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.
It is pretty sound logic. There are a lot of checks and balances designed in our system of government, and while they are not always foolproof, I trust our national process a lot more than the alternative concept of "some right wing Forbes writer and a right wing Internet poster named 'michiganmoon' don't like Obama and claim he did something horribly unconstitutional, even though they have zero qualifications to actually know anything about it."
No you didn't use sound logic.
You said: "If Obama had actually really done anything unconstitutional, he would have been impeached and the judicial branch would have gotten involved. This is just a lot of bluster about nothing."
Using your logic (quoted above)...there has never been a time where a president has acted unconstitutionally, because Johnson and Clinton were found not guilty in their impeachment. Nixon was pardoned before he could be found guilty, but I'll give you that one if you like.
So using your logic other than possibly Nixon, no president has acted unconstitutionally...because no one has ever been impeached and found guilty in their impeachment.
Do you have a list of the cases? The author didn't provide the nature of the cases or what the court ruled; just that they were unanimous decisions against the Department of Justice. The losing side of a Supreme Court case has not necessarily violated the constitution, regardless of whether the case is decided 9-0 or 5-4.
I would also point out that the author is asserting that these are Obama's violations and not that these are violations by the Obama administration.
Fair points, they were policies that were put in place by his administration that were declared unconstitutional and then repealed. This happens to all modern presidents to some extent as he points out.
Those certainly aren't criminal. But were unconstitutional.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 are basically matters of discretion in enforcement priorities which the author just doesn't like. I am pretty sure that there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the executive to prosecute every potential administrative rule violation all the time.
Where in the constitution does the president have the power to make changes to the law? The law didn't write in discretion that Obama has taken. That is expanding the power of the presidency to beyond what the constitution gives him.
Where in the constitution does the president have the power to make changes to the law? The law didn't write in discretion that Obama has taken. That is expanding the power of the presidency to beyond what the constitution gives him.
Obama has expanded the power of the president...may God help us all if an overbearing conservative gets elected with Obama's precedents.
The president doesn't have to power to change the law. In fact I would bet that if someone were to use civil provisions of the law to go after their insurance for non-compliance the insurance would have problems. With that said the executive generally has the power to decide when to prosecute violations of statutes and administrative rulemaking. The Constitution has no specific rules I am aware of in setting enforcement priorities.
As to adminstrative agencies and hearings. They are all subject to congressional and judicial oversight in that they exist due to Congressional grants of authority which can be removed and are always subject to review by article 3 courts. They are hardly a 4th branch.
The President does have discretion in the exercise of executive power. In fact, all three branches of government exercise discretion in the function of government.
Lol.....oh, that's right. Remember, like Ed Asner and the rest of the Hollywoodiots, the media didn't want to criticize Obama because that would make them seem "anti-black".
The president doesn't have to power to change the law. In fact I would bet that if someone were to use civil provisions of the law to go after their insurance for non-compliance the insurance would have problems. With that said the executive generally has the power to decide when to prosecute violations of statutes and administrative rulemaking. The Constitution has no specific rules I am aware of in setting enforcement priorities.
As to adminstrative agencies and hearings. They are all subject to congressional and judicial oversight in that they exist due to Congressional grants of authority which can be removed and are always subject to review by article 3 courts. They are hardly a 4th branch.
kinda like immigration policy, 'we won't enforce our borders and you states can't do it either'.
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.
