Obama's War on the Constitution

[bripat9643]

According to the left, we are at war on several fronts.

This is a major war on the Constitution.

Examples, please.

Here's two of mine off the top of my head:

Summary executions
Signing laws violating the First Amendment

Recess appointments when Congress isn't in recess.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Summary executions
Signing laws violating the First Amendment
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. (Richard Condray)
bypassing Congress for war declaration before, as well.

You forgot to cite the cases where any of the above were ruled un-Constitutional by a Federal court.

 

[bripat9643]

So you are against killing a terrorist involved in attacks and was hiding out in Yemen?

Okay. I am not.

The President is charged with defending the nation against all enemies. Foreign and Domestic.

So you're in favor of executing American citizens without a trial?

Decent rational people are against that.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, yeah...bypassing Congress for war declaration before, as well.

Obama didn't sign the War Powers Acts.

Until they're taken to the Supreme Court, he did nothing "unconsitiutional", he's following the letter of the law.

So a President doesn't have to follow any law he didn't personally sign? Is that really what you're saying?

 

[bripat9643]

Okay, so detaining people indefinitely because they are suspected of being associated with terrorists is not a violation of habeous corpus. But taking military action against someone engaged in terrorist operations in the field is a "summary execution" in violation of the constitution. Yes, I see the light.

You're trying desperately to ignore the essential fact that the prior group consists of enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. The later group consists of an American citizens. It's revealing that you see no difference between the two classes of people.

BTW, I don't recall liberals whining when FDR detained German, Italian and Japanese P.O.W.s and denied them the right of habeas corpus.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, ceding US sovereignty.

What "US Sovereignty" did he "cede"?

He gave U.S. territory to the Russians.

 

[bripat9643]

Summary executions
Signing laws violating the First Amendment
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. (Richard Condray)
bypassing Congress for war declaration before, as well.

You forgot to cite the cases where any of the above were ruled un-Constitutional by a Federal court.

No cases have been brought before the court yet, bonehead.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You're trying desperately to ignore the essential fact that the prior group consists of enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

Consists of "enemy combatants" many of whom never engaged in combat of any kind. Irregardless, fact still remains they are being held indefinitely. Where's the habeous corpus?

 

[bripat9643]

You're trying desperately to ignore the essential fact that the prior group consists of enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

Consists of "enemy combatants" many of whom never engaged in combat of any kind. Irregardless, fact still remains they are being held indefinitely. Where's the habeous corpus?

They aren't American citizens and they aren't withing the jurisdiction of the American legal system. The claim that they never "engaged in combat" is absurd. They were captured on the battlefield. The guy driving Osama bin Laden's truck wasn't "engaged in combat," right? Is that what you're trying to say?

 

[Inthemiddle]

They aren't American citizens

Some are. But you already knew that. Also, citizenship is irrelevant. Constitutional protections aren't based on citizenship.

and they aren't withing the jurisdiction of the American legal system.

Yes they are, and the SCOTUS has already affirmed that. But you already knew that.

The claim that they never "engaged in combat" is absurd. They were captured on the battlefield. The guy driving Osama bin Laden's truck wasn't "engaged in combat," right?

No, he was engaged in driving a truck. But you already knew that.

Is that what you're trying to say?

I'm trying to illustrate that you're an outright liar. But you already knew that.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm trying to illustrate that you're an outright liar. But you already knew that.

As I mentioned in another post, non of you turd leftists where whining about the habeaus corpus rights of German, Italian and Japanese prisoners during WW II, and many of them were detained on U.S. soil.

This entire issue is just a charade designed to attack a Republican president. Furthermore, if the Gitmo inmates have the fright of habeus corpus, then didn't bin Laden also have the right to due process? He wasn't on the battlefield when he was killed.

Your hypocrisy couldn't be more obvious

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh, yeah...bypassing Congress for war declaration before, as well.

Obama didn't sign the War Powers Acts.

Until they're taken to the Supreme Court, he did nothing "unconsitiutional", he's following the letter of the law.

So a President doesn't have to follow any law he didn't personally sign? Is that really what you're saying?

No. I think you missed my point.

Obama didn't "bypass" Congress - he used his powers according to the WPA.

If you think the WPA are unconstitutional, that's a different story. But until they're decided to be "unconstitutional", Obama's actions aren't "unconstitutional" either.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where was there a summary execution?

And that law..was part of an effort by Republicans to include a poison pill in to defense spending.

Ever here of a new power the president just got called a veto? Or simply not signing a law? Did you notice that the only thing Obama actually objected to was the requirement to use military detention because it took away his ability to choose, not because he thought it was wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Summary execution of Anwar al-Awlaki.

Even if I could bend thinking of finding that acceptable. Eric Holder's analysis of the law and finding that the president has the power to assassinate any American citizen without trial.

