• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

House will sue Obama

A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
What's the purpose of having a SCOTUS, if the President can just deem a past decision unconstitutional?

No that's what the fellow says-- Congress can't take something already ruled unconstitutional- and just write it over and put a new name on it and then want the executive branch to enforce it ... That's where the author says the executive has discretion-- and I agree... If Congress then doesn't like the Executive/Attorney Generals opinion that this is an already decided unconstitutional law- they then have the ability to appeal back to the courts-- which is exactly happened with DOMA....
And in that case the Executive/Attorney General was ruled right and that the DOMA was unconstitutional...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
RICHMOND, Va. -- A third federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that President Barack Obama's recess appointments of three National Labor Relations Board members was unconstitutional.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/nlrb-appointments-unconstitutional_n_3613034.html
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
And in that case the Executive/Attorney General was ruled right and that the DOMA was unconstitutional...

Only Section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional and obama was still enforcing the law, until SCOTUS ruled. They just weren't defending it in court.

So did obama/Holder knowingly enforce an unconstitutional law for 5 years?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
hypocritexposer said:
The errors in this argument are sufficiently plain. In the first place, the President does not stand upon the same footing as regards the Constitution, as does the private citizen. The President is an agent selected by the people, for the express purpose of seeing that the laws of the land are executed. If, upon his own judgment, he refuse to execute a law and thus nullifies it, he is arrogating to himself controlling legislative functions, and laws have but an advisory, recommendatory character, depending for power upon the good-will of the President. That there is danger that Congress may by a chance majority, or through the influence of sudden great passion, legislate unwisely or unconstitutionally, was foreseen by those who framed our form of government, and the provision was framed that the President might at his discretion use a veto, but this was the entire extent to which he was allowed to go in the exercise of a check upon the legislation. It was expressly provided that if, after his veto, two-thirds of the legislature should again demand that the measure become a law, it should thus be, notwithstanding the objection of the Chief Executive. Surely there is here left no further constitutional right on the part of the President to hinder the operation of a law.

Read more: http://chestofbooks.com/society/law/The-Constitutional-Law-Of-The-United-States/767-Obligation-Of-The-President-To-Enforce-Laws-Believed-By.html#.U6uI-7GP5f0#ixzz35i4X3Ant

Indeed. Swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and you swear to uphold the law. Yes or no fatman?

NO- some laws that are written are blatantly illegal because they are blatantly unconstitutional...
An example- for sometime after the SCOTUS ruled that public intoxication was a disease and not a crime - Montana still had laws on the books making it a criminal act (our Legislature only meets every other year)... While the SCOTUS hadn't ruled directly on our law- they had on one so similar that we were advised by the Montana Attorney General and the local prosecutor that we could not enforce it-- even tho it was still in the Montana Codes Annotated ....
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
There was a time (pub in white house) when upholding the law was very important to old whiskey breath. Today (donk in white house), it appears that's no longer the case.

OldKingGeorgeHater said:
The strength of this country for over 200 years hasn't been because of our economy greatness or our military might- its because of our ideals- and our founding beliefs in truth and justice for all- and our laws and Constitution that puts noone (not even King George or his Stooges) above those laws and our ability to always put our ideals and morality above those who oppose us....

OldPreciousConstitution said:
Mike if getting kookier means following,enforcing, and defending the laws we've passed or signed on to and the US Constitution as written- then I guess I'm kooky...As I've spent most my entire adult life enforcing and defending those laws and that precious Constitution...

When we allow anyone to bend or go around the law- or put themselves out to be above the law, then we start down a slippery slope- something I think this Administration has done since day one on a whole lot more issues besides torture...

:lol:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
NO- some laws that are written are blatantly illegal because they are blatantly unconstitutional.....

So what you're saying is that the constitution gives the president the power to decide which laws are blatantly illegal/unconsitutional and can therefore be ignored (broken)? :???: :???: :???:
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Can't you imagine if the anarchist 0To: ........ taught any kind of civics? Take a life time to get those kids straight again.

Presidential Review of laws on the books? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The crap progressives come up with!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Isn't anything that is not included in the "List of Enumerated Powers", blatantly illegal?

Should the President even be concerning himself with marriage? Or Education?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
There was a time (pub in white house) when upholding the law was very important to old whiskey breath. Today (donk in white house), it appears that's no longer the case.

