What gives the president the power to make executive orders?
- Thread starter Carthoris
- Start date
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Except Obama only executes the laws he feels are justified in direct violation of his oath of office...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
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?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Well, let's don't wave the onion just yet.
Maybe if we just guessed "The Constitution" about all of this, including Income Tax, we would be correct. That doc give the President vast powers. Not theoretical, very Real. Pardons...can call Congress into special session. AND:
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power
/.....can issue executive orders, which have the force of law but do not have to be approved by congress.
Maybe if we just guessed "The Constitution" about all of this, including Income Tax, we would be correct. That doc give the President vast powers. Not theoretical, very Real. Pardons...can call Congress into special session. AND:
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power
/.....can issue executive orders, which have the force of law but do not have to be approved by congress.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
You keep posting shit that is provably false... Why would that make me cry?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
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.
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?
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.
BarnBuster
Virtually Unknown Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
give some examples of obama creating "new laws", please (by executive power, of course).
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.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
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.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
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.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rders#Barack_Obama_.282009.E2.80.93present.29
nuff said.
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?
and yet he still permits waterboarding, "rendtitions" (kidnapping), and other extreme measures and "Enhanced Interrogation" despite his ability to end all that witrh a single lawful order to the joint cheifs which is INDISPUTABLY within his power.
he could, by similar order, close guantanamo bay, but nope....
he could also abide by his campaign promise to not hire lobbyists for the whitehouse and top government positions, but nope.
he could abide by his promise to create a "transparent" administration (which he refused to do since he formed his illegal shadow government in late 2008 )
and so on and so on and so on.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
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.
as long as the court is selected and approved by the Bar Association, they will continue to be representatives of that organization, rather than the constitution and the people. and that just sucks for us.
Doer
Well-Known Member
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.
It's balance. And get this, it's balance frequency, how fast and how far the scale swings is beyond a lifetime in some cases. Roe v Wade......and on and on....Every thing is subject to srutiny, and it it's not firmly in, like all the Bills and Amendments, the ideas shred over time as they are suppose to. Like the assault weapons ban, voting rights, EVERYTHING. It all get thrown in and discussed, screamed about, and when we see Unions and TeaBags, they fist fight. They turn on the reporters. YEAH!!! More news.
I see it as the area of Ideas. And ideas come with champions and opposition...the pure Che-ist Struggle.
But, unlike any other system, we Throw the ideas and their brute combatant Lawyers, into the shredder called the Constitution, and very little comes out intact. Especially these days. The Holy Days of 50/50 market segment. We are just filling out the details of the System and detailing the response of Law in new situations. It's WORKING! Things work best (or only) in divided Rule.
Remember, even France has been through 4 Constitutions in the time we've manage to preserve our Original.
Similar threads
