Except Obama only executes the laws he feels are justified in direct violation of his oath of office...executive orders are a function of the executive branch, whose duties include faithful execution of laws.
you gonna cry or something, OP?
he swore an oath to the constitution. we know you have a raging hate boner against gays and illegal immigrants, but it is unconstitutional to deny citizens equal protection of law or to let that regressive shit hole AZ take care of immigration, which is a federal duty.Except Obama only executes the laws he feels are justified in direct violation of his oath of office...
You keep posting shit that is provably false... Why would that make me cry?he swore an oath to the constitution. we know you have a raging hate boner against gays and illegal immigrants, but it is unconstitutional to deny citizens equal protection of law or to let that regressive shit hole AZ take care of immigration, which is a federal duty.
in fact, he took that one to court and won.
you gonna cry, little bitch?
DOMA is unconstitutional. that will be provably true within months.You keep posting shit that is provably false... Why would that make me cry?
If the executive orders have nothing to do with the execution of current laws then how is that the duties set forth in the constitution? I wasn't even complaining about them in the opening post. Where does the Constitution give the executive branch the power to make new laws?executive orders are a function of the executive branch, whose duties include faithful execution of laws.
you gonna cry or something, OP?
The POTUS has the chance to veto laws when they are made. Not defending a law on the books is a dereliction of his duty as the executive.DOMA is unconstitutional. that will be provably true within months.
pretty much all of your immigration law got thrown out by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional. the only part that didn't get scrapped as completely unconstitutional got straddled with instructions that leave no room for error for law enforcement and plenty of recourse for the soon to be discriminated against.
that's recorded history.
so go ahead and cry now. i'll provide you with some corn flakes, kiddo.
give some examples of obama creating "new laws", please (by executive power, of course).Where does the Constitution give the executive branch the power to make new laws?
the president swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution (that's the main oath, numbnuts) in addition to 'faithful execution' of laws (that's the constitution, monkeydick).The POTUS has the chance to veto laws when they are made. Not defending a law on the books is a dereliction of his duty as the executive.
wait, i thought it was an "unprecedented action" for the small group of "inelecteble people"(???) to overturn a law which was passed by a "Strong Majority of democratically elected representatives"? of did he actually mean a majority of representatives who are democrats?DOMA is unconstitutional. that will be provably true within months.
pretty much all of your immigration law got thrown out by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional. the only part that didn't get scrapped as completely unconstitutional got straddled with instructions that leave no room for error for law enforcement and plenty of recourse for the soon to be discriminated against.
that's recorded history.
so go ahead and cry now. i'll provide you with some corn flakes, kiddo.
i hate to hate you because you are out of this world good at creatively expressing yourself.wait, i thought it was an "unprecedented action" for the small group of "inelecteble people"(???) to overturn a law which was passed by a "Strong Majority of democratically elected representatives"? of did he actually mean a majority of representatives who are democrats?
nope, that still doesnt wash since numerous provisions democrats have passed have been overturned.
i guess our "Constitutional Scholar In Chief" meant that those "Inelecteble People" (double ????) werent allowed to overturn laws he likes.
because he is such a "Constitutional Scholar"
curiously, since you are so enamoured of the Supreme Inelecteble Court these days, does this imply you've changed your view on Citizens United?
nahhh youre just displaying your hypocrisy again.
the supreme court cannot be both fatally biased and flawed, but also infallibly perfect in their defense of principles you hold dear.
except in Liberalland, where every fart smells like candy and roses, unless it issues from the buttocks from over the hill in evil Republistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Barack_Obama_.282009.E2.80.93present.29give some examples of obama creating "new laws", please (by executive power, of course).
and you therefore imply that our national immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus he is duty bound to ensure that they are not enforced by anyone?the president swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution (that's the main oath, numbnuts) in addition to 'faithful execution' of laws (that's the constitution, monkeydick).
refusing to enforce an unconstitutional law is his oath first and foremost. deal with it.
curiously i agree with you on the idiotic defense Of Marriage Act and the prop 8 buffoonery i voted against, but i doubt the court will side with logic. they will, as always side with some narrow legalism which in the end further erodes the constitution and the principles it enshrines.i hate to hate you because you are out of this world good at creatively expressing yourself.
we are yet to see how the supreme court goes on DOMA and prop 8. this will be more interesting than any election for folks like us who take interest in what the supremes have to say.
No, come on....many, many law as not defended ( as Doer takes a morning flower sniff) We can't be fuzzy about the President. He is the one above the law, action figure we have. But, he can still be caught and held to account. Not a King. His Executive Orders can be immediately countermanded by more Congressional law.The POTUS has the chance to veto laws when they are made. Not defending a law on the books is a dereliction of his duty as the executive.