OldKingGeorgeHater said:
The strength of this country for over 200 years hasn't been because of our economy greatness or our military might- its because of our ideals- and our founding beliefs in truth and justice for all- and our laws and Constitution that puts noone (not even King George or his Stooges) above those laws and our ability to always put our ideals and morality above those who oppose us....

OldPreciousConstitution said:
Mike if getting kookier means following,enforcing, and defending the laws we've passed or signed on to and the US Constitution as written- then I guess I'm kooky...As I've spent most my entire adult life enforcing and defending those laws and that precious Constitution...

When we allow anyone to bend or go around the law- or put themselves out to be above the law, then we start down a slippery slope- something I think this Administration has done since day one on a whole lot more issues besides torture...

:lol:



“This is about defending the institution in which we serve,” he said. “You know, if you look back over the last 235 years of our history, there’s been a movement between the inherent powers of the executive branch and the inherent powers of the legislative branch.

“And what we’ve seen clearly over the last five years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch,” the Speaker continued. “I believe the president is not faithfully executing the laws of our country, and on behalf of the institution and the Constitution, standing up and fighting for this is in the best long-term interest of the Congress.”

AMEN--I agree with Boehner on this except for his time period- its not 5 years- its been closer to 14 years! That is the reason I was so happy to see this suit filed... This issue needs to be decided once and for all... What discretion does a President have in determining constitutionality/legality of a certain issue? Does a President have to enforce a blatantly obvious unconstitutional law? Can a President use a signing statement to change the meaning/intent of a law?


But before I get to gleeful- I have to remember that the SCOTUS has a history of dancing around making direct decisions involving government/political battles...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
AMEN--I agree with Boehner on this except for his time period- its not 5 years- its been closer to 14 years! That is the reason I was so happy to see this suit filed... This issue needs to be decided once and for all... What discretion does a President have in determining constitutionality/legality of a certain issue? Does a President have to enforce a blatantly obvious unconstitutional law? Can a President use a signing statement to change the meaning/intent of a law?

The problem you have with the above comment OT, is that we all know you.....we know you're a liar. This issue concerned you when Bush was in office, but not once The Messiah took office. And while I've always admitted that Bush, and virtually every other president before him, pushed the envelope to test the executive branch's constitutional powers, The Messiah's white house has simply crapped on the document and done what Bush did tenfold.

And YOU HAVE BEEN SILENT ON THIS PRESIDENT'S trampling of the constitution.

Now, if you'd like to direct me to some posts of yours being all flabbergasted about O's abuse of executive powers, I'll be glad to say I was wrong.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Brad S said:
First, OT quit the lie that you're not aligned with The Party. The lie is way past tired.

Second, when did Bush make recess appointments when congress was in session?

False equivalency is just another deceit tactic of the left that only fools the lemmings.


Sorry Brad- I know its tough for folks that are card carrying cult followers to believe- but there still are some Independent folks out there that think for themselves... I belong to no party- but probably identify most closely with the Libertarian thinking--- fiscally/economically conservative- more tolerant of social issues- and oppose foreign aid or our involvement as World policemen ...

Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

The question tho is what qualifies as recess? Does paying a Senator to fly back and forth to pound the gavel every day while all other Senators are gone qualify as having the Senate in session :???:

While I don't like recess appointments- I think also an Administrator/ President has to have a staff to operate-- and when a dysfunctional Congress can't act- they need a method to get their appointees into place...

I support a law change that gives the Senate only two months after the President nominates someone to have to vote yea or nay (straight majority) on the nominated person (do away with allowing one Senator stopping an appointment- and playing pork games with it)... And if the Senate refuses to vote in that time period - that appointee is automatically confirmed...

The President can issue executive orders pursuant to a grant of discretion from Congress, or under the inherent powers that office holds to deal with certain matters of foreign policy.

Over the years- dysfunctional weak or rubberstamp Congress's have given the Administrative Branch much more discretion/power by refusing to do their job and giving that authority to the President, cabinet, and bureaucrats...

That's why I think it would be interesting to see the SCOTUS come out with some definitive opinions-- but I doubt we will .....

:roll:

unanimous decision holding that Obama's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 without Senate confirmation were illegal.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_RECESS_APPOINTMENT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-06-26-10-05-24
 

Steve

Well-known member
this lawsuit is NOT about blatantly un-Constitutional laws..


It is about a President changing laws to suit his agenda..

the presidents dream act edict is one example, and his constant changing of the obama care law is another..

I have to laugh when ever a liberal says "accept it, it is the law of the land" . concerning Obamacare.
 

Latest posts

Top