A moment of your time, please

[mpg]

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.

All four of those things are well documented. They aren't just accusations.

BTW, I'm against DOMA, but it's his Constitutional duty to enforce it.

 

[mpg]

I didn't know about 3, either.

I just looked it up. Apparently I was wrong. It's something that was already there.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

1.) No public option on the health care although i do see it as a starting point which is Obamacare
2.) More troops to Afghanistan
3.) Leaving troops in Iraq
4.) Didnt close GITMO
5.) Passed the Bush Tax Cuts
6.) Didnt raise taxes on the rich
7.) Libya
8.) Didnt speak out or even try to stop or end the Patriot Act
9.) Needs to end the embargo on Cuba


I can think of more later i guess.

 

[tessaesque]

I'm thoroughly upset with the fact that he has been asked (repeatedly now) to step in and get involved in stagnating budget talks, and has not responded to those requests outside of his (incomplete, per the articles) budget submission. I am upset with the fact that he makes silly jokes in El Paso, disregarding their very valid concerns over border security. I'm equally upset that he rejected our governors offer to visit the areas affected by the wildfires we had. I'm upset that he spent a week in Europe, drinking Guinness with the Irish and visiting churches in England while we are fighting through a very real financial budgeting problem and and impending national debt crisis. I feel like he spends more time campaigning and trying to bolster his popularity for his reelection campaign than he is spending tackling important issues that need to be resolved now...not after the 2012 elections are over. I disagree with his tactics in insulting the other side and blaming them for our problems instead of taking a leadership role and rising above it to benefit the nation.

 

[Renae]

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?

President Obama's biggest mistake to date, is that he starts from the position that America, is only as strong as the Federal Government is in control. The Bailouts, his large amount of Czars (he has more Czar's running things then any previous President), his use of Executive Orders when stymied by Congress or the Courts. It's disturbing. He truly believes in the POWER of Government. There is a two fold reason behind this. The first is, he's ideologically aligned with such a line of thought, "Progressive" thinking as it were and second he sees Government fixing problems for people as path to votes ergo political power.

The problem is America has never embraced "Big Government" as the answer, and as our dollar free falls due to over spending, he and his party have failed, two years running now to produce a budget, failed to reign in spending, created MORE larger, unsustainable entitlement programs (Think Obamacare) and are actively trying to find way to control business through regulations. Two examples of this would be the Labor Board trying to stop Boeing from opening up a 757 line in SC and the EPA Regulating CO2 by business. Also, speaking of Obamacare, the number of, and entities that are receiving waivers smacks of political paybacks; most of these waivers? Unions and companies that donate the DNC. (You can look it up, I'm not making it up)

America wasn't created, and the Constitution wasn't designed to provide for an all powerful Federal Government, but that's what Obama stands for, and that's the crux of why and what makes him so very wrong.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

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.

 

[soccerboy22]

Technically, Congress and the courts aren't allowed to give up their powers, without revising the Constitution.

I read an interesting article in my Separation of Powers class in which one point the author was saying Congress and the Courts haven't given up their power. Rather they extended the Presidents. So, he was making a point that it is possible to argue that what Congress and the Courts have done is constitutional. I don't agree and neither did the author, but he was just trying to state the opposite side.

 

[Geo Patric]

Let's see... where to start.

Usurping the power to declare war from Congress by engaging in Libya.

fail. no war has been declared.

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.

fail. that he does not do what he may do but NEED not do is not a failure.

Usurping the power of the House of Representatives on the appropriation of money by pushing his budget.

failure as simply asinine.

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.

fail. executive orders do, in fact have the force of law.

That's just the short list off the top of my head.

try going a little deeper.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

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.

in the people, through congress is where power resides per the constitution. and comparing a contemporary president to a 18th century european monarch is just dumb.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

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.

 

[MaggieD]

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

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

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.

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.

 

[BDBoop]

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

NEVAR! and other letters as well.

 

[BDBoop]

Anybody on the Dem side of the fence, please don't start anything. I truly want to know, without interference, what their thoughts and impressions are based on.

 

[soccerboy22]

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.

I don't agree with you completely on the EO part. I think in general EOs have begun to become too common and too overbearing, however I think some of them are within the Presidents power. For example, Truman's executive order to desegregate the military was within his powers. And if the order or proclamation is within the branch of the Presidency then I think it is okay.

 

[Geo Patric]

1.)encouraging people to forward emails to the White House

how is that "illegal"?

2.)ignoring his Constitutional duty to enforce DOMA

no president is required to enforce unconstitutional laws any more than a soldier is required to execute illegal orders.

“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.”

- Wilson era U.S. Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger

let us remember that m. Obama is cannot be said to be acting arbitrarily...he is a constitutional expert. there is plenty of precedent, from Wilson to Bush.

3.)attempting to institute a national prayer day

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.

4.)continued suspension of habeas corpus

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.

[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.

Remarks by the President On National Security, 5-21-09 | The White House

but presidents do not decide in a vacuum. much of his effectiveness as CinC depends on a working relationship with the armed forces - who have come damn close to open revolt in response to the freeing of 'enemy combatants' whose 'charges' would not be sustained under civilian law.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

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.

and... whom would you say was the intended user of Executive Orders aside from the Executive?

convenient to condemn the WPA now. every president since 1973 has 'violated' Congresses right to declare war. Every president that served in congress spouted about the WPA while IN congress.. and ignored to afterward, claiming it as unconstitutional, not applicable in their own actions.... The WPA is mostly irrelevant. Even so, it has not yet been 'violated'. and, Congress is already drafting a resolution in support of m. Obama's actions.

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.

geo.

 

[The_Patriot]

fail. no war has been declared.

Putting our troops into a combat via orders by the president is a defacto declaration of war.

fail. that he does not do what he may do but NEED not do is not a failure.

Wrong he has a fidicuary 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.

failure as simply asinine.

Nonsequitor since you made no argument. Win for me.

fail. executive orders do, in fact have the force of law.

Not under the Constitution of the United States which is the highest law in the land. Another win.

try going a little deeper.

geo.

I recommend you take your own advice and dig deeper.

 

[Geo Patric]

Putting our troops into a combat via orders by the president is a defacto declaration of war.

and this is defacto dumb, but fortunately for you and for every president for the last several decades.... de facto is not de jure....

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.

"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:

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." 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.

- source


geo.

 

[The_Patriot]

and this is defacto dumb, but fortunately for you and for every president for the last several decades.... de facto is not de jure....

Failure on your part, so not going to reply to this.

"fiduciary"... you sure you meant that?

fi·du·ci·ar·y
   [fi-doo-shee-er-ee, -dyoo-] noun, plural -ar·ies, adjective
–noun
1. Law . a person to whom property or power is entrusted for the benefit of another.

Dictionary do you use it?

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.

The Constitution is quite clear that he can use executive orders to order coffee, staples, executive departments, but not to make law. Congress is the only one that can make law. The EO's I cited show he was making law disregarding the Senate's authority to approve treaties. You fail.

 

[cpwill]

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?

Well, I would start by saying that firstly, who he is has definitely negatively impacted his Presidency. Not sure if this will violate the "achieved and intelligent rule", but the fact remains that he entered the White House with very little political experience, and none of it Executive. This lack of experience in "how the system works" on his part allowed him to be co-opted early on by Congress. The "Stimulus", "Obamacare", etc; these are major expenditures that will be permanently tied to him and which he will have to defend - but which weren't even controlled by the White House. Instead Congress did to both of them What Congress Does When Handed A Big Ticket, which is to turn it into a massive, confusing, self-contradicting mishmash of giveaways, non-sequitors, pork gristle, and general tomfoolery. The President seems to think that his role in Governing is to give speeches and then let Congress figure out the specifics. For some things and in some times that approach works - but not these times and not these things (and not, I might submit, this Congress - James Madison we ain't); yet the Pretty-Speech-and-Let-Them-Handle-The-Boring-Details approach seems to be sort of the Presidents' forte, and that I think is because he hasn't had the opportunity (or been forced) to build another. As a legislator and as a candidate, speeches always did the trick. This, I should note, is also my biggest criticism of Herman Caine. Both men have a rare talent at making soaring speeches telling the base what they want to hear in a manner that remains relatively nonthreatening to moderates; but neither have a history of effectively turning those speeches into streamlined, competent policy.

Secondly I would say that I disagree wholeheartedly with many of his fundamental assumptions. This is a more broad-based criticism than just President Obama; but I didn't think that taking money from the productive sectors of the economy, pouring it into the unproductive (or overweight) sectors of the economy, and calling it "Stimulus" worked out for Bush W, and it didn't work out for Obama, either. According to the President's own numbers, we lost more jobs with the "Stimulus" than he said we would have lost without it. Every single month since then has seen higher unemployment than what we were told would be the very tip-most peak if only we would pass this massive keynesian stimulus plan that Congress was working up and which he was sure would be just great. This strategy didn't work for Obama, it didn't work for Bush, and it hasn't worked for any nation in the OECD for the last 40 years that we've been studying. Yet we get dire threats that if we discontinue this strategy of spending your way out of trouble, the economy will collapse. Not calling anyone names, but I would like to point out here that the definition of insanity is insisting on doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results.

Domestically I also think that we continue to be foolish for not tapping our own natural energy reserves. We have more oil in the United States than any other nation on the planet, and the President has consistently waffled - giving a speech promising to increase drilling and then pushing policy that has the opposite effect. It seems he is attempting to publicly appease the majority who want more oil production (and the large numbers of high-paying jobs that go along with them), while mollifying his more left-wing base.

On Foreign policy, I find it difficult to really pull one out. The President has changed his mind on quite a bit (Iraq, Gitmo, Free Trade with South Korea and Columbia), and reacts very differently to similar situations (Libya, Syria), leading me to suspect that his lack of executive and national-level of experience left him with little more of a defined foriegn policy than he had a legislative strategy. He seems to have lately started to pick up the George Bush "Freedom Agenda" approach, which I applaud, but we don't seem to have any continuity in our dealings with the outside world. When the only hyperpower on the public stage is unpredictable, that creates tension and instability. And again this is one of my criticisms' of Caine as well.

There are some other, smaller things (I wish he hadn't insulted the British by returning that Churchill Bust), and we could go for pages (and many of us have) over Obamacare. But I would posit those as a good starting list.

 

[Geo Patric]

Failure on your part, so not going to reply to this.

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.

yes, dictionaries are some of my favorite things. MOST usage is based on the 'property', specifically, monetary aspect of your definition, but yours in not incorrect.

The Constitution is quite clear that he can use executive orders to order coffee, staples . . . .

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.

The EO's I cited show....

actually, you cited none. in fact, you have cited nothing at all in this thread.

geo.

 

[The_Patriot]

ha... you wanna cite the section? that is another dumb statement, so you do not need to comment on it.

Article II Section II Clause I: ; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The definition of Commission as used by the founding fathers means:

The thing committed, entrusted or delivered; letters patent, or any writing from proper authority, given to a person as his warrant for exercising certain powers, or the performance of any duty, whether civil, ecclesiastical, or military. Hence,

4. Charge; order; mandate; authority given.

The president cannot make law period and end of story.

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.

Wrong, EOs under the Constitution are internal directives to executive agencies, ordering coffee, staples, etc.. but it does not make law.

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.

Cite the clause that the president can declare a national emergency. While you're at it please show me where martial law can exist in the Constitution of the United States. I'll disregard the SC from FDR's era since their rulings were not consistent with what the Constitution of the United States actually says.

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, as a Constitutional scholar, the court seized the power of interpretation in Marbury v. Madison. The power of interpretation on the Constitutionality of laws resides with the states and the people under the Tenth Amendment.

actually, you cited none. in fact, you have cited nothing at all in this thread.

geo.

Try again...

 

[Geo Patric]

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.

 

[The_Patriot]

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.

Obviously you do care or you wouldn't keep saying what you are. So far you have produced no facts to back up your opinion even when called to do so.