Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 07-08-2014, 09:26 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,376,344 times
Reputation: 9616

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grsz11 View Post
And when did Congress give authority to open a prison?
uhm...they pass the BUDGET, which authorizes the building, opening, and maintaining of such facilities
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2014, 09:31 PM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,544,777 times
Reputation: 2823
He has the power to declare administrative orders clarifying the enforcement of laws. He does not have the power to enforce orders contrary to laws passed by the legislative branch. He is not a legislator and the line item veto has been declared unconstitutional.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2014, 09:31 PM
 
3,557 posts, read 4,080,127 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
uhm...they pass the BUDGET, which authorizes the building, opening, and maintaining of such facilities
You're confusing authorization and appropriation. Can you show me which law provides for the prison BEFORE Rumsfield started sending them there? Probably not, because it started in the middle of a fiscal year that began before 9/11.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 01:29 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,376,344 times
Reputation: 9616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grsz11 View Post
You're confusing authorization and appropriation. Can you show me which law provides for the prison BEFORE Rumsfield started sending them there? Probably not, because it started in the middle of a fiscal year that began before 9/11.
wow, quite partisan are you

gitmo was used for detention even in the 80's and 90's...well before rumdummy

1980's it was part of CCF which was w military prison for military bad joes

1990's was still used as a detention facility, to include for all the Haitian refugees


take your partisan blinders off dude...your embarrassing yourself
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 04:40 AM
 
3,557 posts, read 4,080,127 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
wow, quite partisan are you

gitmo was used for detention even in the 80's and 90's...well before rumdummy

1980's it was part of CCF which was w military prison for military bad joes

1990's was still used as a detention facility, to include for all the Haitian refugees


take your partisan blinders off dude...your embarrassing yourself
It was a pretty simple request, but I guess you are going to ignore. Use as a terrorist prison is far beyond what it was before. Personally I don't give a **** if they close it or not.

you're*
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 06:14 AM
 
58,571 posts, read 26,876,249 times
Reputation: 14129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fancy-Schmancy View Post
And if we hadn't been forced by EO to stop all such research...God knows how far we'd be along toward that discovery by now.

You can't point to a lack of discovery as proof that there's nothing to discover if we aren't even allowed to look.

"And if we hadn't been forced by EO to stop all such research.".
PSST! Research is STILL GOING ON.

"Ignorance is bliss"
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,305,480 times
Reputation: 8672
Still waiting for this list of "many" unconstitutional executive orders that Obama has signed.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 01:27 PM
 
34,248 posts, read 19,243,663 times
Reputation: 17237
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
wow that was dishonest of you

Executive Order 13492 is an Executive Order issued by United States President Barack Obama ordering the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, in Cuba...... The full title of the order is: Executive Order 13492 - Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities.

In Executive Order 13493 Obama ordered the identification of alternate venues for the detainees



now the REAL wording of the REAL eo, not the one you FALSELY posted



POTUS does not have the AUTHORITY to closed a federal facility or military facility....only congress does


you guys keep saying "list them"

I show you the ILLEGAL eo from his FIRST DAY IN OFFICE............ and you say its ok, because he is a liberal


heck by Day 4 — Jan. 24, 2009: obozo was Bombing our allies in Pakistan , killing civilians and children
My apologies, you are correct, I posted EO 13943, however it was a honest mistake. Not intentional.

So lets discuss 13942.

What EXACTLY is illegal about it? The President as head of the armed forces has the ability to manage treatment and detainment of prisoners held overseas by our military. Whats your constitutional issue here?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2014, 02:40 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,376,344 times
Reputation: 9616
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
My apologies, you are correct, I posted EO 13943, however it was a honest mistake. Not intentional.

So lets discuss 13942.

What EXACTLY is illegal about it? The President as head of the armed forces has the ability to manage treatment and detainment of prisoners held overseas by our military. Whats your constitutional issue here?
the question would be how are you NOT seeing the issue

have you not watched 25 years of BRACs where the sec of def/ or potus/ or commission may make RECOMMENDATIONS for closures/realignments...but it still comes down to CONGRESS to pass/fail it

the POTUS does not have the power to close ant federal/military facility.....that power is in congress

when the CCF (criminal containment facility) on ft McClellan was closed in 1999....was it a Clinton eo...no...it was congress
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2014, 02:57 AM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,443,072 times
Reputation: 3141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile View Post
I sure like how the internet uncovers a lot of BS by politicians


Opinion: Dear Speaker Boehner: Do your job instead - CNN.com


President Theodore Roosevelt enacted 1,081 executive orders during his presidency. President Dwight Eisenhower had 484. President Ronald Reagan had 381. And President George W. Bush had 291.

President Barack Obama has enacted 182 executive orders -- yet the GOP accuses him of being an "imperial president," and Republican members of the House of Representatives are preparing to sue him for violating the Constitution.
It's entirely irrelevant how many executive orders Eisenhower or Reagan signed. They aren't preparing to sue Obama for signing too many executive orders.

It's like saying Mother Theresa and Charles Manson both drove Chevrolets. Yet they sued Manson for murder.

It's either rank dishonesty or mind numbling stupidity. Take your pick.

Obama used recess appointments when there was no recess.
Obama altered the terms of the Affordable Care Act after it had been passed.
Obama enacted portions of the Dream Act even though Congress did not pass it.

Those are the things that they want to sue him for. Not for signing too many executive orders. So comparing the number of orders Obama signed to the number another person signed it completely and wholly beside the point when they aren't suing him for signing too many of them. It should be a simple concept.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top