Ron Paul: Obama Presidency On The Verge Of Being A "Dictatorship"

[Uncensored2008]

Are you ******* delusional??

Dumb question Nick, that's JosephK the Zombie that you're talking to!

You directly asserted that republican presidents were responsible for mass spending.

You progressive assclows are amazing..

You clearly create your own reality in which you're always right regardless of facts and reality....

Its pretty disturbing...

It's funny how I have to spend hours reading books or follow the news to draw a conclusion, then a hypothesis and then form a theory while you just sit there like a dumb **** snug and all while posting made up bullshit...

Just because you believe your own lies doesn't make those lies fact....

Next time you ever post you bring concrete evidence to the table..

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Show me in the Constitution or established law where the POTUS is limited to the number of EO's he or she can issue, then you might have a point. Until then, this is just Paul proving once again how out of touch with reality he is.

Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."


EO's are a Presidential power not designated by the Constitution.

had you researched this you would know congress basically allows a president this authority but has the power to remove a EO or adjust it to make it legal.
Also had you research ed this you would know they do have this power and have been using it since washington.

Avorysuds has it right.its not thay he can or cant, its what they are for.which you may be or not be for.

Where in the Constitution does it state Congress has the authority to grant Presidential powers?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hey total DUMBFUCK-- Show me EXACTLY where in the Constitution EO's appear???????? I DARE YOU, you idiot. I already showed you that the Legislative Branch ALONE has the authority under the Constitution to write and pass laws, legislation. Boooosh and Barry operated outside of the Constitution.. Chew on that dummy

Executive Orders have been used to guide federal agencies. The logic is that the president, as chief executive, has the power and authority to give orders to those agencies that report to him.

But Obama isn't sending orders to federal agencies, he is dictating legislation, in direct violation of the constitution. He rightfully should be impeached for this.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hey total DUMBFUCK-- Show me EXACTLY where in the Constitution EO's appear???????? I DARE YOU, you idiot. I already showed you that the Legislative Branch ALONE has the authority under the Constitution to write and pass laws, legislation. Boooosh and Barry operated outside of the Constitution.. Chew on that dummy

Executive Orders have been used to guide federal agencies. The logic is that the president, as chief executive, has the power and authority to give orders to those agencies that report to him.

But Obama isn't sending orders to federal agencies, he is dictating legislation, in direct violation of the constitution. He rightfully should be impeached for this.

Yep exactly did you read my reply on how unconstitutional executive orders can be? It's a very good read.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Hey total DUMBFUCK-- Show me EXACTLY where in the Constitution EO's appear???????? I DARE YOU, you idiot. I already showed you that the Legislative Branch ALONE has the authority under the Constitution to write and pass laws, legislation. Boooosh and Barry operated outside of the Constitution.. Chew on that dummy

Executive Orders have been used to guide federal agencies. The logic is that the president, as chief executive, has the power and authority to give orders to those agencies that report to him.

But Obama isn't sending orders to federal agencies, he is dictating legislation, in direct violation of the constitution. He rightfully should be impeached for this.

I understand what you're saying.. I am an Originalist. I don't believe in squeezing, interpreting the document that laid the foundation for America. Our Founders were brilliant and quite capable of understanding and laying out what our Republic needed in order to maintain freedom. Separation of Powers GUARANTEE's that what took place in England or other countries, would never happen here. The Constitution is very clear.. Only Congress can enact laws.. not a President.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You, apparently. EO's aren't unconstitutional. Every president in the history of the US has issued them. Moron.

Hey total DUMBFUCK-- Show me EXACTLY where in the Constitution EO's appear???????? I DARE YOU, you idiot. I already showed you that the Legislative Branch ALONE has the authority under the Constitution to write and pass laws, legislation. Boooosh and Barry operated outside of the Constitution.. Chew on that dummy

Well If Bush and Obama operated outside the Constitution, so did the far right's greatest hero, Ronald Reagan!

1981 - E.O. 12287 - E.O. 12336 (50 Executive orders signed)
1982 - E.O. 12337 - E.O. 12399 (63 Executive orders signed)
1983 - E.O. 12400 - E.O. 12456 (57 Executive orders signed)
1984 - E.O. 12457 - E.O. 12497 (41 Executive orders signed)
1985 - E.O. 12498 - E.O. 12542 (45 Executive orders signed)
1986 - E.O. 12543 - E.O. 12579 (37 Executive orders signed)
1987 - E.O. 12580 - E.O. 12622 (43 Executive orders signed)
1988 - E.O. 12623 - E.O. 12662 (40 Executive orders signed)
1989 - E.O. 12663 - E.O. 12667 (5 Executive orders signed)
Reagan Executive Orders Disposition Tables

Now let's compare that to Obama:

2009 - E.O. 13489 - E.O. 13527 (39 Executive orders issued)
2010 - E.O. 13528 - E.O. 13562 (35 Executive orders issued)
2011 - E.O. 13563 - E.O. 13588 (26 Executive orders issued)
Barack Obama Executive Orders Disposition Tables

Reagan, 170 EO's in three years Obama, 100 EO's, in three years.
And I don't even like Obama! But it seems there are those on the far right that are either clueless or just plain hypocritical.

I understand that KOS has nice talking points for you, but the number of EO's is irrelevant. You are like the pervert caught raping a girl who argues "Joe had sex 40 times, I only raped this girl once." The number is irrelevant, it is the act of creating legislation in violation of the US Constitution that is the issue.

The EO as directive to agencies under the authority of the executive branch are part of the job. EO's that create public law are a violation of article one of the constitution.

Obama took it upon himself to create law in defiance of congress. He should be immediately impeached and removed from office.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Houston, we have an answer!

The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power."

And you think that executive power includes creating legislation?

Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

And you think the execution of laws is the creation of new law by fiat?

To implement or execute the laws of the land,

Obama created law by fiat - PUBLIC law, that is not the execution or implementation of laws legitimately created by congress.

Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.

Obama created public law, he did not send an order to executive agencies.

You have defeated yourself, you have demonstrated that Obama was NOT within the realm of EO's and in fact violated Article one of the constitutions,

ThisNation.com--What is an Executive Order?

Now that you understand what an EO is, and why Obama is outside the boundaries, will you call for his impeachment and removal from office?

 

[Katzndogz]

There is an appropriate place for executive orders. Executive orders should never replace legislation. To say that other presidents have properly used executive orders is the same as obama using executive orders to replace legislation is ignorant and absurd. We aren't on the verge of a dictatorship. We have become a dictatorship, the degree is the only question.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yep exactly did you read my reply on how unconstitutional executive orders can be? It's a very good read.

Yes, thanks for posting it.

 

[konradv]

Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."


EO's are a Presidential power not designated by the Constitution.

had you researched this you would know congress basically allows a president this authority but has the power to remove a EO or adjust it to make it legal.
Also had you research ed this you would know they do have this power and have been using it since washington.

Avorysuds has it right.its not thay he can or cant, its what they are for.which you may be or not be for.

Where in the Constitution does it state Congress has the authority to grant Presidential powers?

Better ask the USSC, they've been allowing it for over 200 years. If you ask me, a layman, I'd say it was in the part that allows Congress to write laws. If they write one that says the president may do something at his/her discretion, then that's what happens. Can't believe someone hasn't challenged it by now, if it really were unconstitutional.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

had you researched this you would know congress basically allows a president this authority but has the power to remove a EO or adjust it to make it legal.
Also had you research ed this you would know they do have this power and have been using it since washington.

Avorysuds has it right.its not thay he can or cant, its what they are for.which you may be or not be for.

Where in the Constitution does it state Congress has the authority to grant Presidential powers?

Better ask the USSC, they've been allowing it for over 200 years. If you ask me, a layman, I'd say it was in the part that allows Congress to write laws. If they write one that says the president may do something at his/her discretion, then that's what happens. Can't believe someone hasn't challenged it by now, if it really were unconstitutional.

Why even have three branches of government?? Separation of Powers?? After all if Congress can delegate their authority, shirking their Constitutional responsibility, we don't really need a Congress once those power has been passed on to the Executive Branch. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are EO's constitutional. (IMO)

 

[konradv]

Where in the Constitution does it state Congress has the authority to grant Presidential powers?

Better ask the USSC, they've been allowing it for over 200 years. If you ask me, a layman, I'd say it was in the part that allows Congress to write laws. If they write one that says the president may do something at his/her discretion, then that's what happens. Can't believe someone hasn't challenged it by now, if it really were unconstitutional.

Why even have three branches of government?? Separation of Powers?? After all if Congress can delegate their authority, shirking their Constitutional responsibility, we don't really need a Congress once those power has been passed on to the Executive Branch. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are EO's constitutional. (IMO)

Congress isn't delegating their authority. They're giving the president the authority to do something at his discretion, as opposed to other laws where he is bound to do something. It's not like the president can write new laws. THAT would be unconstitutional.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Congress isn't delegating their authority. They're giving the president the authority to do something at his discretion, as opposed to other laws where he is bound to do something. It's not like the president can write new laws. THAT would be unconstitutional.

Well, Obama did - and yes it is.

So you agree that Obama should be impeached and removed from office then, right?

 

[konradv]

Congress isn't delegating their authority. They're giving the president the authority to do something at his discretion, as opposed to other laws where he is bound to do something. It's not like the president can write new laws. THAT would be unconstitutional.

Well, Obama did - and yes it is.

So you agree that Obama should be impeached and removed from office then, right?

That's BULLSHIT. As usual, the board Nazi doesn't back up his claims.

 

[kiwiman127]

Houston, we have an answer!

The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power."

And you think that executive power includes creating legislation?

Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

And you think the execution of laws is the creation of new law by fiat?



Obama created law by fiat - PUBLIC law, that is not the execution or implementation of laws legitimately created by congress.

Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.

Obama created public law, he did not send an order to executive agencies.

You have defeated yourself, you have demonstrated that Obama was NOT within the realm of EO's and in fact violated Article one of the constitutions,

ThisNation.com--What is an Executive Order?

Now that you understand what an EO is, and why Obama is outside the boundaries, will you call for his impeachment and removal from office?

Well for one thing, I'm not a partisan hack, so if the EO's are perceived to be unconstitutional, I have complete trust that opponents of any EO's would tale either legislative action or legal action.
Our previous president had three EO's that were very controversial, they were the ability of out government to declare anyone, including Americans an "unlawful enemy combatant", thusly taking away that individual's rights and they can be held indefinitely. The second was to give the CIA the authority to assassinate "unlawful enemy combatants". The third was the NSA warrant-less surveillance which basically was warrant-less wiretaps that included American citizens communicating with other American citizens within the US's borders. All three were done in secret and Congress wasn't notified which according the Constitution is unconstitutional.
Now if you recall that when these EO's came to light, there was quite an uproar and the left was doing what the right is doing, calling for impeachment. All three were followed with Congressional actions and legal actions as stated in the Constitution.
George W Bush wasn't impeached or forced to resign.
In Obama's case, I suspect that if Obama did overstep his authority as stated in the Constitution, that his controversial EO's will follow the Constitutional scrutiny that Bush received.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Better ask the USSC, they've been allowing it for over 200 years. If you ask me, a layman, I'd say it was in the part that allows Congress to write laws. If they write one that says the president may do something at his/her discretion, then that's what happens. Can't believe someone hasn't challenged it by now, if it really were unconstitutional.

Why even have three branches of government?? Separation of Powers?? After all if Congress can delegate their authority, shirking their Constitutional responsibility, we don't really need a Congress once those power has been passed on to the Executive Branch. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are EO's constitutional. (IMO)

Congress isn't delegating their authority. They're giving the president the authority to do something at his discretion, as opposed to other laws where he is bound to do something. It's not like the president can write new laws. THAT would be unconstitutional.

One last time, where in the Constitution does it allow for Congress to give powers to the President of the United States? It doesn't and it never should. No one group of men should ever have that kind of power, to usurp the Constitution along party lines and give power to a sitting President over party and issue politics. Separation of Powers is there for a reason. Congress has NO AUTHORITY to grant the President of the United States authority to create and pass laws.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's BULLSHIT.

No, that's fact. You being a partisan who holds party above the nation doesn't alter anything.

As usual, the board Nazi

Say stupid, what is it that makes me a Nazi?

Or do you just call names with no comprehension of what they mean?

doesn't back up his claims.

I back up all my claims, dumbfuck. I posted the Obama EO and where it violates Article one of the constitution, I explained why this deviates from other EO's. You just didn't bother to read the thread, stupid shit. You just came in to scream for your shameful party, with no knowledge of the subject, as usual.

******* hack.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well for one thing, I'm not a partisan hack, so if the EO's are perceived to be unconstitutional, I have complete trust that opponents of any EO's would tale either legislative action or legal action.

The Obama student loan and mortgage foreclosure laws openly and flagrantly violate the US Constitution.

There are moves to challenge this with the SCOTUS, which is to say that the laws will probably be struck down. The issue is though, that striking down the illegal laws created by fiat does not set precedent.

Obama should be impeached for gross dereliction of duty.

