Obama’s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon’s

[Arbo]

George Will: Obama’s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon’s - The Washington Post

In a 1977 interview with Richard Nixon, David Frost asked:

“Would you say that there are certain situations . . . where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation . . . and do something illegal?”

Nixon: “Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

Frost: “By definition.”

Nixon: “Exactly, exactly.”

Nixon’s claim, although constitutionally grotesque, was less so than the claim implicit in Obama’s actions regarding the ACA. Nixon’s claim was confined to matters of national security or (he said to Frost) “a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude.” Obama’s audacity is more spacious; it encompasses a right to disregard any portion of any law pertaining to any subject at any time when the political “environment” is difficult.

Indeed, Obama does seem to be a bit more 'out of control' than even Nixon of all people. While will is clearly a biased individual, his history of outing the friends of Nixon ads quite a bit of weight to his piece. (In other words, he's done it to both sides, as to him corruption knows no bounds)

In addition to this, in a case about Yucca mountain, a court just found against the administration. The court ruled that a statutory law requiring government to act within a certain amount of time (this case 3 years to respond to permits) can not be ignored. Considering how many things this administration has put off in Obamacare, it seems a court might find the same to be true for all those delays. That would put us in a bad bad spot. Perhaps the lesson for government to learn (if they were capable of learning) would be to quit passing laws that are too big to be put into practice.

 

[justabubba]

somebody was apparently sleeping when the supreme court declared Obamacare Constitutional

 

[Arbo]

somebody was apparently sleeping when the supreme court declared Obamacare Constitutional

Thanks for offering nothing related to the topic, right out of the gate.

 

[Diogenes]

somebody was apparently sleeping when the supreme court declared Obamacare Constitutional

In principle, provided the penalties are redefined to be taxes. However there is nothing in the SC ruling that gives Obama the latitude to change the law at will by changing the timeline for different parts of the law, or altering the terms to excuse his donors from having to participate in this clusterf...k.

 

[justabubba]

Thanks for offering nothing related to the topic, right out of the gate.

i take it you did not receive the response you were hoping for
or were you not conflating Obamacare and lack of Constitutionality

 

[ocean515]

George Will: Obama’s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon’s - The Washington Post




Indeed, Obama does seem to be a bit more 'out of control' than even Nixon of all people. While will is clearly a biased individual, his history of outing the friends of Nixon ads quite a bit of weight to his piece. (In other words, he's done it to both sides, as to him corruption knows no bounds)

In addition to this, in a case about Yucca mountain, a court just found against the administration. The court ruled that a statutory law requiring government to act within a certain amount of time (this case 3 years to respond to permits) can not be ignored. Considering how many things this administration has put off in Obamacare, it seems a court might find the same to be true for all those delays. That would put us in a bad bad spot. Perhaps the lesson for government to learn (if they were capable of learning) would be to quit passing laws that are too big to be put into practice.

It's rather interesting how quiet the media and Congress is over the remarkable usurpation of Congressional authority the Obama Administration has set upon taking.

 

[TiredOfLife]

If you're going to be mad about something, be mad about habeas corpus. Breaking that is darn unconstitutional.

 

[yobarnacle]

If you're going to be mad about something, be mad about habeas corpus. Breaking that is darn unconstitutional.

i'm mad about ALL the abuses of the constitution.

I keep saying throw the bums out.

only because there is no hope of:

THROW THE BUMS IN JAIL!


"In America, there is no distinct criminal class. With the possible exception of congress!" Mark Twain

 

[MaggieD]

George Will: Obama’s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon’s - The Washington Post

Indeed, Obama does seem to be a bit more 'out of control' than even Nixon of all people. While will is clearly a biased individual, his history of outing the friends of Nixon ads quite a bit of weight to his piece. (In other words, he's done it to both sides, as to him corruption knows no bounds)

In addition to this, in a case about Yucca mountain, a court just found against the administration. The court ruled that a statutory law requiring government to act within a certain amount of time (this case 3 years to respond to permits) can not be ignored. Considering how many things this administration has put off in Obamacare, it seems a court might find the same to be true for all those delays. That would put us in a bad bad spot. Perhaps the lesson for government to learn (if they were capable of learning) would be to quit passing laws that are too big to be put into practice.

I'm not an Obama fan. But he is doing nothing unConstitutional, in my opinion. If he is??? Then Congress, by not attempting to impeach him, is letting us down.

Please let us see a list.

 

[TiredOfLife]

i'm mad about ALL the abuses of the constitution.

I keep saying throw the bums out.

Good luck with that, you'll need it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

somebody was apparently sleeping when the supreme court declared Obamacare Constitutional

It was HOW it was declared to be constitutional that is troubling. 4 justices said no, based on federal commerce power, 4 said yes, based on federal commerce power, and the deciding yes vote said no, based on commerce power, but yes based on taxation power. When congress gets the power to tax based on how any individual's income was not later spent that is quite a stretch of the 16th amendment is it not?


EDIT: That is either a SCOTUS 5/4 no vote based on the federal commerce power or a SCOTUS 8/1 no based on the federal taxation power.

 

[Arbo]

i take it you did not receive the response you were hoping for
or were you not conflating Obamacare and lack of Constitutionality

If you actually read post 1, you would understand the point was presidents ignoring statutory timelines put in place by law, as well as ignoring law that was passed and signed.

 

[Arbo]

But he is doing nothing unConstitutional,

Perhaps an actual reading of the article and a search on what the courts just said in the Yucca case is needed.

 

[sangha]

It is not inconstitutional to delay the implementation of legislation

Heckler v. Chaney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Compatibilist]

He's definitely pushing the limits but I've seen no real proof yet... but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I think you would really need to be
Constitutional Attorney to know for sure... which of course he is.

 

[Diogenes]

I'm not an Obama fan. But he is doing nothing unConstitutional, in my opinion. If he is??? Then Congress, by not attempting to impeach him, is letting us down.

Please let us see a list.

See this thread.

 

[yobarnacle]

He's definitely pushing the limits but I've seen no real proof yet... but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I think you would really need to be
Constitutional Attorney to know for sure... which of course he is.

Obama is smart. he is a lawyer. constitutional law? By whose definition. I suspect he is a loophole, law bender, it doesn't mean what you read, type of lawyer.

Because he certainly isn't upholding, supporting and defending the constitution! Which he swore, at least twice, to do!

 

[yobarnacle]

It is not inconstitutional to delay the implementation of legislation

Heckler v. Chaney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"More simply, they were arguing that the FDA had not certified that the drugs were "safe and effective" for human executions"

Yeah. Should have under gone definitive testing, to be certain these drugs were not hazardous to health, or had dangerous side effects in later life.

I'm surprised the court even agreed to hear the case.

THIS is an excellent example of a frivolous case!