Obama threatens vetoes of bills requiring him to follow the law

[Antares]

President Obama is threatening to veto a law that would allow Congress to sue him in federal courts for arbitrarily changing or refusing to enforce federal laws because it "violates the separation of powers" by encroaching on his presidential authority.

"[T]he power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed exceeds constitutional limitations," the White House Office of Management and Budget said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy. "Congress may not assign such power to itself, nor may it assign to the courts the task of resolving such generalized political disputes."

Obama threatens vetoes of bills requiring him to follow the law | WashingtonExaminer.com

Um hey Barak?

You job is to "Faithfully EXECUTE the Laws passed BY Congress"......NOT Legislate from your desk with your pen and phone....YOU don't get to usurp the power of Congress by unilaterally CHANGING said law passed by Congress.

Glad I could help, thank you.

Moron.

 

[RandomVariable]

Ya, I have been listening to this nonsense for the last few hours on the House floor. Second amendment to the resolution is being voted on now. Republicans claim they are defending the Constitution. The Democrats claim it is for political show. From the fact you are quoting some reliable media source about the bill while it is on the floor gives me a pretty good idea who is correct.

The final vote is not cast yet if you would like to watch this "travesty of justice" live. You know they could be voting on immigration reform right now. Priorities.
House of Representatives Live Video: HouseLive.gov

 

[ScienceRocks]

Who's to say that the health care bill didn't allow him to make these changes?

 

[RandomVariable]

Who's to say that the health care bill didn't allow him to make these changes?

The specifics of the bill are a little hard to understand. The "it protects the Constitution" definition is kind of vague. What it amounts to is that either the House or the Senate, either one can act independently, can throw the President in front of the Supreme Court whenever they feel like.

 

[Antares]

Who's to say that the health care bill didn't allow him to make these changes?

Your position assumes that the bill supersedes the Constitution.

No.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ya, I have been listening to this nonsense for the last few hours on the House floor. Second amendment to the resolution is being voted on now. Republicans claim they are defending the Constitution. The Democrats claim it is for political show. From the fact you are quoting some reliable media source about the bill while it is on the floor gives me a pretty good idea who is correct.

The final vote is not cast yet if you would like to watch this "travesty of justice" live. You know they could be voting on immigration reform right now. Priorities.
House of Representatives Live Video: HouseLive.gov

Of course democrats would oppose. What they forget is the next president may be GOP..
Then what.
You lefties have no credibility. No pride in your country.

 

[natstew]

Who's to say that the health care bill didn't allow him to make these changes?

Google it online and find the part that gives him that power! Or STFU!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Who's to say that the health care bill didn't allow him to make these changes?

It is a violation of the Separation of Powers clause for the President unilaterally change or alter laws.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Who's to say that the health care bill didn't allow him to make these changes?

The specifics of the bill are a little hard to understand. The "it protects the Constitution" definition is kind of vague. What it amounts to is that either the House or the Senate, either one can act independently, can throw the President in front of the Supreme Court whenever they feel like.

The Separation of Powers clause prohibits the POTUS from doing this.
Now the Legislative branch is doing precisely what Obama dared them to do.
That is to call him on his acting as though he were an elected king.

 

[RandomVariable]

Who's to say that the health care bill didn't allow him to make these changes?

The specifics of the bill are a little hard to understand. The "it protects the Constitution" definition is kind of vague. What it amounts to is that either the House or the Senate, either one can act independently, can throw the President in front of the Supreme Court whenever they feel like.

The Separation of Powers clause prohibits the POTUS from doing this.
Now the Legislative branch is doing precisely what Obama dared them to do.
That is to call him on his acting as though he were an elected king.

Separation of Powers does not prohibit to do what Obama has done. He is within the rules, as have all the other Presidents who have acted in the same.
Obama did not dare the Legislative branch to do anything except maybe to vote on some legislation. Apparently the House has not taken up that dare.
He is acting like the POTUS. Maybe the House Republicans should act like House Congressmen. Talk about a waste of taxpayer's dollars.

 

[g5000]

Who's to say that the health care bill didn't allow him to make these changes?

It is a violation of the Separation of Powers clause for the President unilaterally change or alter laws.

You mean...like...if a President attaches a signing statement to a law passed by Congress saying he is not going to observe all of the law?

Like that?

 

[Antares]

The specifics of the bill are a little hard to understand. The "it protects the Constitution" definition is kind of vague. What it amounts to is that either the House or the Senate, either one can act independently, can throw the President in front of the Supreme Court whenever they feel like.

The Separation of Powers clause prohibits the POTUS from doing this.
Now the Legislative branch is doing precisely what Obama dared them to do.
That is to call him on his acting as though he were an elected king.

Separation of Powers does not prohibit to do what Obama has done. He is within the rules, as have all the other Presidents who have acted in the same.
Obama did not dare the Legislative branch to do anything except maybe to vote on some legislation. Apparently the House has not taken up that dare.
He is acting like the POTUS. Maybe the House Republicans should act like House Congressmen. Talk about a waste of taxpayer's dollars.

No, he does not have the power to unilaterally change laws as he sees fit.
His job is to "faithfully" execute the Law as passed by the congress critters.

 

[g5000]

The Separation of Powers clause prohibits the POTUS from doing this.
Now the Legislative branch is doing precisely what Obama dared them to do.
That is to call him on his acting as though he were an elected king.

Separation of Powers does not prohibit to do what Obama has done. He is within the rules, as have all the other Presidents who have acted in the same.
Obama did not dare the Legislative branch to do anything except maybe to vote on some legislation. Apparently the House has not taken up that dare.
He is acting like the POTUS. Maybe the House Republicans should act like House Congressmen. Talk about a waste of taxpayer's dollars.

No, he does not have the power to unilaterally change laws as he sees fit.
His job is to "faithfully" execute the Law as passed by the congress critters.

Is this an example of what you mean?: Bush could bypass new torture ban

When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

 

[RandomVariable]

Who's to say that the health care bill didn't allow him to make these changes?

It is a violation of the Separation of Powers clause for the President unilaterally change or alter laws.

You mean...like...if a President attaches a signing statement to a law passed by Congress saying he is not going to observe all of the law?

Like that?

No, no, not that one.

 

[g5000]

Okay, I've read the bill. It's short. Basically, it says that if either House of Congress passes a resolution claiming the President has not faithfully executed a law, then that House is authorized to bring a civil action against the President.

There are 22 sponsors. Exactly half of them are newbies. The other half (Spencer Bachus, Steve Chabot, Randy Forbes, Trent Franks, Jim Gerlach, Bob Godlatte, Darrel Issa, Ted Poe, James Sensenbrenner, Pete Sessions, Lamar Smith) all served in the House of Representatives while Bush was signing statements that he was not going to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress.

 

[bendog]

the tea baggers couldn't prevail in a suit, so they seek to change the rules. LOL

House targets Obama's law enforcement | TheHill

the exec has always been 'sueable" if it can be shown he's intentionally refusing to comply with a law. But, here, the tea baggers WANT TO REPEAL OBAMACARE yet they sue him for not fully implementing it. The exec has always had discretion to gradually implement a law that is legally passed, because the IS THE ROLE OF THE EXEC BRANCH TO EXECUTE THE LAWS. To funny. The party of sophomores.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Obama threatens vetoes of bills requiring him to follow the law


The Constitution already requires that he follow the law. How will this new law make any difference?

.

 

[Little-Acorn]

the tea baggers couldn't prevail in a suit,

Yet another leftist who, when he starts losing a debate, starts thinking about lewd sex acts and people's genitals.

Have you sought help?

 

[bendog]

Ok, nutters then. Look the laws been the same for roughly 250 years or so. If it can be shown that a potus is intentionally not implementing validly enacted legislation, he can be sued. In this case the nutters can't show that, because only a brain dead squirell would think Obama would refuse to implement Obamacare because he let the gop shut down the damn govt over defunding it.

He does intend not to implement various things like the penalty because its seen as unpopular.

Obamacare may be a bad law, but that doesn't change the absurdity of the tea party members actions.

 

[RandomVariable]

Obama threatens vetoes of bills requiring him to follow the law


The Constitution already requires that he follow the law. How will this new law make any difference?

.

This is not a real bill, resolution in the House, as it might get passed. This resolution is political theatre. Unfortunately I have already thrown all my popcorn.