Our previous president had three EO's that were very controversial, they were the ability of out government to declare anyone, including Americans an "unlawful enemy combatant", thusly taking away that individual's rights and they can be held indefinitely.

It should have been and was challenged. Perhaps if Bush had faced a stronger backlash for usurping power, Obama would be more restrained.

All the more reason to impeach Obama.

The second was to give the CIA the authority to assassinate "unlawful enemy combatants".

You mean the way Obama did with Osama bin Laden? The way he did with American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, no arrest, no trial, just death on the order of Obama.

The third was the NSA warrant-less surveillance which basically was warrant-less wiretaps that included American citizens communicating with other American citizens within the US's borders. All three were done in secret and Congress wasn't notified which according the Constitution is unconstitutional.

Bullshit. Why does the left keep trotting out crap that has been repeatedly disproved?

The taps were on cell phones traversing the public airwaves.

Now if you recall that when these EO's came to light, there was quite an uproar and the left was doing what the right is doing, calling for impeachment. All three were followed with Congressional actions and legal actions as stated in the Constitution.
George W Bush wasn't impeached or forced to resign.

Perhaps he should have been. But then, doesn't look like Bush had anyone assassinated. Obama does as a matter of routine.

In Obama's case, I suspect that if Obama did overstep his authority as stated in the Constitution, that his controversial EO's will follow the Constitutional scrutiny that Bush received.

There is little doubt that it will, but Obama has gone thousands of miles beyond the limits that Bush violated.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Better ask the USSC, they've been allowing it for over 200 years. If you ask me, a layman, I'd say it was in the part that allows Congress to write laws. If they write one that says the president may do something at his/her discretion, then that's what happens. Can't believe someone hasn't challenged it by now, if it really were unconstitutional.

Why even have three branches of government?? Separation of Powers?? After all if Congress can delegate their authority, shirking their Constitutional responsibility, we don't really need a Congress once those power has been passed on to the Executive Branch. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are EO's constitutional. (IMO)

Congress isn't delegating their authority. They're giving the president the authority to do something at his discretion, as opposed to other laws where he is bound to do something. It's not like the president can write new laws. THAT would be unconstitutional.

A presidents executive order is consider law until he removes that order or the next president comes along and does it. If those orders weren't treated as law why have them? It's not like the president is asking someone to do something he's ordering it done.

 

[kiwiman127]

Well for one thing, I'm not a partisan hack, so if the EO's are perceived to be unconstitutional, I have complete trust that opponents of any EO's would tale either legislative action or legal action.

The Obama student loan and mortgage foreclosure laws openly and flagrantly violate the US Constitution.-Then proceedings should start against those actions.

There are moves to challenge this with the SCOTUS, which is to say that the laws will probably be struck down. The issue is though, that striking down the illegal laws created by fiat does not set precedent.

Obama should be impeached for gross dereliction of duty. -That's your opinion, just like the left had that same opinion about "W".

Our previous president had three EO's that were very controversial, they were the ability of out government to declare anyone, including Americans an "unlawful enemy combatant", thusly taking away that individual's rights and they can be held indefinitely.

It should have been and was challenged. Perhaps if Bush had faced a stronger backlash for usurping power, Obama would be more restrained.

All the more reason to impeach Obama.



You mean the way Obama did with Osama bin Laden? The way he did with American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, no arrest, no trial, just death on the order of Obama.-Yes, he used Bush's EO to justify his actions.


Bullshit. Why does the left keep trotting out crap that has been repeatedly disproved?-What did I post that has been disproved? I may be to the left of you, but then most people are, but I am hardly a leftist.

The taps were on cell phones traversing the public airwaves. But it broke the law (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).

Now if you recall that when these EO's came to light, there was quite an uproar and the left was doing what the right is doing, calling for impeachment. All three were followed with Congressional actions and legal actions as stated in the Constitution.
George W Bush wasn't impeached or forced to resign.

Perhaps he should have been. But then, doesn't look like Bush had anyone assassinated. Obama does as a matter of routine.

In Obama's case, I suspect that if Obama did overstep his authority as stated in the Constitution, that his controversial EO's will follow the Constitutional scrutiny that Bush received.

There is little doubt that it will, but Obama has gone thousands of miles beyond the limits that Bush violated.

And that's your opinion and it's your right to think that way.
I would bet if the GOP Congress agrees with you, we'll see them react with investigations/legislation or we'll see a judical review of those EO's.