• 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!

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

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

Gaius46 said:
This president isn't as bad as his predecessor was. Are you similarly critical of him?

edit: withdrawn. you answered.
Click to expand...

Gaius, I'm pretty critical of anyone who doesn't take the rule of law seriously Either it means something or it doesn't. You can't go around picking and choosing what you like and what you don't when the rule of law means something to you. If a president is going to sign a bill into law then it is expected that he/she would uphold that law. Period.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

vesper said:
It is only his prerogative because of recent history. It was never the intent of the founders for the president to sign a bill into law and then blatantly claim he will not honor it in full or at all. And if you can find such an occurrence other than recent history including the 1960's forward, I will gladly step down. Good luck.
Click to expand...
Laws used to also be stand alone laws, not rolling up more within a bill that will be passed.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Gaius46 said:
And the President swears an oath to preserve the constitution. That oath would seem to require him to not enforce laws he found unconstitutional - until the SC weighed in on the matter.

Look at it this way. Say the Legislature re-instituted slavery and overrode the President's veto. Is the President obligated to enforce that law until the SC gets around to declaring it unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Yes. He can get a stay from the court until it rules though. Short of that, he has no power to do otherwise and in fact could be impeached for breaking his oath of office as well as breaking the law (the Constitution in this instance).
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Gaius46 said:
And the President swears an oath to preserve the constitution. That oath would seem to require him to not enforce laws he found unconstitutional - until the SC weighed in on the matter.

Look at it this way. Say the Legislature re-instituted slavery and overrode the President's veto. Is the President obligated to enforce that law until the SC gets around to declaring it unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
First of all, the president should veto any law he considers to violate the constitution. As to your second part, slavery was already ruled to be unconstitutional so the president should not enforce any law passed to the contrary, The law requiring the president to notify congress about any Gitmo prisoner movement was signed into law by Obama himself, If he finds the law to be unconstitutional, he should challenge it an let the SC decide. What he cannot do is what he did and often does--obey those laws he feels like obeying. That is tyrannical rule and should be opposed by every sane individual.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Fletch said:
The executor of the law does not have the power to decide which laws are constitutional and, therefore, which ones he will follow and which ones he will ignore. That is tyranny. If Obama felt something in this law was unconstitutional, he should have had his AG pursue a review.
Click to expand...
My major point was when a law crosses over into executive brance decisions, that the president has the right to ignore it.

Congress is always passing laws that encroach on the executive branch. They are suppose to be three separate branches. It should be the duty of any president to ignore such laws as he feels necessary. Now if the president continues to veto bills he would otherwise want enacted, we would never get legislation passed. We already have this blame game where republicans blame democrats and vise-versa over legislation. At times it's for the best, but it also becomes a media circus and nobody wins except media ratings.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Beaudreaux said:
Yes. He can get a stay from the court until it rules though. Short of that, he has no power to do otherwise and in fact could be impeached for breaking his oath of office as well as breaking the law (the Constitution in this instance).
Click to expand...

But his oath of office would seem to demand the he not enforce the law. He's not "preserving the constitution" if he enforces a law that he truly believes in unconstitutional.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

votemout said:
No he can not pick and choose which laws to obey and which to ignore, Do you have a right to ignore laws you dont like? OF COURSE NOT.
Click to expand...
Will you please attempt to understand my words?

When it affects the executive branch and duties, yes. He can ignore them all day long. Congress should not be voting for any laws that encroach on the executive powers.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Lord of Planar said:
Laws used to also be stand alone laws, not rolling up more within a bill that will be passed.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the president can send back to Congress, his willingness to sign a bill "if" it meets x, y and z. And a sitting president can then make it known he will not sign the bill unless it includes x,y and z. To sign a bill into law and then blatantly disregard the damn law he signed because he found it unconstitutional in parts is beyond reasoning when he had the friggin power to veto it in the first place.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

BrianBoroihme said:
I strongly dislike when an "insider" is a source. I wish that the media would get a source on the record.

Bergdahl's "resuce" is nothing like the release of diplomatic hostages.

I seldom agree with McCain, but the ante just went up on taking US military hostage.

Is the report that Bergdahl deserted confirmed?
Click to expand...


I dont know but that would bother me even more.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Lord of Planar said:
My major point was when a law crosses over into executive brance decisions, that the president has the right to ignore it.

Congress is always passing laws that encroach on the executive branch. They are suppose to be three separate branches. It should be the duty of any president to ignore such laws as he feels necessary. Now if the president continues to veto bills he would otherwise want enacted, we would never get legislation passed. We already have this blame game where republicans blame democrats and vise-versa over legislation. At times it's for the best, but it also becomes a media circus and nobody wins except media ratings.
Click to expand...

What your describing is Tyranny. Rule by fiat.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

vesper said:
Yes, but the president can send back to Congress, his willingness to sign a bill "if" it meets x, y and z. And a sitting president can then make it known he will not sign the bill unless it includes x,y and z. To sign a bill into law and then blatantly disregard the damn law he signed because he found it unconstitutional in parts is beyond reasoning when he had the friggin power to veto it in the first place.
Click to expand...
Blatantly?

Yes, he can send the bill back to congress. What does that do but delay 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?

How many signing statements have you ever read? I suggest you read several, and see what most say.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Lord of Planar said:
Will you please attempt to understand my words?

When it affects the executive branch and duties, yes. He can ignore them all day long. Congress should not be voting for any laws that encroach on the executive powers.
Click to expand...

Congress writes the laws, the executive enforces them. ONCE ITS LAW ITS LAW and must be enforced.
The executive is actually designed to be the weakest part of our .gov for a reason.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Beaudreaux said:
What your describing is Tyranny. Rule by fiat.
Click to expand...
Not at all. The president cannot change laws that affect things outside his executive branch.

I am becoming to believe many of you are incapable of understanding another persons point of view.

How can you present a reasonable argument when you are incapable of understanding the other side's view? Maybe you should give up, until you know what you are arguing against.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

votemout said:
Congress writes the laws, the executive enforces them. ONCE ITS LAW ITS LAW and must be enforced.
The executive is actually designed to be the weakest part of our .gov for a reason.
Click to expand...

Wow...

Does the separation of powers just fly right over your head?
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Lord of Planar said:
Blatantly?

Yes, he can send the bill back to congress. What does that do but delay 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?

How many signing statements have you ever read? I suggest you read several, and see what most say.
Click to expand...


I am sorry but you obviously have no clue how our government works. But then again neither does sheila Jackson lee and i am not surprised.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Gaius46 said:
But his oath of office would seem to demand the he not enforce the law. He's not "preserving the constitution" if he enforces a law that he truly believes in unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

US Constitution, Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

US Constitution, Section 3: Presidential responsibilities

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

votemout said:
I am sorry but you obviously have no clue how our government works. But then again neither does sheila Jackson lee and i am not surprised.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should ask congress why they keep trying to impose illegal restrictions on the executive branch, and wonder why a president ignores them.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Lord of Planar said:
Not at all. The president cannot change laws that affect things outside his executive branch.

I am becoming to believe many of you are incapable of understanding another persons point of view.

How can you present a reasonable argument when you are incapable of understanding the other side's view? Maybe you should give up, until you know what you are arguing against.
Click to expand...

Point of view? This isn't up for debate and hasn't been since the last state ratified the US Constitution. Read Section 3 of the Constitution. The last line in the first paragraph.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Lord of Planar said:
Maybe you should ask congress why they keep trying to impose illegal restrictions on the executive branch, and wonder why a president ignores them.
Click to expand...

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

Lord of Planar said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Lord of Planar said:
Maybe you should ask congress why they keep trying to impose illegal restrictions on the executive branch, and wonder why a president ignores them.
Click to expand...

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

votemout said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom