• 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!

Congress urged to challenge Obama’s executive actions

Anthony60 said:
Well, I guess there is no getting through to you on this. Why the predilection with EO's? You claim to have read my post, where I said I don't care if what he does is on EO or not, yet you go on with them. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a President can only be impeached if his wrongdoing is through EO's, yet you behave as if that is the case. Obviously, your tactic, as is the standard for liberals, is to try and stay away from what he has done, and focus on some insignificant point.
Click to expand...

Is it possible for you to make an argument without this "standard for liberals" crap?
 
They should, they have a Constitutional right to. But IMO they will have to file a suit and request a ruling from the Supreme Court, whom I no longer have much faith in when it comes to upholding the U.S. Cont. and the rights of the citizens.a
 
Kobie said:
Is it possible for you to make an argument without this "standard for liberals" crap?
Click to expand...

More of the same standard liberal crap, how ironic.
God, that's so weak. You've got to do better than that.
 
Can someone give me an example of an Executive Order that has been declared illegal/unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction?
 
DVSentinel said:
I see your point. But for me, even a spineless do nothing is better than a Dem being in those spots and spending money as if it grew on ever blooming trees.
Click to expand...
Well, I can't stand either party but if they are both creating stupid and harmful laws just to placate the most voters and stay in power then either way it's a poor option.
 
Montecresto said:
Did the depth of Turley's criticisms of BUSH escape you? He's right on Obama and he was right on Bush, but partisanship allows this **** to perpetuate and intensify.
Click to expand...

No, and you are probably right, I didn't hold his criticisms as critical enough during the Bush years, and could have been a bit more skeptical in the actions Bush was taking at the time, but we are past that, and I think that focusing on Bush as though it should dismiss the actions of today we do at our own peril.
 
Anthony60 said:
Well, I guess there is no getting through to you on this. Why the predilection with EO's? You claim to have read my post, where I said I don't care if what he does is on EO or not, yet you go on with them. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a President can only be impeached if his wrongdoing is through EO's, yet you behave as if that is the case. Obviously, your tactic, as is the standard for liberals, is to try and stay away from what he has done, and focus on some insignificant point.
Click to expand...

You clearly have no command of the issue at hand.... When you speak of Obama "taking over legislative duties" that IS using Executive Order (or signing statements, which he can't do, since congress never passes anything)... That is how the executive branch "enacts law", has they have since the inception of US time. Again, you express your outrage but you are unable to coherently (and correctly) articulate the substantiation for your outrage. Your inability to support your position objectively is typical of most of the right wing wackjobs here. They only know what they learned on political porn sites or Fox news and can only argue with insult and insolence.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
You clearly have no command of the issue at hand.... When you speak of Obama "taking over legislative duties" that IS using Executive Order (or signing statements, which he can't do, since congress never passes anything)... That is how the executive branch "enacts law", has they have since the inception of US time. Again, you express your outrage but you are unable to coherently (and correctly) articulate the substantiation for your outrage. Your inability to support your position objectively is typical of most of the right wing wackjobs here. They only know what they learned on political porn sites or Fox news and can only argue with insult and insolence.
Click to expand...

Do you know more than Turley?
 
j-mac said:
No, and you are probably right, I didn't hold his criticisms as critical enough during the Bush years, and could have been a bit more skeptical in the actions Bush was taking at the time, but we are past that, and I think that focusing on Bush as though it should dismiss the actions of today we do at our own peril.
Click to expand...

Oh by no means did I offer it up as a dismissal of Obama's actions. By all means, he's Bush on steroids in several troubling areas. My point was that Bush supporters were dismissive of Turley when he was raising hell about Bush, and only now find his concerns relevant. And if Obama supporters do the same thing now, wait till the next president comes in, regardless of his party affiliation. But you already said you should have been tougher on Bush, I respect that.
 
j-mac said:
Do you know more than Turley?
Click to expand...

Turley needs to be listened to, or we're all going to be in big trouble. He's also shown his loyalties are to the constitution and IL. He raised hell about Bush, now he's raising he'll about Obama, he's no partisan.
 
j-mac said:
Do you know more than Turley?
Click to expand...

Thank you! This the perhaps to most intelligent thing posted on this issue thus far. Unlike Anthony, you get it and know how to defend the position.

Now, I wonder if you really know who Jonathan Turley really is, given you did not use his full name nor provide a link that outlines his position, but at least you cited a credible source that thinks Obama is playing out of bounds. Bear in mind, however, that Jonathan Turley is an outspoken critic of the imperial presidency. Although he has issues with Obama's use of executive power, he was also a very vocal critic of George W. Bush, also arguing George was way out of bounds on his use of signing statements, executive orders and violations of human rights (torture and detaining of persons without charge and/or trial).

Unlike most people, Jonathan Turley has been consistent on an issue independent party. Its interesting he has suddenly appeared on Fox. Now that he is a liberal blasting Obama, he is a star on Fox. I doubt he ever got the red carpet treatment, much less an invite, when his issues were with GW Bush. That said, Turley has never advocated the impeachment of either Obama nor Bush... he is only questioning the imperial presidency.

To be clear, however, my issue is not with Obama playing out of bounds, its with the outrage of some that feel that he is the only guy that has played out of bounds. The concept of the imperial presidency / unitary executive is not new (see links per my previous post)... I was challenging Anthony to show us how Obama was somehow different.... as I expected, he could not... as its clear that his command of the issue was shallow to non-existent.

Thank you for at least giving us a substantive retort.... after all, this is DEBATE politics. Debate means you bring facts and expert opinion to the table when called to do so. You did so.
 
Jonathan Turley can and has pointed out how Obama is worse. Listen to what he has said. And if Obama supporters ignore it now as Bush supporters ignored it then, well then just as Obama has pushed it way past Bush's outrages, the next president will be pushing it past his. Whether he/she is a democrat or a republican. Oh, and just because other presidents have done it is a very lame reason to allow it to continue, now or ever.
 
upsideguy said:
Thank you! This the perhaps to most intelligent thing posted on this issue thus far. Unlike Anthony, you get it and know how to defend the position.

Now, I wonder if you really know who Jonathan Turley really is, given you did not use his full name nor provide a link that outlines his position, but at least you cited a credible source that thinks Obama is playing out of bounds. Bear in mind, however, that Jonathan Turley is an outspoken critic of the imperial presidency. Although he has issues with Obama's use of executive power, he was also a very vocal critic of George W. Bush, also arguing George was way out of bounds on his use of signing statements, executive orders and violations of human rights (torture and detaining of persons without charge and/or trial).

Unlike most people, Jonathan Turley has been consistent on an issue independent party. Its interesting he has suddenly appeared on Fox. Now that he is a liberal blasting Obama, he is a star on Fox. I doubt he ever got the red carpet treatment, much less an invite, when his issues were with GW Bush. That said, Turley has never advocated the impeachment of either Obama nor Bush... he is only questioning the imperial presidency.

To be clear, however, my issue is not with Obama playing out of bounds, its with the outrage of some that feel that he is the only guy that has played out of bounds. The concept of the imperial presidency / unitary executive is not new (see links per my previous post)... I was challenging Anthony to show us how Obama was somehow different.... as I expected, he could not... as its clear that his command of the issue was shallow to non-existent.

Thank you for at least giving us a substantive retort.... after all, this is DEBATE politics. Debate means you bring facts and expert opinion to the table when called to do so. You did so.
Click to expand...

Yes I knew of him during Bush and unfortunately was far too dismissive. I'm listening now, and concerned about future administration overreaching.
 
j-mac said:
As usual The WaPo cherry picked, and left much out....Turley, no 'right winger' was far more in depth than they let on....



He's right...What should be done is a select joint committee, to gather for impeachment, but this congress will not do that...So, I guess the fundamental change Obama spoke of is taking place...Bid America goodbye.
Click to expand...


I do not have a history of agreeing with you on much. But on this I do agree with you and Mr. Turley. Balance among the three branches of government is essential, and I believe that Bush and Obama both served to erode that balance. I also think that Congress has utterly failed to be a Congress of any merit. Blame lies all around in my opinion.

I hate to see partisanship get in the way of critical discussion on the state of U.S. governance. But it seems we all want to blame somebody...just not "our guy."
 
Lerxst said:
I do not have a history of agreeing with you on much. But on this I do agree with you and Mr. Turley. Balance among the three branches of government is essential, and I believe that Bush and Obama both served to erode that balance. I also think that Congress has utterly failed to be a Congress of any merit. Blame lies all around in my opinion.

I hate to see partisanship get in the way of critical discussion on the state of U.S. governance. But it seems we all want to blame somebody...just not "our guy."
Click to expand...

I think you're right, plus on my side of things we have Boehner to contend with...Nothing will get done to circumvent this erosion, because he is a weak SoH.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom