Page 8 of 54 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 533

Thread: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

  1. #71
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    I'm pretty sure the executive branch has studied the constitution and know where their authority lies. But I seriously doubt that congress does. It will be interesting to see if congress takes the issue to court....I'm guessing they won't because they can get more political mileage out of falsely accusing Obama of breaking the law than they can having their statute struck down as unconstitutional.
    There is so much ignorance in this post it is utterly amazing. Thanks.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  2. #72
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,399

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    The congress has the authority to legislate the laws, but it doesn't have the authority to tell the executive branch how to execute the laws....and that is what that statute tried to do.
    The Constitutions says the president has to execute the laws. Failing to do so is illegal. By your logic, do you still consider Bush a war criminal?
    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.

  3. #73
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,377

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Yes, it was very clever how the GOP stuck an unconstitutional statute into the 2012 defense budget bill. Obama had to sign it into law so the military could get paid. But Obama also took an oath to uphold the constitution and that means he isn't obligated to enforce unconstitutional laws passed by congress. Hence, the signing statement.
    Earlier in this thread you said that it could be unconstitutional now you are saying it is unconstitutional. Could you post a link that changed this status in your mind? Earlier, you correctly indicated that SCOTUS determines constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, not the President. Sometimes it is incumbent upon leaders to lead. If he objected, he didn't have to sign it, that is one of the cornerstones.

    Also as previously discussed, it isn't clear to me anyway, that Obama violated the law in the way he engaged Qatar as the "foreign entity" that will control these individuals.

  4. #74
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    it allows them to continue to falsely accuse Obama of breaking the law. See how that works? lol
    Just as a note.

    There's no "false" accusation of breaking the law here.

    Obama is not the SCOTUS. Obama has zero power to declare something is or isn't unconstitutional and to actually make it so. He signed the bill that the congress pass, which means it IS LAW. It is the law until it's repealed or struck down by the SCOTUS. So if he's violating that law, an accusation that he's "breaking the law" is not "false". Obama is not all powerful, and the executive branch does not have the power to just declare the law as "not the law". He can disagree that it's constitutional and ignore it...but in doing so he'd still be ignoring THE LAW. He, and you, may think it's just to ignore it because you BELIEVE it to be unconstitutional...but until it's ruled as such it IS the law.

  5. #75
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    The "Optics" on this are bad, really, really, bad for Obama. I mean, I used to think he was arrogant, then I thought he was narcissistic, then I thought he was both, and then incompetent, now I just think he's done with this job, he's tired of being President of the USA. I can't believe (But I am forced to believe) that someone this incompetent was elected president not once but twice by the American electorate??

    I have one very important question regarding this President. WHO THE **** IS RUNNING THINGS IN THE WH? Ok two Questions. WHO THE **** IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VETTING?

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  6. #76
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,515
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    If that is the case.
    Well it certainly has been the case in his administration of Obamacare as again and again he has arbitrarily changed the law Congress passed and he signed into law. And the law is very clear that Congress is to be notified 30 days in advance of any release of any prisoner from GITMO. He certainly ignored that law.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  7. #77
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Just as a note.

    There's no "false" accusation of breaking the law here.

    Obama is not the SCOTUS. Obama has zero power to declare something is or isn't unconstitutional and to actually make it so. He signed the bill that the congress pass, which means it IS LAW. It is the law until it's repealed or struck down by the SCOTUS. So if he's violating that law, an accusation that he's "breaking the law" is not "false". Obama is not all powerful, and the executive branch does not have the power to just declare the law as "not the law". He can disagree that it's constitutional and ignore it...but in doing so he'd still be ignoring THE LAW. He, and you, may think it's just to ignore it because you BELIEVE it to be unconstitutional...but until it's ruled as such it IS the law.

    That's very naïve and misinformed.


    Read and learn.....


    "....A President that places the statutory law over the constitutional law in this instance would fail in his duty faithfully to execute the laws. The principle is equally sound where the Supreme Court has yet to rule on an issue, but the President has determined that a statutory law violates the Constitution.

    To say that the principle is not equally sound in this context is to deny the President's independent responsibility to interpret and uphold the Constitution. It is to leave the defense of the Constitution only to two, not three, of the branches of our government. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 274 (1990) (“The Members of the Executive and Legislative Branches are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and they presumably desire to follow its commands.”); Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 613 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Members of Congress and the supervising officers of the Executive Branch take the same oath to uphold the Constitution that we do . . . .”).


    Similarly, a surprising number of newly enacted statutes seek to require the approval of a congressional committee before execution of a law, despite well-settled Supreme Court precedent that such “legislative veto” provisions violate the Presentment and Bicameralism Clauses of the Constitution, art. I, § 7. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 958 (1983)....

