All four of those things are well documented. They aren't just accusations.Thank you, but can you please lengthen your answer? I'm looking for specific examples of the - somebody give me another word for "accusations" that's not so accusatory.
I just looked it up. Apparently I was wrong. It's something that was already there.I didn't know about 3, either.
I was wondering if anybody is able to tell me what the President has done or is doing wrong, but here's the caveat. Without insulting either his or my intelligence.
Are you who hold him in lesser esteem able to do that? I'll buy a platinum membership for whoever puts forth the best game. Automatic disqualification will occur for the following causes:
1) If you either state or imply he is not legally entitled or able to serve
2) if you either state or imply that he's unintelligent (see: Harvard Law Review, Columbia University, honors unproven, etc)
3) If you attempt to play down what he has rightfully and actually achieved.
Any takers?
According to SB, Congress and the courts gave him this power, not "are letting him get away with it."
Why did they do so.
Sorry to all I am using for my civics lesson.
Technically, Congress and the courts aren't allowed to give up their powers, without revising the Constitution.
Let's see... where to start.
fail. no war has been declared.Usurping the power to declare war from Congress by engaging in Libya.
fail. that he does not do what he may do but NEED not do is not a failure.Failure to uphold his oath of office and permitting Congress's abuses of power by not vetoing bills that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States ie pretty much every bill Congress writes.
failure as simply asinine.Usurping the power of the House of Representatives on the appropriation of money by pushing his budget.
fail. executive orders do, in fact have the force of law.Issuing Executive Orders that have the force of law in violation of the Constitution of the United States since only Congress has the authority to pass laws.
That's just the short list off the top of my head.
Because the people, Congress, and the courts let him get away with it. Our president has far more power then originally envisioned and has more power then King George III when we went to war for independence.
and there has been none. none of the congressional powers has been 'ceded', not to THIS president nor to any of the prior presidents from whose precedents THIS president take his cue, as did each of those same prior presidents. that YOU find yourself at odds with the majority of americans is, of course, quite sad, but it does not demonstate that THIS president has violated his oath or the constitution.There is no provision of the Constitution for said transfer of power to take place, so it's unconstitutional.
and there has been none. none of the congressional powers has been 'ceded', not to THIS president nor to any of the prior presidents from whose precedents THIS president take his cue, as did each of those same prior presidents. that YOU find yourself at odds with the majority of americans is, of course, quite sad, but it does not demonstate that THIS president has violated his oath or the constitution.
geo.
BDBoop -- Double thanks for great idea.
I won't be entering though, because even if I won, you'd buy the membership in Caine's name. :rofl
Both the War Powers Act and the use of EO's are not meant to be used by the president.
He has no Constitutional authority to exercise those powers.
how is that "illegal"?1.)encouraging people to forward emails to the White House
no president is required to enforce unconstitutional laws any more than a soldier is required to execute illegal orders.2.)ignoring his Constitutional duty to enforce DOMA
- Wilson era U.S. Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger“As a general matter, if the President believes that the [Supreme] Court would sustain a particular provision as constitutional, the President should execute the statute, notwithstanding his own beliefs about the constitutional issue,. . . If, however, the President, exercising his independent judgment, determines both that a provision would violate the Constitution and that it is probable that the Court would agree with him, the President has the authority to decline to execute the statute.”
what? the general complaint is that he CANCELED it by not observing it. The Supreme Court has ruled that any official 'National Day Of Prayer" is unconstitutional. m. Obama supported the defense in what i would have to consider a fatuous pandering to the religious right, but hardly surprising. The president who INSTITUTED it was the beloved m. Truman.3.)attempting to institute a national prayer day
this is as close as you come to fact. m. Obama has promised to close Guantanamo and restore legal protections for so called 'enemy combatants'. he has not.4.)continued suspension of habeas corpus
Remarks by the President On National Security, 5-21-09 | The White House[under the prior admin, the U.S. Legal system] went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach -- one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
Now let me be clear: We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. . . . , the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable -- a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass.
Both the War Powers Act and the use of EO's are not meant to be used by the president.
He has no Constitutional authority to exercise those powers.
A group of U.S. senators introduced a resolution on Monday expressing support for American military action in Libya, but it stops short of officially authorizing the action ordered by President Obama in March.
"I support President Obama's decision to commit U.S. forces to the mission in Libya, and I hope this resolution will elicit a broad statement of bipartisan support among my Senate colleagues for our use of force in Libya," said Republican Senator John McCain, one of a group of sponsors that included Republicans and Democrats.
fail. no war has been declared.
fail. that he does not do what he may do but NEED not do is not a failure.
failure as simply asinine.
fail. executive orders do, in fact have the force of law.
try going a little deeper.
geo.
and this is defacto dumb, but fortunately for you and for every president for the last several decades.... de facto is not de jure....Putting our troops into a combat via orders by the president is a defacto declaration of war.
"fiduciary"... you sure you meant that?Wrong he has a fidicuary [sic] responsibility under the penalty of perjury to adhere to the Constitution of the United States. He must exercise those powers as a check upon the legislature.
- sourceThe 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." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.
Executive Orders have been used by every chief executive since the time of George Washington.
Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under Executive Order. President Eisenhower used an EO to desegregate schools. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used them to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring, and contracting. President Reagan used an EO to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Clinton reversed this order when he came into office.
and this is defacto dumb, but fortunately for you and for every president for the last several decades.... de facto is not de jure....
"fiduciary"... you sure you meant that?
whatever. he has not failed to "adhere to the constitution"... or at least, you have shown that he has. and... yeah... EO are his under the provisions of the constitution. we went over this recently right here in DP. There is copious support that that, he is one cite:
- source
geo.
I was wondering if anybody is able to tell me what the President has done or is doing wrong, but here's the caveat. Without insulting either his or my intelligence.
Are you who hold him in lesser esteem able to do that? I'll buy a platinum membership for whoever puts forth the best game. Automatic disqualification will occur for the following causes:
1) If you either state or imply he is not legally entitled or able to serve
2) if you either state or imply that he's unintelligent (see: Harvard Law Review, Columbia University, honors unproven, etc)
3) If you attempt to play down what he has rightfully and actually achieved.
Any takers?
you do not have to comment on the dumbness of your prior comments... in fact, you do not have to comment on the dumbness of your prior comments even to the extent of commenting that you will not comment.Failure on your part, so not going to reply to this.
ha... you wanna cite the section? that is another dumb statement, so you do not need to comment on it.The Constitution is quite clear that he can use executive orders to order coffee, staples . . . .
The EO's I cited show....
ha... you wanna cite the section? that is another dumb statement, so you do not need to comment on it.
the Constitution provides for the use of Executive Orders and that those orders are law for those people and departments which are under direct executive direction. that power can extend to considerable lengths,as they did under FDR. Congress STILL remains the engine that drives law, if on occasion, the president drives.
FDR, citing a "national emergency" and using powers granted to him by Congress, seized a private aviation company during WWII when management failed to honor a labor agreement and halted production. His argument was that, contracts signed, the products in production were the rightful property of the U.S..
the SC supported his doing so.
and being the constitutional scholar you are i am sure that you recognize the Supreme Court's role in determining what IS and what is not constitutional.
actually, you cited none. in fact, you have cited nothing at all in this thread.
geo.
again. ya wanna cite the section? can you cite the SC decision to that effect? or the Congressional censure of the President for exceeding his constitutional mandate?Wrong, EOs under the Constitution are internal directives to executive agencies, ordering coffee, staples, etc.. but it does not make law.
again. ya wanna cite the section? can you cite the SC decision to that effect? or the Congressional censure of the President for exceeding his constitutional mandate?
i am not going to sit and quibble with you. babble on. i really don't care.
geo.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?