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.
Separation of Powers, perhaps you have heard of it. There are things Presidents can do on their own that neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court can stop. There are other things that Presidents can only do with Congressional approval or acquiescence. Throughout U.S. history there have been disputes between the 3 branches over what is permitted and what isn't. An executive order is not free from constitutional challenges or from Congress changing the laws to block the order.
As an example here is the Executive Order on closing Guantanamo, which Congress blocked.
Congress gave complete power to the president to close Gitmo. All that was required was for him to inform congress what he was going to do with the prisoners.
What does the series of events have to do with being a constitutional scholar?
Do all political speeches really have to carry the disclaimer that I will do x unless of course Congress changes the law to prevent me from doing x.
Its that level of political spin that results in most people not taking these types of threads and the lists of Obama's "lies" seriously.
Since you are the one who claims omniscience and being so wonderful, being a constitutional scholar(?) he would know what he can promise with a reasonable chance of having it happen. He claims all of his actions are constitutional, except for the ones that he ignores the constitution on.
BTW, you are really stretching your credibility concerning political speeches. This would tend to indicate your desire to have it so in spite of facts showing how wrong it is. We are supposed to hold our elected officials to a higher standard.
As for this "political spin" you speak of, that is exactly what you are doing and, in true Obama like fashion, failing to convince. The lies just further convince the failure of Obamas reign.
Congress gave complete power to the president to close Gitmo. All that was required was for him to inform congress what he was going to do with the prisoners.
Let me ask about one ball you've tried to advance your entire term. You wanted to close Guantanamo in your first year. About a year ago you gave a speech in which you said you wanted to close Guantanamo. You referred to it again in this speech here at West Point.
Just chipping away at it. In the year since your last speech in which you said you wanted to close Guantanamo, it's our understanding that only 12 — about 12 prisoners have been sent back to their home countries, repatriated. The vast majority are still there. Has that problem proved to be so difficult there's a good chance you may hand Guantanamo over your successor?
Not if I can help it. I think it is very important for us to close Guantanamo. I think it is very important as we end the war that originally gave — gave life to Guantanamo that we now wind it down. Could you not send more prisoners back now? Is that not possible?
Well, the — you know, Congress has placed some restraints on us. And — But they've loosened those restraints.
Well, I understand. And I promise you that we're using every possible available avenue. In some cases, it's hard to return prisoners because the countries where they come from don't want them or can't provide us assurances that they can control them. It is a hard problem. It's a tough legal problem. It's a tough security problem.
But what I know is that we cannot in good conscience maintain a system of indefinite detention in which individuals who have not been tried and convicted are held permanently in this legal limbo outside of this country. That is contrary to U.S. traditions. It feeds terrorist propaganda. It is not ultimately going to be effective when it comes to dealing with the long-term terrorist threat. It makes it harder for us to get cooperation from our partners.
And it is wildly expensive. I mean, we spend 10, 15 times more, in many cases, for these prisoners than we would do in a normal supermax syst — prison in our federal system. So for all kinds of reasons, it doesn't make sense.
And I'm going to keep on pushing because I want to make sure that when I turn the keys over to the next president, that they have the ability, that he or she has the capacity to — to make some decisions with a relatively clean slate. Closing Guantanamo is one.
President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants
I have been behind and fully support option #2. Obama prefers war over closing Gitmo.
That article does not change my assertion that Congress is blocking Obama from closing Guantanamo. The suggested ways to bypass the law are ridiculous. The original statue that blocked the transfer or release of Prisoners was inserted into the bill with a vote of 90-6 in the Senate. The article assertion that a veto proof majority wouldn't develop around releasing Guantanamo prisoners has no basis in reality. Obama's goal was always to transfer the prisoners to the United States and then close the base. Congress has blocked that option, as even this article points out.
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.