    More than 20 years after that clearly controlling Supreme Court decision, unconstitutional legislative veto provisions remain so common that President Bush has had to raise the issue in approximately 55 of his 126 constitutional signing statements. See, e.g., Statement on Signing the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 41 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1799, 1799 (Nov. 30, 2005) (“The Constitution requires bicameral passage, and presentment to the President, of all congressional actions governing other branches, as the Supreme Court of the United States recognized in INS v. Chadha (1983), and thus prohibits conditioning executive branch action on the approval of congressional committees. ......"

    http://www.justice.gov/olc/opiniondo...gning-stmt.pdf

    http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-...WG-Feb1986.pdf


    Along with historic precedence going back to James Monroe, the SCOTUS has also ruled that the POTUS has the authority to "reasonably" interpret the constitutionality of a statute or law in order to execute the law. If you put some thought into it you'd realize the POTUS has to interpret the legislation so that he knows what he's signing into law...and once signed he still has to interpret a "new" law in order to execute it. doh!!!!


    The SCOTUS also ruled that signing statements that challenge the constitutionality of the law were totally legal. Ergo, Obama was perfectly within his authority to challenge the constitutionality of a law in a signing statement and in it to inform congress if and how he intends to execute the law.

    As stated above, it is unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers for congress to legislate that a president must get a congressional committees approval before he can execute a law.....and that is exactly what congress tried to do in the defense budget bill when they legislated that he give congress 30 day notice so they could approve or deny the transfer of military prisoners to a foreign country. That directly violated the presidents authority to negotiate with foreign countries to exchange prisoners as the war comes to end.
    Last edited by Moot; 06-03-14 at 05:28 PM.

  8. #78
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:46 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,064

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap


  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    I am glad the guy is free.

    But...if the Taliban are terrorists and the U.S. Government says it will not negotiate with terrorists...then why are they negotiating with the Taliban?
    Or is the whole 'we will not negotiate with terrorists' thing out the window now?

    Also, what happens if these five ex-detainees go on to kill Americans...was it still worth it?

  10. #80
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,265

    Re: Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    That's very naïve and misinformed.


    Read and learn.....


    "....A President that places the statutory law over the constitutional law in this instance would fail in his duty faithfully to execute the laws. The principle is equally sound where the Supreme Court has yet to rule on an issue, but the President has determined that a statutory law violates the Constitution.

    To say that the principle is not equally sound in this context is to deny the President's independent responsibility to interpret and uphold the Constitution. It is to leave the defense of the Constitution only to two, not three, of the branches of our government. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 274 (1990) (“The Members of the Executive and Legislative Branches are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and they presumably desire to follow its commands.”); Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 613 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Members of Congress and the supervising officers of the Executive Branch take the same oath to uphold the Constitution that we do . . . .”).


    Similarly, a surprising number of newly enacted statutes seek to require the approval of a congressional committee before execution of a law, despite well-settled Supreme Court precedent that such “legislative veto” provisions violate the Presentment and Bicameralism Clauses of the Constitution, art. I, § 7. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 958 (1983)....

    More than 20 years after that clearly controlling Supreme Court decision, unconstitutional legislative veto provisions remain so common that President Bush has had to raise the issue in approximately 55 of his 126 constitutional signing statements. See, e.g., Statement on Signing the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 41 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1799, 1799 (Nov. 30, 2005) (“The Constitution requires bicameral passage, and presentment to the President, of all congressional actions governing other branches, as the Supreme Court of the United States recognized in INS v. Chadha (1983), and thus prohibits conditioning executive branch action on the approval of congressional committees. ......"

    http://www.justice.gov/olc/opiniondo...gning-stmt.pdf

    http://www.archives.gov/news/samuel-...WG-Feb1986.pdf


    Along with historic precedence going back to James Monroe, the SCOTUS has also ruled that the POTUS has the authority to "reasonably" interpret the constitutionality of a statute or law in order to execute the law. If you put some thought into it you'd realize the POTUS has to interpret the legislation so that he knows what he's signing into law...and once signed he still has to interpret a "new" law in order to execute it. doh!!!!


    The SCOTUS also ruled that signing statements that challenge the constitutionality of the law were totally legal. Ergo, Obama was perfectly within his authority to challenge the constitutionality of a law in a signing statement and in it to inform congress if and how he intends to execute the law.

    As stated above, it is unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers for congress to legislate that a president must get a congressional committees approval before he can execute a law.....and that is exactly what congress tried to do in the defense budget bill when they legislated that he give congress 30 day notice so they could approve or deny the transfer of military prisoners to a foreign country. That directly violated the presidents authority to negotiate with foreign countries to exchange prisoners as the war comes to end.
    So Obama signed a law he knew he woukd never abide by ?

Page 8 of 54 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •