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.
If a Democratic led House was as useless as this one has been...
But it's not likely because Democrats want the government to function. The GOP does not.
Progressives want to fundamentally change the entirety of the basis of this nation; they want it to become the United Nations. It isn't very far from there yet but we haven't had a civil war and haven't been disarmed as of yet. Patriotism will mean nothing to the sheeple as they give their freedoms up willingly when ever asked.
What is the current definition of "function" in democrat speak?
This week in Washington the first marijuana stores opened up, even though it remains illegal under federal law. The Obama administration cut a deal with Washington's governor to turn a blind eye (in spite of still having a drug czar who is adamantly anti-legalization).
Ignore the question of whether marijuana should or should not be legal. Is it ok for the president to bypass the US Congress on laws that have been previously enacted? If the president wants to be change a law, shouldn't he go to Congress, make his case, and get the change enacted and signed?
Suppose that during the period when the "assault weapon" ban was in effect, George W. Bush had cut a deal with WA, which happens to be a very pro-gun-rights state, to allow the manufacture of magazines holding over 10 rounds. That was illegal under the federal "assault weapon" ban. If Obama can ignore federal law on pot, why not Bush on magazines?
Let me anticipate the objection that is sure to be made by the loony left. They will say that no one ever died from pot, so it's an apples/oranges comparison. First of all, deadliness is neither here nor there when it comes to rule of law. If a thing is illegal, it's illegal, whether or not you can die from it. Secondly, the 10 round limit was always dumb since a mag change can be done in under a second with a little practice.
What if a republican president bypassed congress as president Obama has? Republicans would not care.
When GW Bush bypassed congress and started domestic spying on US citizens republicans did not care. Bush Authorized Domestic Spying
When GW Bush started spying on US citizens republicans said it was OK. But as soon as Bush passed his spy network to Obama spying on US citizens became wrong, and then republicans attacked Obama for spying.
When GW Bush killed people with military drones republicans said it was OK. But when Obama killed people with military drones it was wrong.
When Obama killed 2 US citizens in the Benghazi attack, republicans went insane attacking Obama. But when the GW Bush White House said 935 lies about Iraq, and then attacked Iraq in the name of Sept 11 (when Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11), and then killed 100,000+ innocent Iraqi people and killed 1,000's of US soldiers for nothing, the republicans never said a word.
I suspect liberals would make excuses for Obama bypassing Congress as seen above... if a Republican does it... well, they have some objections... please stop the idiocy, nobody is falling for it... I like how they compare to Bush... this isn't a comparison, not even close...
I suspect liberals would make excuses for Obama bypassing Congress as seen above... if a Republican does it... well, they have some objections... please stop the idiocy, nobody is falling for it... I like how they compare to Bush... this isn't a comparison, not even close...
Care to elaborate? How is it not the same? How is it okay for one president to interpret the law as he sees tot but not another?
This week in Washington the first marijuana stores opened up, even though it remains illegal under federal law. The Obama administration cut a deal with Washington's governor to turn a blind eye (in spite of still having a drug czar who is adamantly anti-legalization).
Ignore the question of whether marijuana should or should not be legal. Is it ok for the president to bypass the US Congress on laws that have been previously enacted? If the president wants to be change a law, shouldn't he go to Congress, make his case, and get the change enacted and signed?
Suppose that during the period when the "assault weapon" ban was in effect, George W. Bush had cut a deal with WA, which happens to be a very pro-gun-rights state, to allow the manufacture of magazines holding over 10 rounds. That was illegal under the federal "assault weapon" ban. If Obama can ignore federal law on pot, why not Bush on magazines?
Let me anticipate the objection that is sure to be made by the loony left. They will say that no one ever died from pot, so it's an apples/oranges comparison. First of all, deadliness is neither here nor there when it comes to rule of law. If a thing is illegal, it's illegal, whether or not you can die from it. Secondly, the 10 round limit was always dumb since a mag change can be done in under a second with a little practice.
All POTUSs have used Executive Order - some more than others:
Well clearly as u said pot and large clips being illegal are both idiotic laws, but looking at our 'representitives' I'll digress.
I personally think it's perfectly OK for the President to bypass them if he has to. Congress is so worthless most of them probably need to be taking out to a play field and shot with 30 clip mags... but who knows. Everytime I say they can't get any dumber, guess who gets elected to Congress?
no its NOT ok for a president to bypass congress. we have this thing called a constitution in this country, and it lays out the powers that each branch of government has. it also lays out the checks and balances of those powers. congress is the body that makes the laws, not the president nor the courts. bypass congress and you effectively eliminate them and we then get an imperial president, which is not what the founding fathers wanted, in fact fought a war to get rid of.
Do I decide my likes and dislikes based on the party of the President? No. I liked some of George Bush's executive orders, others I disagreed with. Same with the current President.
Constitutionality is decided by the courts, whether I agree with the Executive order or not, constitutionality is not decided by me, as I am not a federal judge.
Sounds like more right wing self justification so that they don't have to feel as bad for hating everything Obama does.
United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law[1] when they take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). Like statutes or regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives usually require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree laws will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging war, and in general fine policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.
All presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders that in general terms can be described as executive orders.
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?
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
You do know that the ABA is a big time contributor to to the dem party.
George W. bypassed congress plenty. He effectively crippled stem cell research with the stroke of a pen. He also unilaterally bypassed the Geneva Convention without Congress, too.
"He also unilaterally bypassed the Geneva Convention without Congress, too."
You will have to explain that one to me.
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.
