Page 16 of 30 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 298

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

  1. #151
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    We are all going to just keep walking on eggshells until he is out of office, and then try to repair the damage he has done to this country.
    No damage, and ZERO close to the disaster the USA got Bushwhacked with by Cheney/Rumsfeld last decade .
    Physics is Phun

  2. #152
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,221

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    What right? The Constitutional Power to do so is their right.

    Once again, of clarity's sake, but without the colors this time:

    Congress has the sole power to make law: Article 1, Section 1, All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

    Congress has the sole power to say what the government does: Article 1, Section 8, Enumerated Powers: ... To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. That would include the Executive, especially the Executive Officer, the President.
    Complain all you want, but until this specific type of case is brought to court, presidents will continue to ignore laws that infringe on the executive branch. Once it is brought to court, and if found the president is in violation of the constitution, then such laws will never be signed. They will be vetoed. Now right now, I think most people accept of the way things are.

    Food for thought. Do you think that one president can sign a bill that relinquished the executive power granted by constitution, of the next president? This is why such a complaint will either not be tested in court, or lose if it is.

    Nobody has answered my question yet.

    Have you read the signing statement he made that I linked?

  3. #153
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    He will not be impeached. No one is willing to deal with the fallout that would occur if he was.
    No one meaning traitorous Republicans.
    The issue will be left open-ended for the next two election cycles by the ones who should be impeached, House leadership .
    Physics is Phun

  4. #154
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

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

    Quote Originally Posted by votemout View Post
    I am willing and demand it actually. He hates america period and i do not trust him one bit.
    Obama does not hate AMERICA.
    You pretend to hate both parties but only specifically call out one of them .
    Physics is Phun

  5. #155
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Name for me the democrat senators that will vote for impeachment. In fact, name one.
    Name for me the Republican Senator who will not vote for impeachment.
    In fact, name one.
    Think we need another "select" committee that will go through the 2014 election cycle ?
    Physics is Phun

  6. #156
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    Knock yourself out. No one will act on your demands.
    Obama's impeachment has been demanded since Benghazi. Look where those demands have gotten you.
    Reagan would have been impeached a dozen times by your standards .
    Physics is Phun

  7. #157
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

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

    Quote Originally Posted by votemout View Post
    What another informed person here no freaking way!
    I call them the repukelicrats!!!!! the one party system of ****.
    awesome
    I have never seen you once specifically say something negative about Republicans.
    Yet you continue to pretend to do this .
    Physics is Phun

  8. #158
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

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

    Quote Originally Posted by votemout View Post
    Guess we wait till after the 2014 election then, the dems will lose the senate come 2014
    Care to make a donation wager on that votemout?
    You do make those right?

    How about if either of us quit debate politics if the other is right about the Senate ?
    Physics is Phun

  9. #159
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    IL
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    36,762

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

    Quote Originally Posted by votemout View Post
    He does not have any executive rights to break the laws that he signed into law.
    Or any other laws...... But heck he breaks those also guess i should not be surprised.
    Showing once again that you're not a legal scholar .
    Physics is Phun

  10. #160
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    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:
    It seems Conservatives weren't up in arms against in the early 2000s.

    Signing statement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    George W. Bush's use of signing statements was and is controversial, both for the number of times employed (over 700 opinions, although President Clinton actually issued more [14]) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements — for example, his signing statement attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto; the Supreme Court had previously ruled such vetoes as unconstitutional in the 1998 case, Clinton v. City of New York.[15]
    Wikinews has related news: Bush declares immunity from Patriot Act oversight

    Previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 1,100 challenges.[11][16]

    The signing statement associated with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody attracted controversy:

    "The executive branch shall construe... the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power...."

    The use of signing statements that fall in to the constitutional category can create conundrums for executive branch employees. Political scientist James Pfiffner has written:

    "The president is the head of the executive branch, and in general, executive branch officials are bound to follow his direction. In cases in which a subordinate is ordered to do something illegal, the person can legitimately refuse the order. But if the public administrator is ordered to refuse to execute the law ... because the president has determined that the law infringes on his own interpretation of his constitutional authority, the public administrator faces an ethical dilemma."[17]
    Scalia's take on the matter:

    Since at least the Reagan era, scholars, jurists, and others have debated whether presidential signing statements should be considered as legislative history for purposes of interpreting federal statutes. In a recent example, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed with his fellow justices' disregard of a signing statement related to the Detainee Treatment Act, Pub. L. No. 109-148, 1005-1006, 119 Stat. 2736 (2005). Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) (Scalia dissenting).
    Here is what Democrats tried to do on the matter as far back as 2006:

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s3731
    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s1747
    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s875

    3 bills trying to stop the president from leading through signing statements and NONE were backed by Republicans. Now they're all up in arms against them? Hahahaha.

    GOP Media:

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...big_government

    These are the enemies of the country, and here's Leahy out basically standings up for the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights. Now, what he was doing was trying to -- he wanted to -- entrap Alito into agreeing with the premise that the president could ignore McCain's torture law. A couple of Democrats tried this. The president has a signing affidavit after every bill he signs, a signing statement, and he signs his intent, what to do with the legislation, and McCain's torture bill, the president's signing statement said: Hey, I'm commander-in-chief, and if there's a drastic need I'm going to do what it takes.
    This whole thing is absurd. Bush said: I can ignore this if I have to, to protect the country. So the Democrats zero in on that and they want Alito to say, "I think the president can ignore anything; I think the president can do anything he wants; there is only one power in this country, and that's the president." That's what they thought he would say.
    As I said, **** the faux outrage Republicans on this nonsense. You liked it in 2006? Tough nut today.
    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

Page 16 of 30 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... 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
  •