- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 11,265
- Reaction score
- 2,921
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Oh, give me a break.
Yes, executive orders are constitutional. But executive orders that apply power he doesn't have as President are not constitutional. Heck, even Lincoln knew that. And Lincoln wasn't impeached either...though he expected it.
Or, do you think Obama can issue any executive order he wants?
Huh?? Which executive order signed by Lincoln do you think wasn't unconstitutional?
And no, of course Obama can't put anything he wants into an executive order. There are limits. And had Obama breached those limits, there is no question that EO would have been challenged. It wasn't because your premise is false.
I'm not doing the research for you. If you can't say, you can't say. Simple as that.hmmm...perhaps you should brush up on your history of Lincoln. I suggest a google search. The information is readily available.
I never said they're automatically challenged. But this one most certainly would have been had it been unconstitutional. The right is terrified of amnesty because they know that will translate into many additional votes for Democrats. If they could nullify this, they would have. And they could have had it been unconstitutional.In any event, you don't seriously think all executive orders are automatically challenged in court, do you? Who do you think has the political capital to challenge Obama right now? Look, the fact that nobody steps forward to challenge Obama in court for his actions doesn't mean what he's done is legal.
ok. it appears you see illegal Executive Orders issued by Obamahmmm...perhaps you should brush up on your history of Lincoln. I suggest a google search. The information is readily available.
In any event, you don't seriously think all executive orders are automatically challenged in court, do you? Who do you think has the political capital to challenge Obama right now? Look, the fact that nobody steps forward to challenge Obama in court for his actions doesn't mean what he's done is legal.
You really want to go there? Blaming every piece of legislation for people who don't want to participate in it is hardly a good measure of what you're saying.
Find me a piece of legislation universally loved by everyone. Go.
ok. it appears you see illegal Executive Orders issued by Obama
list them, and tell us why each should be found illegal
i am betting you won't/can't
I will limit myself to his actions as noted by the OP's article...not because that's the only thing he's done to violate his Oath of Office, the law and the Constitution, but because that's the topic of this thread.
The Dream Act was rejected by Congress. Obama, by Executive Order, went ahead and implemented the provisions of the Dream Act. By refusing to enforce immigration laws that are on the books he has violated his Oath of Office and the law. By issuing Executive Orders that implement the Dream Act he has violated the Constitution which details the separation of the three branches of government. In short, he doesn't have the power to implement these provisions and is in violation of the Constitution by doing so.
I'm not doing the research for you. If you can't say, you can't say. Simple as that.
I never said they're automatically challenged. But this one most certainly would have been had it been unconstitutional. The right is terrified of amnesty because they know that will translate into many additional votes for Democrats. If they could nullify this, they would have. And they could have had it been unconstitutional.
Your premise remains false. There is nothing unconstitutional about this.
knew you could not do it
no where have you shown us anything about Obama's Executive Orders which should be found unConstitutional
all you can do is whine about what he does, pretending he engages in illegal activity
my suggestion is to understand what the Constitution says before you assert something is unConstitutional
but then, that would require actually learning about something, factually
So you post a poll saying everyone loves Obamacare
It is pointed out that the poll you referenced is over a year old... meaning a lot has happened between then and now WRT what people have now learned about the issues with Obamacare, that many more have turned against it. And you then shift to 'but not everybody loves everything!'? Really? Hardcore lame there buddy.
I can't do what? Turn this into a pissing contest over every single EO Obama ever made? You are correct.
Now...the case has been made by myself and others in this thread as to why Obama has overstepped his bounds. You have yet to make the case why he is within his bounds.
MY suggestion is that you defend him, condemn him...or slink away.
btw, just so you know if you haven't read this thread..."Bush did it too" is not a defense.
Yes, the old poll. We have already discussed that. Thanks for nothing, again.
Ignored what? Partisan nonsense? There is plenty enough of that on here, if you want to actually discuss a topic let me know.
and just as i predicted
despite insisting Obama was acting unConstitutionally, when challenged to identify any illegal element of his Executive Orders you have been unable to show us any unConstitutional action Obama has taken
all you have to offer is whining that Obama is doing things you don't like
OK
you don't like it
so what. you don't matter. the black guy in the white house does
get over it
Say what?? This is why I asked you what Lincoln did that you thought was unconstitutional as I never thought you'd cite him suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus.Lincoln, by Executive Order, suspended Habeas Corpus in violation of the Constitution. Only the fact that we were in the midst of the Civil War prevented his impeachment.
You seem to assume that anything Obama does that is in violation of the Constitution will certainly be challenged. That is not the case. As we saw in the case of Lincoln, politics can easily get in the way...just as they've gotten in the way with many things Obama has done.
Again...just because he has not been challenged, it doesn't mean his actions are not unconstitutional.
Spare me the deflecting balderdash. I never said that you are saying Bush is culpable for anything. I've only said that you are excusing Obama because Bush did it too. Furthermore, all of your talk of politicians promising and not delivering has nothing to do with this topic. It's just another attempt by you of excusing Obama because others have done the same (so you say).
Look...justifying Obama's actions because someone else did something similar is no justification at all. Justify Obama's action on the facts and merits (if any) of his actions...or go home.
Now...if you really think Obama is continuing what his predecessors did, then show me. Just make sure your argument deals with the topic of illegal aliens, specifically in regards to the "Dreamers". I don't think you can.
Well a thread ignorantly associating Obama as a dictator is quite redundant. Obama still does what Bush did almost 10 years ago. If Obama is a dictator then dummy Bush before him was as well. Therefore us Americans have been living under a dictatorship for over 12 years
I don't think you know what "redundant" means. What's actually kind of funny is that in the way you used it, YOU are the one calling Obama a "dictator."
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?