDave]

You can recognize a true psychopath as one who thinks waterboarding is not torture but believes Obama should be impeached for extending an insurance mandate deadline.

1) Waterboarding is not torture
2) As soldiers we were put thru worse things than waterboarding in various aspects of training
3) There are indeed types of water torture
4) Some of your stories do not specifically deal with water boarding
5) Actions against constitutionally charged powers and against constitutional limits are indeed impeachable offenses.. whether the legislative branch moves forward is another story.. an impeachable offense does not have to be the 'worst crime' nor is it reliant upon other things you don't like

 

[SwimExpert]

You claim to be a Republican and even a conservative, but you're always defending Obama and the DimoRATs.

Why is that?

I'm not always defending Obama. I've had plenty to say about Obama being a bad President. What I have no interest in excusing is logically flawed and/or strategically ineffective modes of criticism. Sensationalism and overzealous fanaticism has fared very poorly for the Republicans. It has worked against us, and has been a source of Democrats' ammunition. We need to face reality. These tactics do not have a positive effect among those people we need to convince. They are only appealing to those who are already convinced. Two way elections are not won this way. They are won by showing centrists and independents that we are capable of being reasonable, that we have reasonable effective plans to move the country forward, and that our plans are more effective than what the Democrats have in store. The birther stuff didn't win anything. The 47% stuff didn't win anything. All it did was close off rational voters from the Republican cause. They didn't want to hear anything else after that kind of nonsense.

Valid criticism: Obamacare will lead to more expensive health insurance

Foolish criticism: Obamacare will include death panels

Valid criticism: You can't keep the plan you like afterall

Foolish criticism: Obama purposely lied about keeping your plan to get Obamacare passed (Obama did not have does not have any power to cause or prevent insurers from canceling plans)

Valid criticism: Obama ought to have anticipated that insurers would respond by canceling policies and repricing them, and not have made predictions that were out of his hands in the first place

 

[Avorysuds]

Actually the far left Obama drone (you) is comparing Obama to Bush.

However you have shown with your own link that Bush was far more tame than Obama.

Leave it to the far left mindset to think they have proven otherwise.

Bush made clear in his signing statements he did not feel he needed to follow the laws passed by Congress.

Were any of you demanding his impeachment for that?


Didn't think so.

Why the fuck are you talking about Bush? Why not talk about any President, king, dictator then....? Why limit your derailing to Bush?

 

[williepete]

Why the fuck are you talking about Bush?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, the president is supposed to execute the laws. Obama is not executing the laws. He is making law. That is unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers basis for the government,

Article 2, Section 3: he (the president) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

The Administrative Procedure Act recognized that there are legitimate reasons for delaying a law and recognizes that unreasonable delays are illegal.

You're welcome to your opinion although I doubt the courts are likely to agree with you because Congress has given the president a lot of description in implementing and interpreting laws.

Republicans have done everything possible to subvert the law and then call it unconstitutional when Obama does exactly what they have been trying to do.

Saying I will not enforce a law is not faithfully executing it. Sorry.
Another flop.

I can only guess that posts like that are why he calls himself "Flopper".

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's not Unconstitutional to change the law without actually passing legislation by way of the Constitutionally-prescribed method? Please explain this to me.

It's not a question of changing law. It's a matter of discretion in enforcing the law. This discretion up to the Executive. It's the reason why the federal government can (and should) cease enforcing marijuana laws in states that have legalized it. It's the reason why the federal government can choose to not devote very much effort or resources to enforce immigration laws (even though I strongly disapprove of this).

Does Obama deserve criticism for not fully enforcing laws? Probably. But when it comes to Obamacare, I support him delaying enforcement.

Sorry, Charlie, but the talking point du jour is not going to fly here. "Discretion in enforcing the law" is saying, "Littering isn't as vital a concern to public safety as murder, and therefore we will not put as much manpower onto littering task forces as we do hunting down serial killers". It is NOT "The law says THIS, but fuck it, we're going to do this instead".

And I honestly don't give a flying fuck whether or not you "support" him rewriting laws on the fly to suit himself or not. You halfwit drooling leftists always think, "But it's a good idea!" is somehow a relevant point in a discussion of what's legal and what's not. If it was really a good idea, you'd be able to muster enough support to actually do it LEGALLY. If you can't do that, then no matter how wonderful you personally think it is, the fact that it's ILLEGAL automatically makes it a bad idea.

If you still can't grasp the basic, inherent logic there, let me break it down for you: there are lots of things you would personally hate that whole boatloads of people on the right think would be wonderful, and even essential, for the public good. Would you be okay with a Republican President simply deciding, on his own and without benefit of legislation, to implement those things?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

See, you let Bush use the Constitution as toilet paper all that time, and now you are shocked, shocked at the imperious attitudes that have been passed to his Executive successor? Really?

You make up imaginary slippery slopes about gay marriage, and it turns out for eight years you were building a very real one for the Presidency.

Reap what you have sown, coma boys and girls.

BOOOOOOOSHHHH!!


That's the only defense the left has.

 

[williepete]

Lawless



December 27, 2013 12:00 AM

Obamacare Whac-A-Mole
Problems with the law pop up faster than the administration can bat them down.
By Mona Charen

The wheels began to come off Obamacare in 2011, when the administration announced that the CLASS Act, a provision to provide long-term disability care, was, in the words of Kathleen Sebelius, “totally unsustainable” and would be discontinued.

What was the problem? The White House website had boasted that: “No taxpayer funds will be used to pay benefits under this provision. . . . Safeguards will be put in place to ensure its premiums are enough to cover its costs.”

“Safeguards.” Sounds quaint now, doesn’t it, a bit like “If you like your plan . . . ” So why did HHS kill it? Because former senator Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) had inserted a provision requiring that the CLASS Act be entirely self-sustaining and ineligible for government subsidies. (Yes, wouldn’t it be sublime if most laws contained such a provision?) Because it contained neither a mandate to purchase insurance nor a taxpayer subsidy, most of those who enrolled would be those who expected to need disability care. Sound familiar?

At least the administration actually got Congress’s agreement to scrap that piece of the legislation (it was repealed as part of the fiscal-cliff deal at the start of 2013). As for the rest of the law, the administration is flinging whole chapters over the side without so much as a nod toward its coequal branch.

No one can safely plan in this environment. Jay Carney’s declarations have a shelf life of hours, not weeks, but the more lasting damage inheres in the idea that law can be dictated by the White House. The changes are not matters of implementation, but structural elements going to the heart of the law. The administration feels free to issue such changes — though doing so violates at the very least the Administrative Procedure Act and arguably the Constitution — because this president has successfully flouted the law since 2009.

Bankruptcy law was ignored in the auto bailout. Secured creditors were undermined in favor of unions purely on the president’s say-so. After the Gulf oil spill, the administration, without any authority, summarily ordered BP to set aside $20 billion for restitution. In the pre-Obama world, that would have been the province of the courts. Obama behaved like a dictator, and few protested. He then issued a moratorium on all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico — again, without authority. The president demonstrated the same contempt for law and procedure when he made flagrantly unlawful recess appointments.

Regarding Obamacare, the administration has issued 1,231 waivers to unions, businesses, trade associations, and others. In a display of government by decree, the administration has delayed or altered the law no fewer than 14 times (as of this writing).

After a string of denials, HHS announced that employers would not be required to offer health insurance until 2015 instead of 2014 as the law provides. Next, Obama decreed that small businesses would not have to enroll in online exchanges next year. HHS high-handedly ruled that next year’s enrollment deadline for individuals would be November 15, not October 15 (can’t imagine why). After the outcry over canceled policies, the president unilaterally allowed that insurers could go ahead and offer last year’s policies. Accelerating retractions and corrections come daily now — most without legal foundation. Individuals can take an extra week to sign up for plans; those who’ve had their policies canceled can sign up for “catastrophic” policies. It all depends upon Obama’s whim.

This last bit of executive caprice creates the illogical and utterly unjust outcome that people who could not afford insurance at all in 2013 are still subject to the mandate, whereas those who did have insurance but saw their plans canceled are not. The law contains a “hardship exemption” from the individual mandate, which had included the homeless, members of Indian tribes, those who’d filed for bankruptcy within the previous six months, and so forth. Now, according to the White House, having your insurance plan canceled because of Obamacare is itself a hardship. They’re getting warmer.

The president and his secretary of HHS seem to be playing a federal version of Whac-A-Mole. No sooner do they bat at one problem with the law than another pops up.

This isn’t just a problem with Obamacare. It’s a dangerous new level of government by decree. Adhering to the rule of law isn’t just a tradition — it is the essence of American liberty and success. Nations without it (look at Egypt, Venezuela, or Russia) have difficulty achieving stability and prosperity even if they are blessed with natural resources and other advantages.

Obamacare has thrown one-sixth of the economy into chaos — with results that are still incalculable. It’s even more dangerous that Obama has undermined the rule of law and gotten away with it.

Obamacare Whac-A-Mole | National Review Online

 

[SwimExpert]

"Discretion in enforcing the law" is saying, "Littering isn't as vital a concern to public safety as murder, and therefore we will not put as much manpower onto littering task forces as we do hunting down serial killers". It is NOT "The law says THIS, but fuck it, we're going to do this instead".

Good thing what you're suggesting is not happening here. If the Executive decided to put zero manpower into littering, that would still be a simple act of discretion. If the Congress levies a tax, but the Executive declines to collect said tax, that is a matter of exercising their discretion.

And I honestly don't give a flying fuck whether or not you "support" him rewriting laws on the fly to suit himself or not.

Since you cannot honestly address the matter, nothing you say on the matter has any relevance. Nobody has rewritten any law. If you go read the law, you will say that they all still say the exact same thing. Go away and come back when you're ready to start conducting yourself like an adult. Because saying things like

You halfwit drooling leftists

.... is not only the epitome of puerile (in your case I suppose we should call it "puellate") behavior, it is patently false.

 

[Ame®icano]

All this bogus partisan hackery about the Constitution and you assholes still choke on admitting that waterboarding is torture.

You must have to compartmentalize the hell out of your parrot brains to hold such contradictory thoughts inside the same skull.

"Waterboarding is not torture" but Obama should be impeached for extending a mandate deadline?

Yeah it's not torture. Wherever did you get the idea it was? Were your drunk?

You are insane.

Yukio Asano

In the aftermath of World War II, Japanese officer Yukio Asano is charged by a US war crimes tribunal for torturing a US civilian. Asano had used the technique of “waterboarding” on the prisoner (see 1800 and After). The civilian was strapped to a stretcher with his feet in the air and head towards the floor, and water was poured over his face, causing him to gasp for air until he agreed to talk. Asano is convicted and sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.

OUR GOVERNMENT DEFINED WATERBOARDING AS TORTURE!

It depends... if doctor was present.