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.
Ah, but there is a constitutional right to not have the government infringe on your right to bear arms. The US Constitution governs state, as well as federal, laws.
There is no constitutional right to smoke pot.
Irrelevant. Conservatives raise hell about issues where they think the federal government is trambling on the rights of states - EPA, healthcare, education or what have you - but when it comes to things like gay marriage or marijuana, their tune changes.
Actually have been a pretty staunch republican for years and a retired military~ and what do you recommend happen when a few people subvert the constitution and take powers that they are not supposed to have, then sue because someone attempts too do the job they were voted for. Blaming the president for following the laws that they passed as in this immigration debacle is a case in point.
I'm blaming the president for not following the law. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law, but the Obama admin agreed not to enforce it. Frankly, whether you are a staunch Republican or retired military is neither here nor there.
The question is, does the POTUS get to pick and choose which laws will be upheld. And if the answer if yes, why even have a Congress? Why not disband the Congress and save all that money?
The question is, does the POTUS get to pick and choose which laws will be upheld. And if the answer if yes, why even have a Congress? Why not disband the Congress and save all that money?
Irrelevant. Conservatives raise hell about issues where they think the federal government is trambling on the rights of states - EPA, healthcare, education or what have you - but when it comes to things like gay marriage or marijuana, their tune changes.
These issues are different though. I do get your point and I'm not denying there's hypocrisy. However, this is about simply ignoring a law. That's not the case with the EPA, healthcare, or education.
These issues are different though. I do get your point and I'm not denying there's hypocrisy. However, this is about simply ignoring a law. That's not the case with the EPA, healthcare, or education.
How can you or any conservative honestly believe that federal resources ie taxes should be used to harass individuals doing something that the law in their state as voted on by the people says they can do? It defies the logical assumption based on all previous rhetoric.
He did not change the law; therein lies the problem. If he had gone to the trouble of changing the law, all would be well under our system of checks and balances. Instead he decided to ignore existing law.
What if other presidents decided to do that with issues that might not float your boat?
I don't know - what IF "other Presidents decide to do that"?
"Bush's Tactic of Refusing Laws Is Probed
By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 24, 2006
A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.
In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined.
The panel members described the development as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances, and they urged Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of such statements...."
I don't know - what IF "other Presidents decide to do that"?
"Bush's Tactic of Refusing Laws Is Probed
By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 24, 2006
A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.
In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined.
The panel members described the development as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances, and they urged Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of such statements...."
Ken
Short, selective memories seem to be a problem around here...
Short, selective memories seem to be a problem around here...
Yup.
What's really ironic is that Bohner's lawsuit against the President (for not implimenting laws) is apparently going to focus on Obamacare. So - in effect the GOP is going to go to court to IMPLIMENT Obamacare.
You just can't make this stuff up.
Toooooooo funny.
"House Speaker John Boehner announced Thursday the Republican-led lawsuit against President Barack Obama will focus on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and the White House decision to delay the employer mandate.
"In 2013, the president changed the health care law without a vote of Congress, effectively creating his own law by literally waiving the employer mandate and the penalties for failing to comply with it. That's not the way our system of government was designed to work," Boehner said in a statement..."
Well, who knows, now that it appears that Obamacare is working, maybe he's hoping to take credit for it.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 07-10-2014 at 10:50 PM..
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.
