Quo usque tandem abutere, Trump, patientia nostra?
Isn't there one person on the left who will address the question I asked?
Here it is again:
... just think about the precedent Obama will be setting (using executive orders to decree new immigration law) and ask yourself if you will feel comfortable with a Republican president being able to do the very same thing with the laws and issues that are of great importance to you? If you can honestly say that you would be comfortable with that, then go after me with both guns... But if you can't, then it's about time that you, and every single liberal who feels the same way, to use your voices to stop this from happening.
I believe the Democrats and Republicans are both overreaching on many issues to try and get movement towards their sides. It may get an emotional reaction from their base and opposition, but it alienates the middle. And though, I may have a liberal view on some issues, I'm by no means a party liberal and registered as a Republican voter, with a moderate stance. Your assumption was incorrect.
Last edited by grip; 11-15-14 at 01:08 PM.
Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
"No religion is true, but some religion, any religion, is politically necessary. Law and morality are insufficient for the large majority of men. Obedience to the law and to the morals are insufficient for making men happy. […]Law and morality are therefore in need of being supplemented by divine rewards and punishments."
I will say this, after looking at the exist polls, so much of the anger, resentment at the Democrats was because of the economy. Getting into a fight on immigration reform instead of seeing what can be done to improve the economy is something that could hurt the new Republican majority before they are even seated and begin the new session.
Let Obama do what Obama is going to do, then sit back and gauge the public's response. According to the exit polls, the public wants action on the economy over immigration by at least a 5-1 margin, 54% vs. 11%. Let the president and the Democrats put immigration first, that is not what the election results last week meant.
If I were Mitch McConnell once Obama acts, I would say to the American people, "Now you know where the Democrats priority are, ours is to get the economy moving again.
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
How Obama has used executive powers compared to his predecessors - The Washington Post
Bill Clinton was no stranger to far-reaching orders either. During his two terms in office, he banned the import of 50+ types of semi-automatic assault weapons and assault pistols, created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (which forced America to become more sustainable in line with the U.N.’s Agenda 21) and focused federal attention on environmental justice for minority and low-income populations.Two other Republican leaders used their executive powers to great effect. In May 1989, George H. W. Bush temporarily halted the importation of some semi-automatic firearms, following a school shooting in Stockton, Calif. This was made permanent a month later.Presidents create EOs some people don't like every year. From the liberal Forbes:Ronald Reagan also enacted some significant policy initiatives through executive power. The NSA has said that its controversial collection of e-mail and Internet data, for example, was authorized back in 1981 by Reagan's executive order. His order on cattle grazing in 1986 continues to rile bloggers to this day and in 1987, and Reagan issued an executive order banning federal workers from using drugs on and off duty.
When It Comes To Abuse Of Presidential Power, Obama Is A Mere Piker - Forbes
FDR issued one that forcibly transferred Japanese-Americans and German-Americans to internment camps during World War II.Harry Truman issued an order to seize and nationalize all steel mills in America, during a labor strike in 1952. These were clearly rights-violating orders. On the positive side, in a famous 1957 order that was respectful of rights, Dwight Eisenhower decreed an end to racial segregation in America’s public schools.
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
Really? Doesn't seem that way at all to me. I haven't seen any Republican official even try, so far. That may change before long.Seems the GOP has failed in that simple task.
I've made clear more than once in this thread--most recently in my last post--that no one had suggested Mr. Obama had violated any criminal law, or that he should be prosecuted for any crime. And yet you bring it up again.What exact crime, misdemeanor, or violation of the Constitution has the President committed?
Impeachment by the House is nothing like a jury trial, with requirements for standard of proof, exclusion of certain evidence, unanimous verdicts, and so on. If a simple majority of the members of the House want to impeach an official, they don't need elaborate justifications for their vote. If an impeached official refuses to resign, the Senate may try him. And if two-thirds or more of the Senators present were to vote to convict, their vote would remove him from office.
About what? Drafting articles of impeachment doesn't involve much constitutional reasoning, in the sense a Supreme Court decision does. If enough people think a high official has abused his office and want him removed from it, their representatives can find colorable reasons to impeach him, and then try him if necessary.I love to check your constitutional reasoning.
If you want to learn about the Framers' reasons for including the impeachment process in the Constitution, or what they intended it to do, or anything else about it, there are plenty of articles about those things. I'm not interested in teaching basic civics to Obama's acolytes. There would be no point, because they have the same contempt for the Constitution that he does.
Last edited by matchlight; 11-15-14 at 01:50 PM.