• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's 21st century tyranny

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
By Lee DeCovnick
August 14, 2013



Article 1, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states:

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.​

There is nothing ambiguous in that single sentence. All legislative powers really means just that, all legislative powers. There are no exceptions for executive orders or the utopian desires of our new progressive princes, Obama's politically appointed czars. The Constitution was designed so that all laws were to be submitted in public, written and debated in public, voted on in congressional committees in full public view and the bill's final votes for passage were to be cast in public.

From forbes.com:

First, there was the delay of Obamacare's Medicare cuts until after the election. Then there was the delay of the law's employer mandate. Then there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law's health insurance subsidies, relying on the "honor system" instead. Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law-its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs-will be delayed for one more year.​

Why does Congress allow a sitting President to alter a law that they themselves passed and which was signed into legislation? Such alterations are simply unconstitutional.

If a President can unilaterally change or alter Obamacare or any other Federal law without Congressional approval, then our political institutions have been effectively dissolved, and America has fallen into the dark pit of unbridled despotism.

{snip}
We all know that famous ribald joke:

A famous man at a charity banquet asks the beautiful young woman next to him, "Assuming that we gave the money to charity, would you sleep with me for ten thousand dollars?" After some thought she says, "Yes." "And would you for two dollars?" "Why, what do you think I am!" "We've already decided that. Now we're just haggling about price."​

Just substitute despot for prostitute and we are haggling over what constitutes a post-Constitutional America.


[Excerpt]


Read more:
Blog: Obama's 21st century tyranny
 
The more you spam, the less any one cares what you spam about. Hope it pays well.
 
So when a president decides which laws or which parts of laws will be enforced it doesn't bother you?

It does. I loathe much of what the Obama administration has done and much of what they stand for. Did/do you have the same hatred when a Republican does it? Did many of the ways Bush broke the law (many of which Obama has done the same or worse) bother you to the same extent? Not calling you out...Just want an honest debate.
 
It does. I loathe much of what the Obama administration has done and much of what they stand for. Did/do you have the same hatred when a Republican does it? Did many of the ways Bush broke the law (many of which Obama has done the same or worse) bother you to the same extent? Not calling you out...Just want an honest debate.

You'll have to be specific, what law or laws did Bush announce he was not going to enforce?
 
By Lee DeCovnick
August 14, 2013



Article 1, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states:

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.​

There is nothing ambiguous in that single sentence. All legislative powers really means just that, all legislative powers. There are no exceptions for executive orders or the utopian desires of our new progressive princes, Obama's politically appointed czars. The Constitution was designed so that all laws were to be submitted in public, written and debated in public, voted on in congressional committees in full public view and the bill's final votes for passage were to be cast in public.

From forbes.com:

First, there was the delay of Obamacare's Medicare cuts until after the election. Then there was the delay of the law's employer mandate. Then there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law's health insurance subsidies, relying on the "honor system" instead. Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law-its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs-will be delayed for one more year.​

Why does Congress allow a sitting President to alter a law that they themselves passed and which was signed into legislation? Such alterations are simply unconstitutional.

If a President can unilaterally change or alter Obamacare or any other Federal law without Congressional approval, then our political institutions have been effectively dissolved, and America has fallen into the dark pit of unbridled despotism.

{snip}
We all know that famous ribald joke:

A famous man at a charity banquet asks the beautiful young woman next to him, "Assuming that we gave the money to charity, would you sleep with me for ten thousand dollars?" After some thought she says, "Yes." "And would you for two dollars?" "Why, what do you think I am!" "We've already decided that. Now we're just haggling about price."​

Just substitute despot for prostitute and we are haggling over what constitutes a post-Constitutional America.


[Excerpt]


Read more:
Blog: Obama's 21st century tyranny

Nice setup. :roll:
 
The more you spam, the less any one cares what you spam about. Hope it pays well.

I find it funny how certain political groups and people are only now being offended by uses of executive orders and czars. It's like 2000-2008 didn't exist to them.

Also, Wehrwolfen's inability to write his own stuff has me close to putting him on my mental ignore list.
 
I find it funny how certain political groups and people are only now being offended by uses of executive orders and czars. It's like 2000-2008 didn't exist to them.

Also, Wehrwolfen's inability to write his own stuff has me close to putting him on my mental ignore list.

When I do write I'm asked for the source of my reasoning, so I find it much easier to first post the source and then discuss it after.
 
when you let someone you dislike occupy your every thought, that person wins.
 
When I do write I'm asked for the source of my reasoning, so I find it much easier to first post the source and then discuss it after.

Random blogs do not really count as sources. Facts = gud, Joe Sixpacks wordpress blog, not so much.
 
Random blogs do not really count as sources. Facts = gud, Joe Sixpacks wordpress blog, not so much.

Neither are your inane responses of any use.
 
Random blogs do not really count as sources. Facts = gud, Joe Sixpacks wordpress blog, not so much.

So do you not believe he delayed enacting the law?

Or do you just believe it's within his power to do so?

If the next president came in and delayed enacting the laws for his term without Congress you would be ok with that.

Seems shortly we really won't need Congress.
 
Back
Top Bottom