• 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

Hatuey said:
... 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.
Click to expand...

So long as it isnt this potus. Hell he was gone for 5 years you think 30 more days WOULD MATTER HOW?
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

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

votemout said:
So long as it isnt this potus. Hell he was gone for 5 years you think 30 more days WOULD MATTER HOW?
Click to expand...
30 days can matter in such instances, especially if any one of those notified leaked the information.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Hatuey said:
... 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.
Click to expand...

Bowe Bergdahl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Lord of Planar said:
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?
Click to expand...

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).

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

Lord of Planar said:
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?
Click to expand...

It is no secret that all branches of government have overstepped their powers. The reason...the rule of law was not respected. To think that a sitting president can be exempted from certain parts of a law that he activated with his signature, because of commentary over parts of the law he was in conflict with somehow gives him the authority to not honor that law in its entirety is insane. The practice needs to stop. And if not, just elect a friggin King and bypass all the other bull****.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Beaudreaux said:
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:
Click to expand...
Yawn.

Do you have an example that is of the executive branch rather than Nixon wanting to ignore the Mansfield Amendment?
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

vesper said:
It is no secret that all branches of government have overstepped their powers. The reason...the rule of law was not respected. To think that a sitting president can be exempted from certain parts of a law that he activated with his signature, because of commentary over parts of the law he was in conflict with somehow gives him the authority to not honor that law in its entirety is insane. The practice needs to stop. And if not, just elect a friggin King and bypass all the other bull****.
Click to expand...


Obey the laws, and we fought to end kings for a reason. look LOP has no clue how our government even works.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

votemout said:
Obey the laws, and we fought to end kings for a reason. look LOP has no clue how our government even works.
Click to expand...
Sure I do, and the actions of signing statements that affect the executive branch will continue to occur like Obama is doing, until someone takes it to the Supremes.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

votemout said:
Obey the laws, and we fought to end kings for a reason. look LOP has no clue how our government even works.
Click to expand...
You know recently I re-read the Declaration of Independence and when Thomas Jefferson was pointing out the conflicts we had with King George, it wasn't a stretch to see Obama playing the role of King George. I don't believe LOP has no clue, for sure. I often find myself agreeing with him on many issues, just not this one.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Lord of Planar said:
Yawn.

Do you have an example that is of the executive branch rather than Nixon wanting to ignore the Mansfield Amendment?
Click to expand...

Yawn? Seriously? Well, that is in line with your argument in this thread, since the ruling of the law regarding signing statements that was in the link is... well... the law.

Here's a fact. I stated that signing statements are not the law, and provided a US Court ruling that specifically states so. You said, and I quote:
Lord of Planar said:
... 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. ...
Click to expand...

Where is your court ruling stating such?
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

vesper said:
You know recently I re-read the Declaration of Independence and when Thomas Jefferson was pointing out the conflicts we had with King George, it wasn't a stretch to see Obama playing the role of King George. I don't believe LOP has no clue, for sure. I often find myself agreeing with him on many issues, just not this one.
Click to expand...
So, what is worse.

Vetoing a piece of legislation for a single thing you don't like, and not expect to happen, or let something you otherwise agree with never get passed?

Did you read his signing statement on this matter?

Do you think congress, or anyone else, will take this matter to the courts?
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Lord of Planar said:
... 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.

...
Click to expand...

And to the question about them being heard at the SCOTUS it already has: Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Beaudreaux said:
And to the question about them being heard at the SCOTUS it already has: Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
Click to expand...
Fail...

I specified decisions that affect the executive branch.

I don't see such a case being taken to court. Politicians like the murkiness. Presidents will continue to use signing statements, and other reasons to pass laws and ignore the parts that affect the executive branch. Until challenged, it will be normal, and the media and detractors are incapable of making a valid noise on such issues, because they cry wolf too often.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Lord of Planar said:
So, what is worse.

Vetoing a piece of legislation for a single thing you don't like, and not expect to happen, or let something you otherwise agree with never get passed?

Did you read his signing statement on this matter?

Do you think congress, or anyone else, will take this matter to the courts?
Click to expand...

For me personally, if the legislation in any part is found to be unconstitutionally sound as Obama seem to feel in part was by his added comments, then he should by all means vetoed it if he wanted to be true to his oath which the Constitution requires, and it goes like this...(The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight)
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.”
You can't defend the Constitution if you are signing bills into law when you find a part of them violating it.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Lord of Planar said:
Fail...

I specified decisions that affect the executive branch.
Click to expand...