Holder justifies this by separating the concept of due process from judicial process. Due process is a decision by the president after careful personal consideration. No one is really entitled to judicial process to overturn the president's decision.

Eric Holder: Yes, We Can Kill American Citizens Without Trial

The most important point to note for this entire debate is how perverse and warped it is that we’re even having this “debate” at all. It should be self-negating — self-marginalizing — to assert that the President, acting with no checks or transparency, can order American citizens executed far from any battlefield and without any opportunity even to know about, let alone rebut, the accusations. That this policy is being implemented and defended by the very same political party that spent the last decade so vocally and opportunistically objecting to far less extreme powers makes it all the more repellent. That fact also makes it all the more dangerous, because — as one can see — the fact that it is a Democratic President doing it, and Democratic Party officials justifying it, means that it’s much easier to normalize: very few of the Party’s followers, especially in an election year, are willing to make much of a fuss about it at all.

And thus will presidential assassination powers be entrenched as bipartisan consensus for at least a generation. That will undoubtedly be one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy. Let no Democrat who is now supportive or even silent be heard to object when the next Republican President exercises this power in ways that they dislike.

So you are against killing a terrorist involved in attacks and was hiding out in Yemen?

Okay.

I am not.

The President is charged with defending the nation against all enemies. Foreign and Domestic.

He was involved in attacks? Which ones?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Summary execution of Anwar al-Awlaki.

Even if I could bend thinking of finding that acceptable. Eric Holder's analysis of the law and finding that the president has the power to assassinate any American citizen without trial.

Holder justifies this by separating the concept of due process from judicial process. Due process is a decision by the president after careful personal consideration. No one is really entitled to judicial process to overturn the president's decision.

Eric Holder: Yes, We Can Kill American Citizens Without Trial

The most important point to note for this entire debate is how perverse and warped it is that we’re even having this “debate” at all. It should be self-negating — self-marginalizing — to assert that the President, acting with no checks or transparency, can order American citizens executed far from any battlefield and without any opportunity even to know about, let alone rebut, the accusations. That this policy is being implemented and defended by the very same political party that spent the last decade so vocally and opportunistically objecting to far less extreme powers makes it all the more repellent. That fact also makes it all the more dangerous, because — as one can see — the fact that it is a Democratic President doing it, and Democratic Party officials justifying it, means that it’s much easier to normalize: very few of the Party’s followers, especially in an election year, are willing to make much of a fuss about it at all.

And thus will presidential assassination powers be entrenched as bipartisan consensus for at least a generation. That will undoubtedly be one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy. Let no Democrat who is now supportive or even silent be heard to object when the next Republican President exercises this power in ways that they dislike.

So you are against killing a terrorist involved in attacks and was hiding out in Yemen?

Okay.

I am not.

The President is charged with defending the nation against all enemies. Foreign and Domestic.

That does NOT give him Carte Blanche to violate the Constitutional rights of ANY American citizen.

Quite true, he can only do it if he first says they are bad people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I feel like what enrages the tricorn hat crowd the most about Obama is that he's taught more con law than they'll ever take.

Did he actually teach any? Do you really think he taught more constitutional law than, for example, Eugene Volokh has actually taken?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh, yeah...bypassing Congress for war declaration before, as well.

Obama didn't sign the War Powers Acts.

Until they're taken to the Supreme Court, he did nothing "unconsitiutional", he's following the letter of the law.

Are you trying to say presidents are free to ignore laws they didn't sign?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay, so detaining people indefinitely because they are suspected of being associated with terrorists is not a violation of habeous corpus. But taking military action against someone engaged in terrorist operations in the field is a "summary execution" in violation of the constitution. Yes, I see the light.

How did you get that from the OP?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

According to the left, we are at war on several fronts.

This is a major war on the Constitution.

Examples, please.

Here's two of mine off the top of my head:

Summary executions
Signing laws violating the First Amendment

interestingly, i think the war on the constitution is being waged from the right who wants to violate women's rights to exercise dominion over their own bodies, despite the protections of the constitution and already settled caselaw.... they want to violate the first amendment's guarantee that the "majority" religion will be kept out of my life to the extent i choose to have it out of my life

let's see... what else... warrantless searches begun by the last administration violate the fourth amendment... should have been done away with. unfortunately they weren't.

i haven't seen anyone lined up and shot here...

i'd be more concerned about the fact that we had hundreds of people locked up in gitmo from 2000 throug 2008 and they're still there...

What rights do women have that men do not?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Summary executions
Signing laws violating the First Amendment
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. (Richard Condray)
bypassing Congress for war declaration before, as well.

You forgot to cite the cases where any of the above were ruled un-Constitutional by a Federal court.

As I have pointed out to you before, just because the federal courts say something is beyond there purview does not automatically make it constitutional.