When it turned out Bush was telling the truth about not stealing the oil there was nothing left I liked about Bush's policies other than ignoring the UN. Just because a right wing progressive causes trouble does not make it ok for another to make things worse. Oh and don't forget only 6 of those years had a republican house. Nancy and Harry were passing the laws for two of those years and two years after. And as for the RINOs who didn't fix things when they had the chance, well many of them are not in congress any more. In case you haven't noticed the new house majority was not from an influx of RINOs like Newt, who lacked the backbone to take on problems and chose to just hand out more freebies.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Nobama going ot ignore the law again????
- Thread starter rodbender
- Start date
When it turned out Bush was telling the truth about not stealing the oil there was nothing left I liked about Bush's policies other than ignoring the UN. Just because a right wing progressive causes trouble does not make it ok for another to make things worse. Oh and don't forget only 6 of those years had a republican house. Nancy and Harry were passing the laws for two of those years and two years after. And as for the RINOs who didn't fix things when they had the chance, well many of them are not in congress any more. In case you haven't noticed the new house majority was not from an influx of RINOs like Newt, who lacked the backbone to take on problems and chose to just hand out more freebies.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Well, of course he is. The law isn't self-enforcing. Somebody has to enforce it. It is very hard to enforce certain laws on or against the President.
He knows which he can bend, which he can break, and which ones he might not get away with violating.
Separately, I think the discussion about the constitution being interpretive is missing something.
The constitution is entirely open to interpretation. That is exactly how the fedgov has gotten away with its nonsense for years and years and years. There are too many "loopholes" in it that admit of various interpretations. And, there are not enough serious penalties against violators.
For example, the Supreme Court squeezed in "implied powers" long ago. So, now we've got express powers, delegated powers, and implied powers. Well, that implied powers doctrine really opened the door. But, where is the clause in the constitution that forbade implied powers? There isn't one. Woulda been nice.
Penalties against violators. If the Founders were really serious about checks and balances, they could have written some really strong stuff. For example, "Any President who starts military action against another country shall be removed from office immediately." Suitably polished up to allow defensive measures while Congress is in recess or whatever.
Or, for example, whenever a Congress borrows money except during an acute national emergeny, that Congress' subsequent acts--every single one--shall be without force. The Supreme Court shall have no authority to interpret any such act as binding. The President shall have no power to execute or enforce any such act. Unless passed by a later Congress and after the borrowed money has been paid by the yes-voting legislators themselves out of their own pockets. Any officer of any department who enforces such law on a citizen of the several States shall himself be open to suit for damages in the courts of the State wherein his crime is committed. And, no citizen shall be held to answer for using force to repel his unlawful actions.
Or, how about, "Congress shall have no power to delegate its authority to another entity. Any such delegation renders laws and regulations arising therefrom null. Any officer or employ who enforces such against any citizen of the several States..."
You see. There are not nearly enough limitations in the Constitution. The darn thing is wide open to interpretation. And has way, way too few mechanisms to enforce against violations.
Oh, noz! The fedgov would be neutered! Anarchy would reign! Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like all the state governments would vanish.
Last edited:
END_THE_FED
Regular Member
Actually, there is one:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
This is my point, ETF. That clause does not prohibit implied powers. You and I can go around beating the table for another millenia that it does; but, just as easily some power-hungry senator with a favor to pay can say it does not. "Well, if express powers and implied powers exist, then both express powers and implied powers must have been delegated."
Also, the whole point of implied powers is to assert that implied powers are delegated, too.
Just because I want the car to start doesn't mean it will if the battery is dead, or the starter brushes are shot. Just because we want that clause to operate to prevent broadening power, does not mean that it does.
On a side note, I saw recently a wonderful explanation for the creation of the UN: the Mafia has an ethnicity requirement for admission to its gang.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Only because in their grasp of power they ignored the fact that the constitution, limits the powers the government has to 18 items.
I don't think the founders foresaw, even the almost immediate grasp for power those in positions of "authority" would reach for, eg. like the power the SCOTUS granted themselves.
The English law if it isn't illegal it's legal is not supposed to apply to a constitutionally limited government but only to citizenry.
Just my thoughts on it.
I don't think the founders foresaw, even the almost immediate grasp for power those in positions of "authority" would reach for, eg. like the power the SCOTUS granted themselves.
The English law if it isn't illegal it's legal is not supposed to apply to a constitutionally limited government but only to citizenry.
Just my thoughts on it.
jpjpjp
Regular Member
KBCraig
Regular Member
I strongly opposed Bush's invasion of Iraq, creation of Homeland Security and the TSA, and his spending policies. So, be careful what you ASSume.
The difference between Iraq and Libya is that Bush had Congressional authorization, thus he didn't violate the War Powers Resolution.
Wrong. Many of the founders correspondences indicate they KNEW the federal government would try and succeed at going beyond its bounds. No document can or set of rules can stop people from behaving how they choose. It can only serve as a reminder and reason for others to act appropriately. Be that appropriate act limiting a government or executing a person proven guilty of mass murder or anything else covered by law, constitutional or codified.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
A word of advice, you better save you pennies for that beer you are going to purchase for me.
Back to the topic, ALL reading of the Constitution is 'selective'. All that matters is SCOTUS findings. If President Obama is challenged, then we will know by a SCOTUS finding of whether or not He has done some thing not-Constitutional.
rodbender
Regular Member
You put entirely too much faith in the 9 people that have appointed themselves "King". You need to do some research, my lady. If the president or anyone else does something that is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional from the moment they do it. Personally, I don't need to wait for SCOTUS to say it is unconstitutional before I KNOW that it is.
Do you think the feds have constitutional powers to:
tell you what you can grow in your backyard garden?
tell companies how to manufacture a product?
tell you that you have to buy a certain product?
perform searches of your person before you board your chosen form of transportation?
I noticed that you capitalized the "H" in "He" when referring to Obama. Is he that much of a god to you?
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Posted by sudden valley gunner
Yea I was thinking about that, I just don't think they realized how quickly it would. But I think you are right because after all Jefferson was dealing with the federalist party with the likes of Hamilton. On second thought maybe what he didn't foresee was us letting the government get away with it.
Yea I was thinking about that, I just don't think they realized how quickly it would. But I think you are right because after all Jefferson was dealing with the federalist party with the likes of Hamilton. On second thought maybe what he didn't foresee was us letting the government get away with it.
Posted by sudden valley gunner
Yea I was thinking about that, I just don't think they realized how quickly it would. But I think you are right because after all Jefferson was dealing with the federalist party with the likes of Hamilton. On second thought maybe what he didn't foresee was us letting the government get away with it.
He helped give us The Republic instead of Monarchy, its up to us to keep it a republic.
OldCurlyWolf
Regular Member
Yes we do have free speech, As you have proved in your last two posts by spouting some quite twisted "facts". The next lesson you need to learn is that speech also has consequences.
The consequences of your speech that originate with me is that from this point forward, I will not even acknowledge your existence. To me you have become totally irrelevant.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I am not stating that you are not entitled to your opinion on the Constitutionality of issues.
They have appointed themselves "King?" Are you aware of some sub-system in which the appointments operate?
Yes, the Federal Government does have the Constitutional powers to do all of the above. I don't agree with it, but the Feds do.
The "H" in "He" serves its purpose. I do it for the same reason that some refer to President Obama as 'obuma,", "nobama," etc.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
People forget that cute little historical fact. Bush drove this Country into the ground, drove us into two wars (one based on lies), then left office to his multi-million dollar retreat. Now the American people suffer by Bush's tax cuts for the rich, two costly wars, and a Federal Government that has had ten years of some for of Patriot Act. And Republicans would have you belief Bush was actually not a Republican, pft.
We all know what the vast majority of Republicans take issue with regarding President Obama. Naturally, when President Obama does something it has to be illegal, but when Bush did it, well, we see how that has ended.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I agree Bush was horribly unconstitutional, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Just because you might want republicans to like and support bush does not make it true. Your argument is a strawman. As the debt problem has gotten larger people's complaints have increased. The problem grew at a faster rate under Obama's watch, so people's complaints grew even louder and more numerous. Of course it is unfair to lay the change of pace in debt problems only on the president, the liberal Democrat supermajority congress under the direction of Nancy and Harry passed the budgets and laws that have hurt us recently.
rodbender
Regular Member
What I state is not my opinion, it is fact. If you were to look into the framing of the Constitution just a little, you, too, would know it to be fact.
Yes, they have. That was done the first time they used interpretive language when ruling on a case. It was confirmed when they weren't hung (or at least impeached) for exercising powers not granted them in the Constitution.
No, they do not. Just because SCOTUS says they do, does not make it so. SCOTUS gave them that power, not the Constitution. Well, 2 out of the 4 so far.
Which proves, at least to me that you look upon him as some sort of diety.
Yes, and for Health Care. If only the tide of the Senate might have changed along with the House, we might have been lucky enough to have seen his impeachment for the fornication of our country.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Now, that is an interesting point. Bill Clinton was impeached over White House BJ's. What's the penalty for ****ing the whole country while sitting in the Oval Office? I guess "it depends on the meaning of the word sex."
Regarding the tide in the Senate. The deck was stacked against it--starting from the constitutional convention. Its rigged so that only so many are up for election during each cycle. I don't recall exactly, but I think it would take 18 years (senators have 6 yr terms) to completely replace the entire senate, 12 years to replace two thirds. Something like that. It was a deliberate arrangement by the constitutional convention. You can't possibly get rid of all the criminals at once. They're entrenched but good.
Last edited: