Page 13 of 30 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 298

Thread: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it cou

  1. #121
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

    Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

    ... I love it. Republicans are trying to impeach Obama for "breaking the law" in order to bring an American soldier home. If he had waited 30 days and the soldier had died, they'd be on this forum claiming it's another Benghazi and he was abandoned. Lol, Congress and Republicans can go **** themselves on their inconsistent stances. Let them try and impeach him on this one. It'll guarantee a Democrat POTUS' for president in 2016.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #122
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,849

    Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    Blatantly?

    Yes, he can send the bill back to congress. What does that do but belay the implementation of the good parts of a bill? the president can only ignore such passed laws that affect his executive decisions. He need not send a bill back for that.

    Are you of the opinion that congress can tell a president what he can and cannot do? Do you really believe congress should be elevated above the president? Don't you believe in the three equal powers?
    Oh for the love of pete LOP, of course I believe in equal powers. While you look for quick solutions for implementation of laws, willing to compromise just to get the parts you like, it was never intended that it be so easy. Why the hell have a legislative branch if the executive branch can make its own rules and cherry pick? The three branches of government with equal powers with checks and balances insured that we didn't reach a tyrannical form government. Damn I wish the players would have followed the rules because we are now there with an executive branch that has on numerous occasions shown us that the rule of law doesn't mean spit to him.

  3. #123
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,217

    Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

    Quote Originally Posted by votemout View Post
    No it does your though.

    Separation of powers under the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Whatever i am done what scares me most is that you did vote for obama correct?
    No, I voted for McCain, then Romney. I hate Obama.

    Again, I see you are not reading what I am saying, You are reading what you want to see.

  4. #124
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    Maybe you should ask congress why they keep trying to impose illegal restrictions on the executive branch, and wonder why a president ignores them.
    Because they have that power. The president has certain powers over the Congress as well. He can force them to meet (both houses, Section 3 Clause 2) and take up legislation (Section 3 Clause 3) and he can send them home (adjourn Congress, also Section 3 Clause 3) until they come to an agreement.

    What he cannot do, is ignore the law no matter what he feels about it (Section 3 Clause 5).

  5. #125
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,217

    Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

    Quote Originally Posted by votemout View Post
    Like what?
    got links I do not even know what restrictions you are talking about. hey here is an idea just follow the constitution and be done with it.
    How about congress stop writing bills that effect the presidents executive officers? How about understanding the the president made a signing statement on this bill. Did you read the link I posted on that?

  6. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    06-19-14 @ 11:55 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,471

    Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    ... I love it. Republicans are trying to impeach Obama for "breaking the law" in order to bring an American soldier home. If he had waited 30 days and the soldier had died, they'd be on this forum claiming it's another Benghazi and he was abandoned. Lol, Congress and Republicans can go **** themselves on their inconsistent stances. Let them try and impeach him on this one. It'll guarantee a Democrat POTUS' for president in 2016.
    So long as it isnt this potus. Hell he was gone for 5 years you think 30 more days WOULD MATTER HOW?

  7. #127
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,217

    Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    Because they have that power. The president has certain powers over the Congress as well. He can force them to meet (both houses, Section 3 Clause 2) and take up legislation (Section 3 Clause 3) and he can send them home (adjourn Congress, also Section 3 Clause 3) until they come to an agreement.

    What he cannot do, is ignore the law no matter what he feels about it (Section 3 Clause 5).
    Yes, but this is spelled out in the constitution. Where does it say that congress can pass a law that restricts the actions of the executive branch? This is why signing statements became a legal option for a president. He is acknowledging a bill he signs, with exception. He can only make such exceptions to items that affect the executive branch.

    Did you read the link to his signing statement I posted?

  8. #128
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,217

    Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

    Quote Originally Posted by votemout View Post
    So long as it isnt this potus. Hell he was gone for 5 years you think 30 more days WOULD MATTER HOW?
    30 days can matter in such instances, especially if any one of those notified leaked the information.

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    06-19-14 @ 11:55 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,471

    Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    ... I love it. Republicans are trying to impeach Obama for "breaking the law" in order to bring an American soldier home. If he had waited 30 days and the soldier had died, they'd be on this forum claiming it's another Benghazi and he was abandoned. Lol, Congress and Republicans can go **** themselves on their inconsistent stances. Let them try and impeach him on this one. It'll guarantee a Democrat POTUS' for president in 2016.
    Bowe Bergdahl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  10. #130
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    Yes, but this is spelled out in the constitution. Where does it say that congress can pass a law that restricts the actions of the executive branch? This is why signing statements became a legal option for a president. He is acknowledging a bill he signs, with exception. He can only make such exceptions to items that affect the executive branch.

    Did you read the link to his signing statement I posted?
    The Congress passes laws and has the power of the purse. Both give them power over the Executive to a certain extent. If Congress passes a law that restricts what the Executive can do, the Executive can take it to the SCOTUS. Short of that, the President is required by the Constitution to enforce the law, even against himself. If not, he is a tyrant, and should be impeached.

    Presidential signing statements are not law, and do not have the power of law:
    Presidential Signing Statements (Library of Congress Link)

    Overview

    This guide is intended to serve as an introduction to research on official pronouncements issued by the President of the United States at or near the time a bill is signed into law. Such pronouncements are called signing statements. They have been published in the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents (discontinued in January 2009) and the Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States. Signing statements have also been published in U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News (West Group) since 1986.

    The Executive Branch, which is headed by the President, is tasked by the Constitution with the duty "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." (Article II, Section 3). This language is often referred to as the "Take Care Clause." Congress passes laws and the President enforces them.

    If the President feels a law is unconstitutional or otherwise ill-advised, the President can veto the law instead of signing it. At this point Congress can respond in various ways. It is also argued that the President has a duty not to sign a law which in a given circumstance would be unconstitutional, because the President takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution. (Article II, Section 1). The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

    Unlike vetoes, signing statements are not part of the legislative process as set forth in the Constitution, and have no legal effect. A signed law is still a law regardless of what the President says in an accompanying signing statement. In 1972, after President Nixon in a signing statement indicated that a provision in a bill submitted to him did not "represent the policies of this Administration" and was "without binding force or effect," a federal district court held that no executive statement, even by a President, "denying efficacy to the legislation could have either validity or effect." DaCosta v. Nixon, 55 F.R.D. 145, 146 (E.D.N.Y. 1972).

    ...

Page 13 of 30 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... 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
  •