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.
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 It is the law until it's repealed or struck down by the SCOTUS.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.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
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?
“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
"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
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. ......"
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 03:28 PM.
Dad and son...
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?
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."