- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 16,386
- Reaction score
- 7,793
- Location
- Where I am now
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
A president has the power to sign a bill into law or veto it. If he found something unconstitutional about the bill at the time, he had every right to veto it. However, he does not have the right to cherry pick what laws he will follow and what laws he won't once they become law.
There is a strong case to be made for the fact that the President has a constitutional duty - via his oath to preserve and defend the Constitution - to not enforce laws he believes to be unconstitutional. It's murky to be sure but Obama wouldn't be the first president to do so.
The problem is that if a bill is vetoed because one portion is believed to be unconstitutional means vetoing perhaps hundreds of other parts of the bill that the President believes to be Constitutional. Every President since Carter has pointed out (often through signing statements) portions of bills they signed but disagreed with on Constitutional grounds and would not enforce. Bush 43 did that something like 160 times, about twice the average of his peers.
If he is not impeached by the House then the damage will be permanent. Belize is looking better every day.He will not be impeached. No one is willing to deal with the fallout that would occur if he was. We are all going to just keep walking on eggshells until he is out of office, and then try to repair the damage he has done to this country.
Senators do not vote for impeachment. That is the House's responsibility.Name for me the democrat senators that will vote for impeachment. In fact, name one.
Why do you believe that? Every law limits executive branch power.If what I understand to be going on is correct, it is illegal because congress cannot pass a law that limits executive power.
Senators do not vote for impeachment. That is the House's responsibility.
So impeach the SOB and then arrest him for the felony (or two, or three or more) that he has committed.
Personally aid and comfort to a terrorist organization is enough for a life behind bars.
I would prefer the death penalty. Some say I aim too high.
Senators do not vote for impeachment. That is the House's responsibility.
So impeach the SOB and then arrest him for the felony (or two, or three or more) that he has committed.
Personally aid and comfort to a terrorist organization is enough for a life behind bars.
I would prefer the death penalty. Some say I aim too high.
It requires no senate votes to impeach the president. Impeachment occurs in the House of Representatives.I think it still takes 67 senate votes to impeach a president. Even if republicans control the senate after 2014, you will still need 15+ senate democrats to go along with them and that is just not going to happen. Obama will be out in January 2017. We are stuck with him til then. Unfortunately.
I beg to differ with you LOP. While you make the case that the laws are illegal passed by Congress, many could make that claim on several issues. Nevertheless, currently they are the LAW.
Obama did not make a wise trade. PFC Bergdahl (he was promoted to sergeant while being held captive) is well documented that he was a disserter and good honorable paratroopers lost their lives searching for this bastard. Various sources from Bergdahl’s unit, the 501st Airborne Infantry are reporting in around the Web with this information:
PFC Matthew Michael Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker, SSG Michael Murphrey, 2LT Darryn Andrews, were all KIA from our unit who died looking for Bergdahl. Many others from various units were wounded or killed while actively looking for Bergdahl.
Here’s Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the statutory regulation dealing with desertion:
(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
And the damning evidence against PFC Bergdahl from those in his unit is being made known via the Internet. He made no secret of his disillusionment with America, sending emails to his parents, one of which contained this statement, “The system is wrong. I am ashamed to be an american. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools... I am sorry for everything here”
A fellow trooper, Jason Fry, has gone on the record that Bergdahl told him, "If this deployment is lame, I'm just going to walk off into the mountains of Pakistan."
So justify anyway you can the release of 5 rabid Taliban who will be out soon orchestrating more killings of Americans in exchange for what is shaping up to be one lame ass dissserter.
Great. Confirmed.Senators vote to remove an impeached president from office.
Perhaps only because of your love of tyranny as long as it is exercised for your team.The rest of your post is lunacy.
I prefer firing squad but a hanging (remember this would be legal--lynching were not) would be fine.A lynching?
Perhaps only because of your love of tyranny as long as it is exercised for your team.
I would like to see a firing squad for this offense. Is that too much to ask?
I know quite well. We are living in a soft tyranny. The hard part usually comes later.I don't think you know what "tyranny" means.
He appears to have committed treason, offering aid and comfort to our enemy during war. He needs to be tried, convicted and then executed.Yes. In fact, it's utterly insane.
The fact that you think, over a prisoner-for-prisoner swap, we should shoot the twice duly elected President of the United States, then you have left Earth's gravitational pull and are headed at cruising speed toward Planet Crazy.
He appears to have committed treason, offering aid and comfort to our enemy during war. He needs to be tried, convicted and then executed.
If we can only get him on a lesser charge then life in prison would be barely acceptable.
Cool. I am not surprised that you defend the traitor. How much more aid and comfort could he provide than to return their top people?The idea that Obama has committed treason is weapons-grade stupid.
Cool. I am not surprised that you defend the traitor. How much more aid and comfort could he provide than to return their top people?
Impeach the SOB. Then arrest him, try him, convict him. I want the death penalty. You just want him to remain your king. Got it.
Treason is not a word that I would use to describe his actions in this case. I would, though, characterize those actions as "tactically symbolic".The idea that Obama has committed treason is weapons-grade stupid.
As anyone dared ask the question, "Why would you promote a PFC to Sgt while held in captivity if said PFC was a deserter? I'm familiar with battlefield promotions, but PFC Bergdahl wasn't on the battlefield when the promotion was given. So, why promote a "deserter"?
I know quite well. We are living in a soft tyranny. The hard part usually comes later.
He appears to have committed treason, offering aid and comfort to our enemy during war. He needs to be tried, convicted and then executed.
If we can only get him on a lesser charge then life in prison would be barely acceptable.
If there is a God.Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL and could lead to Obama's IMPEACHMENT | Mail Online
Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it could lead to Obama's impeachment
The president ignored a law – which he signed last year – requiring him to notify Congress 30 days before releasing anyone from Guantanamo Bay
The Obama administration never told Capitol Hill until after Bergdahl was in American custody and the US Taliban prisoners were preparing to leave
A former federal prosecutor told MailOnline that while the 30-day-notice law is probably unconstitutional, putting enemy combatants back in a position to harm Americans is an impeachable offense
A White House insider said Obama administration officials didn't anticipate how controversial Bergdahl's rescue would be, and compared it to the 1981 release of 52 US hostages in Iran
Because he's not a deserter - yet. He's simply AWOL. To be guilty of desertion he has to have intended to be away from his post permanently, which I don't think they can ascertain without actually talking to him. It also requires a court martial.
If there is a God.
Because he's not a deserter - yet. He's simply AWOL. To be guilty of desertion he has to have intended to be away from his post permanently, which I don't think they can ascertain without actually talking to him. It also requires a court martial.
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?