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.
Constitutionally the checks and balance on the president is congress
but when he does sh*t like he's doing now, WE vote him out of office. and thats exactly whats going to happen in 2012, then the next INDEPENDENT president can do what bush and obama were SUPPOSED to do.
and that is not openly taking people on plane rides, showing off area 51, and spending 300,000 million dollars on votes for healthcare.
and don't claim that i changed the subject, you already did that when you answered the way you did.
but when he does sh*t like he's doing now, WE vote him out of office. and thats exactly whats going to happen in 2012, then the next INDEPENDENT president can do what bush and obama were SUPPOSED to do.
and that is not openly taking people on plane rides, showing off area 51, and spending 300,000 million dollars on votes for healthcare.
and don't claim that i changed the subject, you already did that when you answered the way you did.
the discussion was about constitutional balances between the three branches. certainly America people run a check on 2 of the three branches by elections.
from early civics classes i recall
The president has a check on the judicial because the president nominates the judicial for advise and consent from the congress.
The congress has a check on the president bye the power to impeach
The judicial especially the SC has check of congress because they can declare laws unconstitutional
No. The Tea Party members are called called "Tea Baggers" for obvious reasons. There is no reason behind "Obamabagger" other than your mind's inability to think of something and you trying to flame. But continue, dementor.
We currently have at least 12 states filing law suits about mandated insurance. There is some question if the consitution says private citizens must buy health insurance.
I think it is questionable if our government can own GM.
Can the president fire thge head of GM a private company. what constitutional power does the president have to do that?
the appointment Of czars is not constitutional, ye sothers have done it and it was not constitutional then.
Article 1, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time..."
Obama attempted to vote a pay raise for Hillary Clinton, who was still a member of Congress, and before her term is over, to be named as Secretary of State.
. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
13 USC 4 directs-The Secretary of Commerce shall perform the functions and duties imposed upon him by this title, may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties, and may delegate the performance of such functions and duties and the authority to issue such rules and regulations to such officers and employees of the Department of Commerce as he may designate.
President Obama attempted to give the census job to his Chief of Staff, political-hack enforcer, Rahm Emanuel which would put the census right in the hands of President Obama's enforcers which opens the door
A constitutional scholar says President Obama's acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize may be a violation of the U.S. Constitution because he received the award without the consent of Congress.
A clause in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office or Trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state." That raises a question: Is the Nobel Peace Prize an "Emolument" -- a gift arising from one's office which includes some sort of monetary award with it? Obama's Nobel prize - unconstitutional? (OneNewsNow.com)
Some unprecedented news today, folks. Never in the history of the United Nations has a U.S. President taken the chairmanship of the powerful UN Security Council. Perhaps it is because of what could arguably be a Constitutional prohibition against doing so. To wit: Section 9 of the Constitution says:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Nonetheless, the rotating chairmanship of the council goes to the U.S. this month. The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice take the gavel. However, this time will be different. Constitution be damned, Barack Hussein Obama has decided to put HIMSELF in the drivers seat, and will preside over global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament talks slated to begin September 24th. The Financial Times says:
Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council.
.
We currently have at least 12 states filing law suits about mandated insurance. There is some question if the consitution says private citizens must buy health insurance. Some question? Let's see what the SC says about that, but since we both know they will rule that it does not violate the Constitution, just as other such laws that currently exist do not, I think that question stands on shaking ground.
I think it is questionable if our government can own GM.They do not own GM, back away from the rightwing propaganda. The situation at GM is typical of any corporating being protected undr bankruptcy laws. If you knew anything about bankruptcy you would know that the company can be forced to make changes to show that they do have a plan to correct their mistakes and become solvent once again.
Can the president fire thge head of GM a private company. what constitutional power does the president have to do that?See above. So, you would have left things as they were?
the appointment Of czars is not constitutional, ye sothers have done it and it was not constitutional then. Are you attempting to say that giving a person the nickname of czar is unconstitutional, reaching far there. We both means the person is just being pointed to as the person in charge of this or that and in reality not a title. If this is the best you have as being major violations of the constitution then we are safe.
Article 1, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time..."
Obama attempted to vote a pay raise for Hillary Clinton, who was still a member of Congress, and before her term is over, to be named as Secretary of State.You left out the fact that she did not take the raise, opps.
. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
13 USC 4 directs-The Secretary of Commerce shall perform the functions and duties imposed upon him by this title, may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties, and may delegate the performance of such functions and duties and the authority to issue such rules and regulations to such officers and employees of the Department of Commerce as he may designate.
President Obama attempted to give the census job to his Chief of Staff, political-hack enforcer, Rahm Emanuel which would put the census right in the hands of President Obama's enforcers which opens the door
A constitutional scholar says President Obama's acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize may be a violation of the U.S. Constitution because he received the award without the consent of Congress.Once again I am at loss when it comes to you and the rights outrage over the President recieving th Nobel Peace Price, somehow I get the feeling if he were a Repub you would find the idea less distasteful.
A clause in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office or Trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state." That raises a question: Is the Nobel Peace Prize an "Emolument" -- a gift arising from one's office which includes some sort of monetary award with it? Obama's Nobel prize - unconstitutional? (OneNewsNow.com)
Some unprecedented news today, folks. Never in the history of the United Nations has a U.S. President taken the chairmanship of the powerful UN Security Council. Perhaps it is because of what could arguably be a Constitutional prohibition against doing so. To wit: Section 9 of the Constitution says:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Nonetheless, the rotating chairmanship of the council goes to the U.S. this month. The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice take the gavel. However, this time will be different. Constitution be damned, Barack Hussein Obama has decided to put HIMSELF in the drivers seat, and will preside over global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament talks slated to begin September 24th. The Financial Times says:
Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council.Glad someone is trying to get the UN on track, I doubt he will be successful since the UN became usless long ago. Anyway, my reply is the same, So What.
.
If these are the BIG violations you speak of then cannot join you in your outrage. I am sure there are lawyers from the right planning on trying to get all these "violations" brought before the SC, we both know the outcome, but hey, it is their time and money and you have the right to be upset about anything you chose.
Casper
If these are the BIG violations you speak of then cannot join you in your outrage. I am sure there are lawyers from the right planning on trying to get all these "violations" brought before the SC, we both know the outcome, but hey, it is their time and money and you have the right to be upset about anything you chose.
Casper
wse have at leat 12 states involved with the health care mandate
the appointment Of czars is not constitutional, ye sothers have done it and it was not constitutional then.
I buried this issue long ago on these boards. The appointment of every "czar" as they have been unfortunately referred to are clearly not only constitutional but are covered under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978! For god's sake will you people learn that you can't cut and paste the damned constitution without the slightest knowledge or understanding of prevailing statutes or Court decisions!
I have nether the time or inclination to go through the rest of the bullcrap having dispense with the first piece of nonsense.
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.
