Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53

Thread: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

  1. #21
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    What the Constitution lacks is much power to stop a president who decides he instead wants to be dictator.
    Simply not true....

    "Article V

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

    Article V, U.S. Constitution
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #22
    Guru
    annata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    beneath the bodi tree
    Last Seen
    02-16-17 @ 12:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,163

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    GREAT POST!!!

    The President has exceeded his authority, and needs to be taken to task for it.

    Not because he's "Obama" or because he's a Democrat, but because he is setting a precedent for future Presidents that can lead to unabridged authoritarian rule by the Executive Branch.

    The Congress needs to take back their power, and exert that power themselves.
    well said; there is a problem that Congress cannot use lawsuit to stop what is becoming a "Unitary" POTUS -
    Only SCOTUS can, and is reluctent to get into seperation of powers issues

    The Unitary Executive Theory:

    Imperial Presidency 101 - The Unitary Executive Theory, Separation of Powers, and Signing Statements

    Under the Bush administration's interpretation of the unitary executive theory, the President has authority over members of the executive branch, functioning as a CEO or Commander-in-Chief, and his or her power is restricted only by the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Judiciary.
    Congress can hold the President accountable only by censure, impeachment, or constitutional amendment; legislation restricting the executive branch has no power
    Congress must assert it's powers, it cannot; being hopelessly hyperpartisan gridlocked - to even claim it's owmn power
    Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ

  3. #23
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    No one said anything about a "total total rewrite".... But this option does exist in our constitution, I believe for this very purpose.
    The problem is that once a Constitutional Convention is opened, there are no limits on what can be brought to the floor for changes, like the 2nd Amendment. The regular Amendment process would be the way to go if we change anything in the Constitution, such as was done in the 22nd Amendment to limit Presidents to two terms. An Amendment could be adopted that better defined the limitations of the Executive Branch and preventing that branch of government from acting as if they had legislative powers.

  4. #24
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by annata View Post
    well said; there is a problem that Congress cannot use lawsuit to stop what is becoming a "Unitary" POTUS -
    Only SCOTUS can, and is reluctent to get into seperation of powers issues

    The Unitary Executive Theory:

    Imperial Presidency 101 - The Unitary Executive Theory, Separation of Powers, and Signing Statements

    Congress must assert it's powers, it cannot; being hopelessly hyperpartisan gridlocked - to even claim it's owmn power
    And your quote about the Bush signing statements is a another good example of the overreach of the Executive Branch.

    We have to get this under control because regardless of party the Presidency is becoming, and in future will empirically become, an autocracy if not put in check.

    The Constitution is set up that if there can be said to be one branch that is stronger than the others, it is the Legislative Branch.

    This has been eroding since FDR (although truly it started with Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus) and if the Legislative Branch, THE HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE, doesn't step up, they might as well sit down and go home.

  5. #25
    Guru
    annata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    beneath the bodi tree
    Last Seen
    02-16-17 @ 12:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,163

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    And your quote about the Bush signing statements is a another good example of the overreach of the Executive Branch.

    We have to get this under control because regardless of party the Presidency is becoming, and in future will empirically become, an autocracy if not put in check.

    The Constitution is set up that if there can be said to be one branch that is stronger than the others, it is the Legislative Branch.

    This has been eroding since FDR (although truly it started with Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus) and if the Legislative Branch, THE HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE, doesn't step up, they might as well sit down and go home.
    couldn't agree more, ,and yes the Legislative has the most innate power to make law,ratify executive treatys/appointments, etc.

    "The Congress abdicates, the president aggregates" is one of the best quotes I've heard.
    Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ

  6. #26
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,334

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Is the President digging himself a hole that even his own supporters will refuse to dig him out of? Consider Prof. Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor that has been a supporter, in his testimony before the Judiciary committee.

    Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and members of the Judiciary
    Committee, my name is Jonathan Turley and I am a law professor at George Washington
    University where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law. It
    is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the constitutional concerns raised by
    recent nonenforcement polices and the President’s duty to faithfully execute the law of
    the United States.

    The issue before the Committee is clearly a difficult one. It is often difficult to
    separate the merits of the underlying policies from the means used to achieve them. It so
    happens that I agree with many of the goals of the Administration in the various areas
    where the President has circumvented Congress. However, in the Madisonian system, it
    is often more important how you do things than what you do.
    We have long benefited
    from a system designed to channel and transform factional interests in the political
    system. When any branch encroaches upon the authority of another, it not only
    introduces instability into the system but leaves political issues raw and unresolved.

    However, to paraphrase one of Benjamin Franklin’s favorite sayings, the Constitution
    helps those branches that help themselves. Each branch is given the tools to defend itself
    and the Framers assumed that they would have the ambition and institutional self-interest
    to use them. That assumption is now being put to the test as many members remain silent
    in the face of open executive encroachment by the Executive Branch.


    While I believe that the White House has clearly “exceeded its brief” in these
    areas
    , this question of presidential nonenforcement has arisen periodically in our history.
    In the current controversy, the White House has suggested an array of arguments, citing
    the interpretation of statutory text, agency discretion, or other rationales to mask what is
    clearly a circumvention of Congress. It also appears to be relying on the expectation that
    no one will be able to secure standing to challenge such decisions in court.

    Finally, there is no question that the President as Chief Executive is allowed to set priorities of the
    administration and to determine the best way to enforce the law. People of good faith can
    clearly disagree on where the line is drawn over the failure to fully enforce federal laws.
    There is ample room given to a president in setting priorities in the enforcement of laws.
    A president is not required to enforce all laws equally or dedicate the same resources to
    every federal program.

    Even with this ample allowance, however, I believe that President Barack Obama has crossed the constitutional line between discretionary enforcement and defiance of federal law.

    Congress is given the defining function of creating and amending federal law. This is more than a turf fight between politicians. The division of governmental powers is designed to protect liberty by preventing the abusive concentration of power. All citizens –Democratic or Republican or Independent – should consider the inherent danger presented by a President who can unilaterally
    suspend laws as a matter of presidential license.


    In recent years, I have testified and written about the shift of power within our
    tripartite government toward a more Imperial Presidential model. Indeed, I last testified
    before this Committee on the assertion of President Obama that he could use the recess
    appointment power to circumvent the Senate during a brief intrasession recess.


    While I viewed those appointments to be facially unconstitutional under the language of Article I
    and II (a view later shared by two federal circuits), I was equally concerned about the
    overall expansion of unchecked presidential authority and the relative decline of
    legislative power in the modern American system. The recent nonenforcement policies
    add a particularly menacing element to this pattern. They effectively reduce the
    legislative process to a series of options for presidential selection ranging from negation
    to full enforcement. The Framers warned us of such a system and we accept it – either by
    acclaim or acquiescence – at our peril.


    The current claims of executive power will outlast this president and members
    must consider the implications of the precedent that they are now creating through
    inaction and silence. What if a future president decided that he or she did not like some
    environmental laws or anti-discrimination laws? Indeed, as discussed below, the
    nonenforcement policy is rarely analyzed to its natural conclusion, which leads to a
    fundamental shift in constitutional principles going back to Marbury v. Madison.


    The separation of powers is the very foundation for our system; the original covenant reached
    by the Founding Generation and passed on to successive generations. It is that system
    that produces laws that can be truly said to represent the wishes of the majority of
    Americans. It is also the very thing that gives a president the authority to govern in the
    name of all Americans. Despite the fact that I once voted for President Obama, personal
    admiration is no substitute for the constitutional principles at stake in this controversy.
    When a president claims the inherent power of both legislation and enforcement, he becomes a virtual government unto himself. He is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he becomes the very danger that the Constitution was designed to avoid.


    http://jonathanturley.files.wordpres...ouse-final.pdf

    Very strong indeed....Remember this is a supporter of Obama saying these things....

    Is Obama overreaching? And will the people put a stop to it?

    "Fundamental Transformation?"
    To answer your question:, Yes. he is overreaching to the point of acting like a dictator, and he is being encouraged to do so by members of his own party. Earlier today, I posted a quote by Jonathan Turley from an article that appeared in HUMAN EVENTS yesterday, where he stated that President Obama is posing a threat to our Constitutional system. This article explains what Turley was referring to in more detail. Kudos.

    Greetings, J-mac.

  7. #27
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    The problem is that once a Constitutional Convention is opened, there are no limits on what can be brought to the floor for changes, like the 2nd Amendment. The regular Amendment process would be the way to go if we change anything in the Constitution, such as was done in the 22nd Amendment to limit Presidents to two terms. An Amendment could be adopted that better defined the limitations of the Executive Branch and preventing that branch of government from acting as if they had legislative powers.
    Just because you get something to the floor, which is a hurdle in itself, doesn't mean that you will clear the needed backing to make it an amendment.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  8. #28
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,215

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    The obamites have tasted the success of a dictator and now expect the dictator to work to their extreme favor.
    And Obama is more than happy to be their dictator.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #29
    Educator
    MichaelJR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Suckachusetts
    Last Seen
    05-25-16 @ 09:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,089

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    These people are the same people that would go for dictatorship if it was under God-bamas rule.

  10. #30
    Advisor Lukas105's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States of America
    Last Seen
    08-07-15 @ 11:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    368

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    The inactivity and bickering on capital hill is what makes our Republic work as it should. The thing that ruined it, is the formation of two main parties (Republican and Democrat) fighting for what they want, and only that. We need compromise and the return of the principles or liberty and freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Is the President digging himself a hole that even his own supporters will refuse to dig him out of? Consider Prof. Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor that has been a supporter, in his testimony before the Judiciary committee.

    Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and members of the Judiciary
    Committee, my name is Jonathan Turley and I am a law professor at George Washington
    University where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law. It
    is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the constitutional concerns raised by
    recent nonenforcement polices and the President’s duty to faithfully execute the law of
    the United States.

    The issue before the Committee is clearly a difficult one. It is often difficult to
    separate the merits of the underlying policies from the means used to achieve them. It so
    happens that I agree with many of the goals of the Administration in the various areas
    where the President has circumvented Congress. However, in the Madisonian system, it
    is often more important how you do things than what you do.
    We have long benefited
    from a system designed to channel and transform factional interests in the political
    system. When any branch encroaches upon the authority of another, it not only
    introduces instability into the system but leaves political issues raw and unresolved.

    However, to paraphrase one of Benjamin Franklin’s favorite sayings, the Constitution
    helps those branches that help themselves. Each branch is given the tools to defend itself
    and the Framers assumed that they would have the ambition and institutional self-interest
    to use them. That assumption is now being put to the test as many members remain silent
    in the face of open executive encroachment by the Executive Branch.


    While I believe that the White House has clearly “exceeded its brief” in these
    areas
    , this question of presidential nonenforcement has arisen periodically in our history.
    In the current controversy, the White House has suggested an array of arguments, citing
    the interpretation of statutory text, agency discretion, or other rationales to mask what is
    clearly a circumvention of Congress. It also appears to be relying on the expectation that
    no one will be able to secure standing to challenge such decisions in court.

    Finally, there is no question that the President as Chief Executive is allowed to set priorities of the
    administration and to determine the best way to enforce the law. People of good faith can
    clearly disagree on where the line is drawn over the failure to fully enforce federal laws.
    There is ample room given to a president in setting priorities in the enforcement of laws.
    A president is not required to enforce all laws equally or dedicate the same resources to
    every federal program.

    Even with this ample allowance, however, I believe that President Barack Obama has crossed the constitutional line between discretionary enforcement and defiance of federal law.

    Congress is given the defining function of creating and amending federal law. This is more than a turf fight between politicians. The division of governmental powers is designed to protect liberty by preventing the abusive concentration of power. All citizens –Democratic or Republican or Independent – should consider the inherent danger presented by a President who can unilaterally
    suspend laws as a matter of presidential license.


    In recent years, I have testified and written about the shift of power within our
    tripartite government toward a more Imperial Presidential model. Indeed, I last testified
    before this Committee on the assertion of President Obama that he could use the recess
    appointment power to circumvent the Senate during a brief intrasession recess.


    While I viewed those appointments to be facially unconstitutional under the language of Article I
    and II (a view later shared by two federal circuits), I was equally concerned about the
    overall expansion of unchecked presidential authority and the relative decline of
    legislative power in the modern American system. The recent nonenforcement policies
    add a particularly menacing element to this pattern. They effectively reduce the
    legislative process to a series of options for presidential selection ranging from negation
    to full enforcement. The Framers warned us of such a system and we accept it – either by
    acclaim or acquiescence – at our peril.


    The current claims of executive power will outlast this president and members
    must consider the implications of the precedent that they are now creating through
    inaction and silence. What if a future president decided that he or she did not like some
    environmental laws or anti-discrimination laws? Indeed, as discussed below, the
    nonenforcement policy is rarely analyzed to its natural conclusion, which leads to a
    fundamental shift in constitutional principles going back to Marbury v. Madison.


    The separation of powers is the very foundation for our system; the original covenant reached
    by the Founding Generation and passed on to successive generations. It is that system
    that produces laws that can be truly said to represent the wishes of the majority of
    Americans. It is also the very thing that gives a president the authority to govern in the
    name of all Americans. Despite the fact that I once voted for President Obama, personal
    admiration is no substitute for the constitutional principles at stake in this controversy.
    When a president claims the inherent power of both legislation and enforcement, he becomes a virtual government unto himself. He is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he becomes the very danger that the Constitution was designed to avoid.


    http://jonathanturley.files.wordpres...ouse-final.pdf

    Very strong indeed....Remember this is a supporter of Obama saying these things....

    Is Obama overreaching? And will the people put a stop to it?

    "Fundamental Transformation?"
    "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
    Thomas Jefferson

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •