• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

I agree with that, actually. But what's also relevant is precedence, and if you have a long line of precedence indicating that the POTUS simply DOES have a great deal of discretion with regard to, for example, immigration matters, then that must be taken into account. If Bush argued that the Unitary Executive has certain rights that Congress cannot strip and those rights were accepted by the courts and/or Congress, that DOES matter. On this thread the issue is the lawsuit about Obama not enforcing the ACA as written. It's a legitimate question whether he has that authority. But it's a difficult case to make that he MUST enforce the ACA as written (cannot delay certain provisions), but CAN allow Colorado to break federal law and allow pot to be sold, or allow companies to disregard EPA regs, etc. POTUS's have exercised regulatory discretion dating back to the 1800s, it is simply a prerogative of the Executive branch.

I'm not saying there is no line to cross, but it seems to me where the discretion of the POTUS begins and ends is incredibly difficult to determine, as we saw with Bush and now Obama.

And that's the problem...If we just throw our hands in the air, and say 'oh well, they have that discretion, and it's too hard to fight' , then we won't keep our constitutional republic as Franklin predicted back at the beginning...Do I like how Obama, or hell even Bush before him on certain issues, stretched their authority? No...but even as during Bush's terms, he had the left constantly on his arse, crying about every move, Obama has that now with some of the right leaning groups. The difference is that somehow the very same people in here that were doing the indignant, outrage back then, are now saying to us all that we should just take a chill pill, and let this one do what he wants unobstructed, or hampered by protest....Why?
 
Make your case. How did Bush rule without the consent of the governed? How did Reagan rule without the consent of the governed? How did Clinton rule without the consent of the governed? How did Nixon rule without the consent of the governed?

I won't bother responding to most of that, but bringing up Reagan (and Nixon!! :shock:) is kind of funny. You might review the Iran-Contra affair that occurred during the reign of Tyrant St. Ronaldus....

The only worse solution is to do nothing at all. The legislature has failed to use its Constitutional tools, to impeach, to withhold funds through budgets, and to withhold appointments and other legislation the executive branch desires. If it loses in the courts then the legislature becomes nothing more than a fig leaf. It will be like the Roman Senate under Augustus. We will have the fiction of representative government with its substance. Only craven, spineless men and women would do as this Congress has done.

So your problem is with Congress, and not the POTUS? In actual tyrannical regimes, the elected legislature has no power. See the difference? It's kind of key, which is why I ignore people who don't take that kind of key difference into account.
 
And that's the problem...If we just throw our hands in the air, and say 'oh well, they have that discretion, and it's too hard to fight' , then we won't keep our constitutional republic as Franklin predicted back at the beginning...Do I like how Obama, or hell even Bush before him on certain issues, stretched their authority? No...but even as during Bush's terms, he had the left constantly on his arse, crying about every move, Obama has that now with some of the right leaning groups. The difference is that somehow the very same people in here that were doing the indignant, outrage back then, are now saying to us all that we should just take a chill pill, and let this one do what he wants unobstructed, or hampered by protest....Why?

Like I said, I agree with you basically. And I'll just point out that if you want to acknowledge that republicans as a whole who consider Obama a "tyrant" didn't utter a peep of protest when the Bush lawyers were pushing the idea of the Unitary Executive and unchecked Commander in Chief, and now democrats who protested in the streets then aren't now that Obama is doing the same thing, and so both parties are full of hypocrites and love unchecked power when their guy exercises it in ways they like, but hate unchecked power when the other party's guy exercises power in ways they don't, I will agree with that as well.
 
So your problem is with Congress, and not the POTUS? In actual tyrannical regimes, the elected legislature has no power. See the difference? It's kind of key, which is why I ignore people who don't take that kind of key difference into account.

I can't answer for Mister, but isn't that the crux of this constant struggle between Presidential powers, and Congress's authority to originate legislation? Tell me, why this approach of Obama enacting what he thinks should be done, and daring congress to legislate isn't backwards, and absolutely driving in the direction of tyrannical regimes process you describe...
 
I was referring to enumerated powers and not US Code.

And we can argue about that until the proverbial cows come home and get absolutely nowhere.

So what law did Obama break?
 
Like I said, I agree with you basically. And I'll just point out that if you want to acknowledge that republicans as a whole who consider Obama a "tyrant" didn't utter a peep of protest when the Bush lawyers were pushing the idea of the Unitary Executive and unchecked Commander in Chief, and now democrats who protested in the streets then aren't now that Obama is doing the same thing, and so both parties are full of hypocrites and love unchecked power when their guy exercises it in ways they like, but hate unchecked power when the other party's guy exercises power in ways they don't, I will agree with that as well.

Yep, I think we are on the same page there as far as that goes...Hell, I was one during the last administration that was vocal in defending what, and how the Bush team consolidated his power to do things...Now that I have seen how that was used today, and even expanded on with these sorts of things, I can confidently say I was wrong then....My question to not necessarily you, but just out there is those backing this kind of thing with Obama today, won't like when a republican progressive gets in there and takes it to the next step....
 
I agree that you would not get anywhere. I quite happy with my understanding, and I already addressed your question below.

That question is subterfuge...He already knows that it has been answered in the thread many times, and is ignoring the answer.
 
I can't answer for Mister, but isn't that the crux of this constant struggle between Presidential powers, and Congress's authority to originate legislation? Tell me, why this approach of Obama enacting what he thinks should be done, and daring congress to legislate isn't backwards, and absolutely driving in the direction of tyrannical regimes process you describe...

As I've said, I don't have a problem in theory with a lawsuit that attempts to draw some lines around Presidential authority. I don't have a problem with the actions on the ACA or immigration, but when Ted Cruz or someone comes into power, I likely will vehemently disagree as I did when Bush argued he had the authority to torture or hold Americans indefinitely without trial or counsel.

But so long as Congress can check the POTUS, and they can (impeach, or through the courts or through the budgets) then we don't live under a Tyrant! Hitler was a tyrant - what we're discussing are essentially policy disputes. If you want to move it to the "national security" arena, where an all seeing surveillance apparatus has the potential for actual tyrannical abuse, then maybe we'd find some common ground.
 
That question is subterfuge...He already knows that it has been answered in the thread many times, and is ignoring the answer.

This is effort to allow the poster in question to do some posturing as a constitutional law scholar.
 
And that makes it better somehow? :shock:

How positively unprincipled and amoral.

Well if you want to believe that Obama is literally the wellspring from witch lies originate, then that's on you. I prefer not to join you guys in Crazytown.
 
Well if you want to believe that Obama is literally the wellspring from witch lies originate, then that's on you. I prefer not to join you guys in Crazytown.

So, you're ok with the dishonesty, and contempt shown toward the people this administration exhibits? That will be good to remember when a republican is in the WH next term.
 
I agree that you would not get anywhere. I quite happy with my understanding, and I already addressed your question below.

What is there about the word WE that seems to befuddle you?
 
That question is subterfuge...He already knows that it has been answered in the thread many times, and is ignoring the answer.

Excellent - so now step up and provide that answer that has been given many times in this very thread - what exact law can you point to that Obama has violated with this action?
 
So, you're ok with the dishonesty, and contempt shown toward the people this administration exhibits? That will be good to remember when a republican is in the WH next term.

So you believe then that Obama was lying about being a professor at CS Law School?
 
I don't disagree, but the exercise of transparency is important. I don't mind an Obama veto politically.

An Obama veto of an immigration bill would be fine with me as well. Give him the ball and let him refuse to run with it. I would be afraid of any immigration bill that the President WOULD sign. Nothing legislative is going to circumvent this executive order. It will have to be decided by third branch if its implementation is to be prevented.
 
An Obama veto of an immigration bill would be fine with me as well. Give him the ball and let him refuse to run with it. I would be afraid of any immigration bill that the President WOULD sign. Nothing legislative is going to circumvent this executive order. It will have to be decided by third branch if its implementation is to be prevented.

I agree. I would like to see legislation presented to the president to secure the southern border. I actually prefer that the states follow the judicial path and leave the federal legislature out of it for right now. This is a distraction at present.
 
I won't bother responding to most of that, but bringing up Reagan (and Nixon!! :shock:) is kind of funny. You might review the Iran-Contra affair that occurred during the reign of Tyrant St. Ronaldus....
Did they rule without the consent of the governed?

"The only worse solution is to do nothing at all. The legislature has failed to use its Constitutional tools, to impeach, to withhold funds through budgets, and to withhold appointments and other legislation the executive branch desires. If it loses in the courts then the legislature becomes nothing more than a fig leaf. It will be like the Roman Senate under Augustus. We will have the fiction of representative government with its substance. Only craven, spineless men and women would do as this Congress has done."

So your problem is with Congress, and not the POTUS? In actual tyrannical regimes, the elected legislature has no power. See the difference? It's kind of key, which is why I ignore people who don't take that kind of key difference into account.
Do you believe it has to be one or the other? How quaint.
 
As I've said, I don't have a problem in theory with a lawsuit that attempts to draw some lines around Presidential authority. I don't have a problem with the actions on the ACA or immigration, but when Ted Cruz or someone comes into power, I likely will vehemently disagree as I did when Bush argued he had the authority to torture or hold Americans indefinitely without trial or counsel.

But so long as Congress can check the POTUS, and they can (impeach, or through the courts or through the budgets) then we don't live under a Tyrant! Hitler was a tyrant - what we're discussing are essentially policy disputes. If you want to move it to the "national security" arena, where an all seeing surveillance apparatus has the potential for actual tyrannical abuse, then maybe we'd find some common ground.

I begin to see that you pick and choose your tyrants carefully. This is not a policy dispute. The Tyrant voided the Constitution. If Congress does, in fact, "check the POTUS" then the tyranny is stopped. I do not believe they will. If they do not stop this monster then the tyranny will continue.

I see for you it is either gas ovens or we do not have a tyrant.
 
An Obama veto of an immigration bill would be fine with me as well. Give him the ball and let him refuse to run with it. I would be afraid of any immigration bill that the President WOULD sign. Nothing legislative is going to circumvent this executive order. It will have to be decided by third branch if its implementation is to be prevented.

You are passing judgement on legislation not based upon the content of that legislation, but based upon your political bias against Obama. That's pretty much the definition of a "partisan hack".
 
You are passing judgement on legislation not based upon the content of that legislation, but based upon your political bias against Obama. That's pretty much the definition of a "partisan hack".

IMO, this particular President is so far out in left field that I have no faith- zero- that he would ever sign legislation that is good for this country. The compromises within the legislation that would have to be made in order for this President to sign would be, to me, horribly bitter pills to swallow. I appreciate the "obstructionism" in Washington. No legislation is much better than legislation that satisfies the President.
 
IMO, this particular President is so far out in left field that I have no faith- zero- that he would ever sign legislation that is good for this country. The compromises within the legislation that would have to be made in order for this President to sign would be, to me, horribly bitter pills to swallow. I appreciate the "obstructionism" in Washington. No legislation is much better than legislation that satisfies the President.

I have never seen the problem defined so well.

Not your interpretation, of course, but your literal embodiment of the problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom