BO doesn't need no stinkin' Congress.....

Looks like BO is going to let Crazy Joe introduce different gun banning measures & whatever isn't passed to his satisfaction will be mandated by Lord Obama...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...complish-through-executive-action_695381.html

 

Heaven forbid he should use a power that every president since George Washington has used in office.

Ronald Reagan's use of executive orders:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Ronald_Reagan/Executive_orders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

 

How many of those were used to circumvent the legislative process & deny rights to law abiding citizens?

 

Look through them, you'll find at least one, I have faith in you champ.

 

How do you feel about BO's announcement today that whatever Crazy Joe can't get passed conventionally he'll pass unilaterally?

So, about your employees (I'm beginning to doubt you even have)...union or no?

 

Bush didn't need no stinkin' Supeme Court....

Five years after President Bush joked, "If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator," we look at the growing controversy over presidential power and how it relates to many of today’s biggest stories: the Senate ban on torture, the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, domestic surveillance and the jailing of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants. Earlier this week three influential Republicans Senators condemned Bush for claiming he has the authority to ignore a new law banning the torture of prisoners during interrogations.

FILED UNDER Domestic Spying
Three influential Republicans Senators are condemning President Bush for claiming he has the authority to ignore a new law banning the torture of prisoners during interrogations. Bush signed the torture ban just last week. But he also quietly issued what is known as a signing statement in which he lays out his interpretation of the new law. In this document Bush declared that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. Legal experts say this means Bush believes he can waive the anti-torture restrictions. This is not sitting well with some Republican Senators, including John Warner, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Graham told the Boston Globe, "I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified."

I'd say that was going around congress.

 

Ignoring the Supreme Court

Wednesday, April 2, 2008
THE BUSH administration never had any intention of doing what the Supreme Court commanded it to do a year ago today: regulate greenhouse gas emissions. We infer this because, even though President Bush ordered his agencies last May to work together to meet the court's directive, and even though the Environmental Protection Agency delivered to the White House last December its finding that those pollutants endanger public welfare, a prerequisite for regulation, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson announced last week a plan to seek public input starting in the spring on how best to limit the emissions. Translation: punt to the next administration. This giant step backward is the starkest example yet of the chasm between the words and deeds of Mr. Bush on climate change.

 

Just watched it David.

At what point does he mention any banning of guns?

He talks about gathering data to help guns stay out of the hands of criminals.

Is that a bad thing?

Dang dude. You're twisting better than Chubby Checker on this one.

 

Yeah, sure he is.....geesh.

 

Leave it to the gun crowd to react to the mowing down of twenty 6 and 7 year old kids in their classroom with an assault rifle by condemning any solution whatsoever to the problem while at the same time offering no viable solution other than more guns in society. Guns don't kill children as long as people don't pick them up, load them, aim them at children and shoot them repeatedly.

 

...and leave it to the whacko left to use a tragedy to strip rights away from law abiding citizens...

 

The pen is mightier than the sword. If Obama plans to limit our right to bear arms, he should definitely consider further limiting our right to free speech, also. He's already limited our rights under the Fourth Amendment, so this wouldn't be a stretch for him. And that pesky Fifth Amendment needs addressing, too.

 

Right, because doing exactly nothing is far better than actually trying to find a solution to the repeated incidences of mass shootings. My right and the rights of children not to be killed seem to trump your right to be a paranoid asshole.

 

The slippery slope argument is nothing more than a logical facllacy. Constitutional Amendments are NOT carved in stone nor should they be. If they were, we'd still have prohibition. Slavery would not have been abolished if we were unable to add amendments. We can't live in the 1700's our entire existence even if the Repukes want us to.

 

But there are procedures for changing the constitution and its amendments. Presidential proclamations nor even acts of Congress are not among the proscribed procedures. I is difficult to change the Constitution and it was meant to be that way.

 

If, and only If, the presidential proclamation (I think you mean Executive Order) is in violation of the Constitution, it then should be overturned by the Supreme Court. All presidents have used them. Some get overturned and some do not.

 

And he has been given the authority to issue such a regulation by the Congress.

 

Congress only passes the laws. They have no enforcement powers. The Executive branch is charged with enforcement of the laws. Congress is a co-equal branch of the government and if there is a dispute between the Executive and the Legislative branches, the third branch, the Judicial branch, decides the outcome. Congress is not the final word you believe it to be.

 

Indeed. We're finding that fewer and fewer of our Constitutional rights under Obama's care are "carved in stone", so to speak. It's more like they're written on toilet paper. Would you find the elimination of your rights by Executive Order (or by law, e.g., NDAA) under a Republican president so palatable?

View attachment 1193

 

And pray tell what did I say to prompt that. Congress "passes" (i.e. makes) ALL the laws/regulations. The only laws/regulations the President makes would be those he has been empowered to do so by the Congress.