Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-02-2013, 02:51 PM
 
Location: texas
9,127 posts, read 7,942,406 times
Reputation: 2385

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Wrong. They can defund it now. It doesn't have to be delayed. Obama has delayed aspects of it without Congressional and Constitutional authority. He has done this illegally.
Your assessment of Obama's actions has never been ajudicated. Bring hes actions before a court and let them make the decision. That is the way our legal system works.

Accusations mean absolutely nothing. I know they are the GOP's bread and butter.

 
Old 10-02-2013, 02:53 PM
 
Location: New Hampshire
1,137 posts, read 1,398,396 times
Reputation: 1236
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
Oh, not a real judge...

That's Ok. Barry O is not a real leader either.
 
Old 10-02-2013, 02:54 PM
 
1,978 posts, read 1,552,794 times
Reputation: 2742
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Which is not correct.

The president has the authority to choose which laws to enforce. Everyone has to pay taxes, those who choose to not follow the law may or may not be arrested at the discretion of the executive branch.
I thought he took an oath to uphold the laws of the usa, not, pick and choose the ones that he likes.
 
Old 10-02-2013, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Sonoran Desert
39,078 posts, read 51,231,444 times
Reputation: 28324
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post


Raising the debt limit, which is what the quote taken out of context was referring to, not the ACA!

The President and the Democrats in the Congress are just putting it out their, the Congress has an obligation to pay for what it has authorized. You cannot defund retroactively. The Congress has the authority to "defund" future ACA expenditures, of that there is no doubt (other than political reality) what the Congress cannot do according to the administration is simply refuse to pay for its current obligations.
The President is required to spend monies and implement programs Congress approved. So he would be breaking the law if he were to stop ACA. The debt ceiling is an interesting quandary for the president since the law requires him to implement Congress' bills and pay the debt. What to do? What to do? Either way he could be impeached. Hey, is that what they are up to?
 
Old 10-02-2013, 02:57 PM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,677,147 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo View Post
Whether or not it is legal to "defund" Obamacare, it is a brain-dead notion. Enough provisions of the ACA have gone into effect to wreck the flawed old system; if the ACA marketplaces do not get in place, the people who buy individual insurance with their own money will have nowhere to go.

Ted Cruz would just throw us all under the bus. He exemplifies the worst in American political discourse. And his tea party allies and acolytes are right there with him.
No one is even talking about defunding it any more.

I know your situation, but it's common sense to start negotiations with something big, so you can negotiate down, and get to something you actually want. It's quite possible the defund option was not sincere, just an over-the-top starting point.
 
Old 10-02-2013, 03:00 PM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,677,147 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
The President is required to spend monies and implement programs Congress approved. So he would be breaking the law if he were to stop ACA. The debt ceiling is an interesting quandary for the president since the law requires him to implement Congress' bills and pay the debt. What to do? What to do? Either way he could be impeached. Hey, is that what they are up to?
Do you really think this president feels as if he should be constrained by his presidential duties, the law, or the Constitution??

I think this guy would violate everything he could if he saw the opinion polls swing his way.
 
Old 10-02-2013, 03:00 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,306,967 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
Your assessment of Obama's actions has never been ajudicated. Bring hes actions before a court and let them make the decision. That is the way our legal system works.

Accusations mean absolutely nothing. I know they are the GOP's bread and butter.
Where in the Constitution do you find that the President of the United States has the authority to change, or delay the implimentation of law, on his own, without the Congress being involved?

Where in the Constitution do you find that the President may exempt certain groups of people from certain laws, without Congressional approval.

These things require amendments to the laws in question, and a vote by both Houses of Congress, and to be sent to the President for his approval, or veto.

That is the way our legal system works. Go back to school. You fail!
 
Old 10-02-2013, 03:02 PM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,677,147 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
Your assessment of Obama's actions has never been ajudicated. Bring hes actions before a court and let them make the decision. That is the way our legal system works.

Accusations mean absolutely nothing. I know they are the GOP's bread and butter.
Unfortunate for Obama, most every accusation the Republican house made against Obama turns out to be true.
 
Old 10-02-2013, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,358,834 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Might as well just burn the constitution because you don't like the outcome. We have checks and balances for a reason, sorry it inconveniences you.
exactly. And another word for 'check' is 'obstruction.' That is what the Framers wanted--a system where obstruction was relatively easy. And today's Democrats seem to detest that.
 
Old 10-02-2013, 03:06 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,306,967 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
Was this ruling form the bench or was it form a seat at the Fox studios?
It wasn't a "ruling." He was explaining the law. And what does it matter where he was when he explained the law?

Is this topic above your comprehension level?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:24 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top