Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Are you saying that what many Democrats endorsed Bush to do wasn't war?
Are you saying that what many Democrats endorsed Bush to do wasn't war?
1. what was authorized was based on a fraud perpetrated by bush/cheney
2. what was authorized was that the president have everything at his disposal to enable effective diplomacy.
3. before baby bush was allowed to wage war, he was supposed to listen to the final report of the UN inspector (which he intentionally ignored);
4. he was supposed to exhaust diplomatic efforts and then GO BACK TO CONGRESS
you really should read the iraq resolution.
Obama's all encompassing pen, use itObama set the standard for creating law with the executive pen & phone after all.
What say you?
roe v wade...
read it.
Obama set the standard for creating law with the executive pen & phone after all.
What say you?
What law did President Obama create with his pen and his phone?
Where to begin.
Amnesty for illegals, exemptions for his own law he passed in Obamacare, signing the NDAA which condons arrest without representation and unconstitutional.
Woops, I forgot, the Constitution has a pile of shit on it and is growing refuse now.
neither one needs to be reformed. The only thing needed is that current laws are actually followed.The President has executive powers and is within his rights to use themNo, it isn't something new. It is something that should be avoided though.
I never stated it was not his right dumbass, I stated that a President should not use executive orders because it simply offends the Congress and a lot of the people when one does.
Offends a do nothing Congress?
They don't like it, let them do their job and then Obama would not have to do it for them
Nothing he did was urgent.
Urgent?
Like three months? A year? Three years?
Congress has sat on gun legislation and immigration reform for three years
The Constitution and the process with it indeed informs us through its narrative to be that is organic and changing.
Nonsense. It is written in stone, with an intentionally difficult process mandated to change it.
The Constitution and the process with it indeed informs us through its narrative to be that is organic and changing.
Nonsense. It is written in stone, with an intentionally difficult process mandated to change it.
And yet it has been amended, IOW, changed.
The Constitution and the process with it indeed informs us through its narrative to be that is organic and changing.
Nonsense. It is written in stone, with an intentionally difficult process mandated to change it.
And yet it has been amended, IOW, changed.
Indeed. That is the process. It cannot be amended by simple legislation or Executive Order. It must go through the amendment process.
The Constitution and the process with it indeed informs us through its narrative to be that is organic and changing.
Nonsense. It is written in stone, with an intentionally difficult process mandated to change it.
And yet it has been amended, IOW, changed.
Indeed. That is the process. It cannot be amended by simple legislation or Executive Order. It must go through the amendment process.
And has been demonstrated many times, it hasn't been, no matter how much the ODS crowd has tried to argue argue otherwise.
No, it does not.The Constitution and the process with it indeed informs us through its narrative to be that is organic and changing.
Nonsense. It is written in stone, with an intentionally difficult process mandated to change it.
And yet it has been amended, IOW, changed.
Indeed. That is the process. It cannot be amended by simple legislation or Executive Order. It must go through the amendment process.
And has been demonstrated many times, it hasn't been, no matter how much the ODS crowd has tried to argue argue otherwise.
Debatable. The 10th Amendment immediately comes to mind.
No, it does not.Nonsense. It is written in stone, with an intentionally difficult process mandated to change it.
And yet it has been amended, IOW, changed.
Indeed. That is the process. It cannot be amended by simple legislation or Executive Order. It must go through the amendment process.
And has been demonstrated many times, it hasn't been, no matter how much the ODS crowd has tried to argue argue otherwise.
Debatable. The 10th Amendment immediately comes to mind.
Obama's all encompassing pen, use itObama set the standard for creating law with the executive pen & phone after all.
What say you?
roe v wade...
read it.
. . . which you like the Scarecrow admit you don't have.No, it does not.And yet it has been amended, IOW, changed.
Indeed. That is the process. It cannot be amended by simple legislation or Executive Order. It must go through the amendment process.
And has been demonstrated many times, it hasn't been, no matter how much the ODS crowd has tried to argue argue otherwise.
Debatable. The 10th Amendment immediately comes to mind.
One must have a mind for it to come to, Jake.
Great societies don't force one person to fund the results of someone else's choices.
So we don't have to pay for Bush43's illegal warmongering choice?
What's illegal about the C-I-C using authority granted to him by the Constitution and from a vote by members of Congress?
Great societies don't force one person to fund the results of someone else's choices.
So we don't have to pay for Bush43's illegal warmongering choice?
What's illegal about the C-I-C using authority granted to him by the Constitution and from a vote by members of Congress?
Bush43 lied to Congress to get that vote. Lying to Congress is illegal therefore his warmongering was illegal.
A supreme Court ruling does NOT equate to the law of the land. It simply determines the constitutionality of the case before it. Campaign finance laws could EASILY be changed by a willing congress & president.
Great societies don't force one person to fund the results of someone else's choices.
So we don't have to pay for Bush43's illegal warmongering choice?
What's illegal about the C-I-C using authority granted to him by the Constitution and from a vote by members of Congress?
Bush43 lied to Congress to get that vote. Lying to Congress is illegal therefore his warmongering was illegal.
You mean like Obama lying about "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"?.
Great societies don't force one person to fund the results of someone else's choices.
So we don't have to pay for Bush43's illegal warmongering choice?
What's illegal about the C-I-C using authority granted to him by the Constitution and from a vote by members of Congress?
Bush43 lied to Congress to get that vote. Lying to Congress is illegal therefore his warmongering was illegal.
You mean like Obama lying about "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"?.
Hundreds of thousands died because Bush43 lied to Congress.
