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.
And the repulicans in congress have absolutley no legal concept on how to stop a dictator. What a feeble party.
The 2007 law mandated a 20% reduction in gas consumption within 10 years.
Legislation leaves the " how to" up to government.
When government does what it is supposed to do, implement the laws, approved by Congress, the party opposing the current president can be counted on to cry foul and create the perception that government is circumventing Congress.
As soon as FDR died/left the White House, the number of terms a President could serve was changed. I suspect when Obama leaves the White House there will be a movement to curb presidential power grabs.
That would be a hard proposition. If through Consitituional amendment, the amendment would have to be specific but not too narrow or too broad.
Even with a Non-Democrat President and a majority non-Democrat congress, writting legislation on curbing the Executive branch would be a hard sell to the judiciary.
So one can't be black, cool, and support big corporations?
What war would like the President to end?
How is tightening heavy truck fuel standards an impeachable offense?
Because, like issuing waivers and delays in the implementation of Obama care, it is done without legal authority, i.e. it is illegal, therefor it is a misdemeanor or worse, therefor, it is impeachable.
The announcement, which the White House says Obama will make at a distribution center for the grocery chain Safeway in Upper Marlboro, Md., later this morning, follows his State of the Union pledge last month to set new fuel standards for trucks "so we can keep driving down oil and imports and what we pay at the pump."
Obama's 2011 directive on heavy-duty vehicles impacted new models from 2014 to 2018. According to those standards, manufacturers of big rigs and semi trucks were required to achieve a 20% reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse emissions, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans were required to achieve a 15% reduction, and delivery trucks, buses and garbage trucks were required to achieve a 10% reduction. The administration touts the first round standards will save vehicle owners and operators $50 billion in fuel costs.
...
The White House picked the Safeway distribution center because the grocery chain —which has participated in an EPA-led initiative — has made big strides improving the efficiency of its trucking fleet.
For someone that pretends to be a supporter of Unions (and being black and cool), he sure does spend most his time hanging out and wooing the big corporations. How about stopping the wars idiot? That would save so much more and it would help freedom instead of your nazi-esque "standards".
Bunch of liars, thieves, and pretty much all ugly people.
Time to IMPEACH.
"Nazi-esque standards" ? I would suggest to you that you should spend some time at your local library and learn about the Nazi`s instead of trying to impeach someone for striving for fuel independency. The real Nazi`s weren`t all that interested in fuel efficient vehicles.
Article 2 of the Constitution assigns the “executive power,” to the President and tells the President that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It does not say how that is to be done, or when, but the emphasis on being “faithful” at least implies that the President will respect the choices that Congress has made and written into law.
Very few, if any, of the laws that Congress passes are completely self-executing; most if not all of them require regulations to put them into actual effect. And writing regulations is the business of the federal agencies.
"Nazi-esque standards" ? I would suggest to you that you should spend some time at your local library and learn about the Nazi`s instead of trying to impeach someone for striving forfuel independency. The real Nazi`s weren`t all that interested in fuel efficient vehicles.
......to satisfy 2007 legislation that requires a 20% reduction in gas consumption within 10 years....
It's the same Act that compelled the change to light bulb standards.
The XL pipeline wouldn't help at all. It's an export pipeline. It doesn't bring any additional oil into the US. The Canadian pipelines aren't even flowing at half capacity. It takes oil away from the midwest and instead it takes it to Saudi owned refineries in Houston where it will be refined and put on tanker ships to be transported to Latin American countries. This is according to TransCanada's own documents. It's why American refinary companies sued to stop the construction of the Keystone XL. But you wouldn't hear that from the Saudi owned Fox News. Yes a Saudi Prince owns a controlling interest in Fox News. No US oil company put money towards the building of Keystone XL instead it was all foreign oil companies.
The Keystone XL will in fact increase the cost of gas in 16 states to the point where the US will spend an addition six billion dollars a year on fuel and kill over a 100,000 jobs to the increase in gas prices. TransCanada's own documents show that only a few hundred jobs would be created.
Houston? Don't you mean the new refinery in Port Arthur, that is owned 50/50 by Dutch Shell Oil and Saudi Aramco?
The refinery employs Americans, so yes it will help. Unless you are just upset that those profits are not going to a US oil corporation.
Article 2 of the Constitution assigns the “executive power,” to the President and tells the President that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It does not say how that is to be done, or when, but the emphasis on being “faithful” at least implies that the President will respect the choices that Congress has made and written into law.
Very few, if any, of the laws that Congress passes are completely self-executing; most if not all of them require regulations to put them into actual effect. And writing regulations is the business of the federal agencies.
The phrase "faithfully" does not include the president picking winners and losers, to help his political and corporate cronies with waivers so they can disobey any law the president chooses.
Because, like issuing waivers and delays in the implementation of Obama care, it is done without legal authority, i.e. it is illegal, therefor it is a misdemeanor or worse, therefor, it is impeachable.
If it is "illegal' then can you cite the federal statute that states that the President is restricted from isuing any waiver, or delay in any manor the implementation of a law?
You argue that the President has no authority, I argue there is no restiction in law you can cite.
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.
