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.
...The president has the authority to choose which laws to enforce...
Say what!!! That is absolutely incorrect! Per Article Two, Section Three of the United States Constitution:
"he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"
Nowhere in the Constitution does it imply, either explicitly or implicitly, that the chief executive can 'pick and choose' which laws he wants to enforce or ignore.
He said because the senate and the POTUS agree that should be "enough" and that the house should be ignored, which according to the constitution, isn't true.
Exactly! But these Libs think that it is the duty of the House to go along, because the bill was passed. Which gets us back to the beginning. They do not have to "go along."
The House is in the superior position here. They are the ones that get to say what will be spent, how much, or whether to spend it at all.
Therefore, the fact that it is the Senate that is unwilling to negotiate on this [the spending], it is they who are in the wrong.
I used to frequent this P&OC forum years ago before it became so full of RWNJ's. I also enjoyed it during the election season when it was obvious that Romney was tanking fast but none of the Tea Partiers would acknowledge it, and enjoyed it even more after the election when they still wouldn't own up to the fact that Obama and the Democrats completely kicked their a$$es and that the majority of Americans simply don't agree with right-wing Tea Party conservatism. So here it is, almost a year later, and the same myopic right-wingers are making the same ridiculous claims, 99% of which are based on something they've heard on Fox News. Guess what? You're going to lose on this issue, you'll likely lose seats in the House next year and will most likely lose the White House again in 2016. All because you refuse to independently educate yourselves about anything.
The bulk of Obamacare will survive constitutional challenges and it will soon be accepted as a government program that provides health care to people who need it. It's not going to destroy America and life as we know it will go on. You all could save yourselves a lot of angst if you'd just realize that.
The Democrat controlled congress under HW Bush, refused to fund Reagan's illegal immigration enforcement.
You are talking about reduction of funding of a program that went through Bush I and Clinton. That is at least 12 years of implementation not counting Reagan and Bush II.
Not quite the same analogy. Programs recieve reduced funding all the time after implementation.
Im confused as to what you see as "unconstitutional" in his assessment? The senario he laid out is the constitutional method of passing legislation. Why would the Consitution need to be trashed?
Judge Napolitano is a real judge for your information, and a Constitutional attorney.
I'm afraid you're a little confused.
Here's what you have posted about this guy:
Quote:
While on the bench from 1987 to 1995
.
In other words, he was a judge for about eight years. I don't know why he left the bench, but he is no longer a judge, has not been for almost twenty years. Now he's just another right-winger with an opinion.
Exactly! But these Libs think that it is the duty of the House to go along, because the bill was passed. Which gets us back to the beginning. They do not have to "go along."
The House is in the superior position here. They are the ones that get to say what will be spent, how much, or whether to spend it at all.
Therefore, the fact that it is the Senate that is unwilling to negotiate on this [the spending], it is they who are in the wrong.
Making Democrats dreams come true, one misapprehension of the political climate at a time.
The Republican led House is within it's Constitutional authority, and may to choose not to fund Obamacare, says judge and Constitutional Attorney, Andrew Napalitono.
In a nutshell, the judge said, If Congress enacts a law, and then determines that it is too expensive, not ready for implementation, or for other reasons, Congress may choose not to fund that law (or enforce it). They are not legally bound to fund a law that they enact.
It's as simple as that.
Obama is wrong, when he says "they must pay the bill [that they ran up]." There is no bill, because the law has not yet been implemented, the judge says.
But Obama thinks he is a dictator. He thinks the house is there to keep the government big.
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.
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.