Did you read it? Obviously not. This SCOTUS ruling is specifically about the Executive and the power of the Executive to not enforce a portion of a law after it is enacted (signed) by the President. Which would encompass actions not taken because of signing statements which are for all intent and purposes a line item veto, which is unConstitutional. This law also restricted, or forced, the Executive to take action. Which is what you were hanging your hat on.

I'm still waiting patiently for your court case to be cited. Even though I can keep posting more cases. The only reason I posted that one, is because you said it would have to be taken "to the supreme's" which it has, and so I showed you.

Care to post a link to your court case? Seriously, I would like to read it. Because I haven't seen one or even heard of one, and I would like to know if I've been wrong all these years. It wouldn't be the first time.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Beaudreaux said:
Did you read it? Obviously not. This SCOTUS ruling is specifically about the Executive and the power of the Executive to not enforce a portion of a law after it is enacted (signed) by the President. Which would encompass actions not taken because of signing statements which are for all intent and purposes a line item veto, which is unConstitutional. This law also restricted, or forced, the Executive to take action. Which is what you were hanging your hat on.

I'm still waiting patiently for your court case to be cited. Even though I can keep posting more cases. The only reason I posted that one, is because you said it would have to be taken "to the supreme's" which it has, and so I showed you.

Care to post a link to your court case? Seriously, I would like to read it. Because I haven't seen one or even heard of one, and I would like to know if I've been wrong all these years. It wouldn't be the first time.
Click to expand...
It was not a law affecting the workings of the executive branch, but an executive decision that was outside of his authority.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

votemout said:
So long as it isnt this potus. Hell he was gone for 5 years you think 30 more days WOULD MATTER HOW?
Click to expand...

8 American Ambassadors were killed in the line of duty, 4 of them by terrorism attacks in Muslim countries before Republicans cared. So yes, if he had died within those 30 days, it would have mattered. Hell, the fact that Obama broke the law to bring an American soldier home is now being used by Republicans to ring the bells of impeachment. Go figure, the no American left behind crowd is now complaining that we traded 5 goat ****ers that will be killed in a drone strike for an American. All because that ****hole of a congress they created wasn't given notification. Lol, **** them.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Beaudreaux said:
Care to post a link to your court case? Seriously, I would like to read it. Because I haven't seen one or even heard of one, and I would like to know if I've been wrong all these years. It wouldn't be the first time.
Click to expand...
I have specifically pointed out that such a similar case, regarding laws upon the limiting executive authority, have not been tested yet.

I specified decisions that affect the executive branch.

I don't see such a case being taken to court. Politicians like the murkiness. Presidents will continue to use signing statements, and other reasons to pass laws and ignore the parts that affect the executive branch. Until challenged, it will be normal, and the media and detractors are incapable of making a valid noise on such issues, because they cry wolf too often.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Lord of Planar said:
It was not a law affecting the workings of the executive branch, but an executive decision that was outside of his authority.
Click to expand...

Holy crap LoP. What are you parsing now? If a President makes an executive decision, to either do or not do something, related to law passed by Congress, he has two choices once he signs it, and only two legal choices: 1) enforce the law in compliance with the US Constitution Section 3, Clause 5, or; 2) take it to court. That's it. He can write anything he wants on the bill, but the only writing that matters is his signature and the words that came from Congress.

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.

Man, read the Constitution. It's like Prego... It's in there.

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

Amadeus said:
So the right allowed themselves to be manipulated into self-destruction by the left? Not sure I follow.
Click to expand...

Yeah, remember how the right was fully destroyed and no longer exists? Oh wait, that was in your dreams.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Lord of Planar said:
I have specifically pointed out that such a similar case, regarding laws upon the limiting executive authority, have not been tested yet.
Click to expand...

Read that SCOTUS Case again. Please.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Beaudreaux said:
Holy crap LoP. What are you parsing now? If a President makes an executive decision, to either do or not do something, related to law passed by Congress, he has two choices once he signs it, and only two legal choices: 1) enforce the law in compliance with the US Constitution Section 3, Clause 5, or; 2) take it to court. That's it. He can write anything he wants on the bill, but the only writing that matters is his signature and the words that came from Congress.

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.

Man, read the Constitution. It's like Prego... It's in there.
Click to expand...
What am I parsing?

How about the fact that congress has no right to expect the 30 day notice of executive branch actions?
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

X Factor said:
Yeah, remember how the right was fully destroyed and no longer exists? Oh wait, that was in your dreams.
Click to expand...

Where did I say they were fully destroyed? There is still some debris.
 
Re: Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL claims GOP as former federal prosecutor says it

Lord of Planar said:
What am I parsing?

How about the fact that congress has no right to expect the 30 day notice of executive branch actions?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom