• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Obama says he won't be bound by gun control ban in omnibus bill

oldbanger

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
475
Location
beckofbeyond - Idaho
The Obama administration won't be bound by a gun control ban in the $1 trillion spending bill for 2012, the president said Friday.

The funding provision for the federal health agency says that "none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control." The language aims to ban taxpayer dollars from supporting gun safety research.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/other/201243-obama-says-hes-not-bound-by-gun-control-ban-in-spending-bill
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Actually, to me it reads that there is a provision saying these tax dollars can't be used against gun owners, and the 0 said that he doesn't care what it says and he'll spend it as he sees fit.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
Countdown until Obama leaves Office
391 Days, 02 Hours, 49 Minutes, 44 Seconds.

Until that blithering idiot gets relieved of the office.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
You might want to check your math.

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Actually, to me it reads that there is a provision saying these tax dollars can't be used against gun owners, and the 0 said that he doesn't care what it says and he'll spend it as he sees fit.

My thoughts too.

It is an election cycle.....many things are said....the actions are what count. :confused:
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Congress has forgotten (probably intentionally) that money is fungible. So what if "money under this title" can't be used for gun control? There are anther couple of trillion dollars that can be used for gun control.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
So Obama is saying that laws passed by Congress that impede his carrying out the Constitutional duties of the office do not have to be obeyed?

I was under the impression that community organizers took un-Constitutional laws to the Supreme Court and had them declared un-Constitutional. Or at least that's what I remember about how that whole chrecks-and-balances thing was supposed to work.

Pop quiz, class! What do we call someone who does not obey the laws? No, Johnny, "criminals" are unfortunate people who have some difficulties dealing with authority figures and mindless rules. Someone who does not obey the laws is called "The President".

stay safe.
 

oldbanger

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
475
Location
beckofbeyond - Idaho
When candidate Barack Obama was running for President in 2008 he was highly critical of then-President George W. Bush's use of what are called signing statements. These are written pronouncements by a president when he signs a bill into law.

[video=youtube_share;seAR1S1Mjkc]http://youtu.be/seAR1S1Mjkc[/video]
 
Last edited:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
It would be advantageous to constitutional government is Mr Holder and Mr Ob learn what "contempt of Congress", "lying to Congress" (aka perjury) and "impeachment" mean. It is always possible that these lessons may be learned before the next election...President Nixon found out to his sorrow.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Congress has forgotten (probably intentionally) that money is fungible.

You'll laugh at Merriam-Webster's definition of fungible: something that is fungible :banghead:

Fortunately, their adjective is better described: being of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in the satisfaction of an obligation <oil, wheat, and lumber are fungible commodities> / interchangeable / flexible.

So what if "money under this title" can't be used for gun control? There are anther couple of trillion dollars that can be used for gun control.

My take is that neither the President nor any other member of the government should waste taxpayer dollars trying to convince the public that something is "bad" when it's not only established as a Constitutional right, but has been reviewed and adjudicated for 235 years by The People, representatives of The People at all levels of government, and by judiciaries at all levels of government up to and including the Supreme Court.

Since he's claiming he's doing so on a "constitutional" basis, perhaps he should crack open that document and start becoming familiar with it.

For that matter, perhaps all Americans should do the same so they can recognize when our President is lying through his presidential teeth as he wastes our taxpayer dollars in violation of Federal Law.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
[snip]

I was under the impression that community organizers took un-Constitutional laws to the Supreme Court and had them declared un-Constitutional.[snip].

Why would President Obama do that? According to some on here, not-Constitutional Laws are never Constitutional. So why would President Obama even consider wasting his time on not-Constitutional Law?

President Obama is not bound to any Laws passed by Congress unless SCOTUS Finds that he is; and if it is deemed necessary by President Obama to still ignore the Finding for the sake of national security, then President Obama can.

On a side note: President Obama will be reelected. Let's consider the facts here...Republicans have overplayed their hand. Congress is at its lowest rating in history, and it kept dropping following the election of 'tea party' types. The best candidate Republicans have to put up is Romney, who mind you, is pro-choice, pro-socialized healthcare, pro affirmative action, etc. Enjoy your jagged little pill Republicans! Ron Paul is a wet dream for 'tea party' types, Gingrich is nearly as Liberal as Romney. I am going to really enjoy this election season.

I wish that we could all get together on election night, have some nachos, beer, and watch Republican faces eat crow.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Why would President Obama do that? According to some on here, not-Constitutional Laws are never Constitutional. So why would President Obama even consider wasting his time on not-Constitutional Law?

Because he has little respect for the Constitution. Are you even remotely aware, B92FSL, how many laws have been passed in his regime which are un-Constitutional and which will, in due course of time, be struck down?

The question is, why would Obama waste his time and that of the predominantly Dem Senate passing laws which will never stand up against the face of closer scrutiny?

The answer is because they know it'll take time to overturn them, but THEY DON'T CARE!!! They could care less about hour government. They simple want to hobble it until they get their way.

President Obama is not bound to any Laws passed by Congress unless SCOTUS Finds that he is....

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

ALL U.S. Citizens are ALWAYS bound by any and all laws. Furthermore, we are more bound by our higher laws, those of our Constitution, at all times. SCOTUS only enters the picture when we've violated the law and have been required to give a clear account.

...if it is deemed necessary by President Obama to still ignore the Finding for the sake of national security, then President Obama can.

He can face treason for violating the mandates of his office under the Constitution.

On a side note: President Obama will be reelected.

Heaven help us! Ok, more to the point, if you were both true to our 2A rights and had half a clue as to his intentions, you'd no longer still be here. That, however, assumes rationality.

I'm done with 92 whatever.

Let's consider the facts here...

We have. Endlessly. You haven't, nor have you been listening.

Congress is at its lowest rating in history...

When you delve into the facts, you will find that's largely due to the Dem's idiotic responses to the Tea Party types.

The best candidate Republicans have to put up is Romney...

Hardly. Sounds like a Dem party line along the Straw Man attack - put up someone you can easily defeat.

...who mind you, is pro-choice, pro-socialized healthcare...

Egads! You really think we GOPs want health care for those who paid NOTHING into it so that we would have to foot their bill????

Enjoy your jagged little pill Republicans!

Truth is smooth and easy. My soul, conscience, and intellect remain well-rested knowing they're siding with logic and moral fiber.

Ron Paul is a wet dream...

So, change your diaper.

I wish that we could all get together on election night, have some nachos, beer, and watch Republican faces eat crow.

I'm not as big as Jack House. I think I'd puke if I were to associate with liberal idiots.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
I think there will be a lot of exploding teapublican heads in 2012 when President Obama is re-elected. They have really worked themselves into a frenzy. No big loss, really.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I think there will be a lot of exploding teapublican heads in 2012 when President Obama is re-elected. They have really worked themselves into a frenzy. No big loss, really.

You are right, there will be no big loss; tea party types weren't using their heads anyhow.

Many Republicans on here know that their candidates, all of them, this go-around, are WEAK! It sounds to me like they are holding to some Hope, and Change. I can't help but relish the irony of all of this. After the Republicans finish reducing their so-called Principles to the infinite degree of pander, they will have gained zero on November second.

[video=youtube_share;MTc3zcnIZOw]http://youtu.be/MTc3zcnIZOw[/video]
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
It would be advantageous to constitutional government is Mr Holder and Mr Ob learn what "contempt of Congress", "lying to Congress" (aka perjury) and "impeachment" mean. It is always possible that these lessons may be learned before the next election...President Nixon found out to his sorrow.

Funny you mention Nixon. Over the past several decades, the Republicans have been hell-bent on impeaching a Democrat from office. How is that working out for Republicans, by the way? The best they came-up with was Clinton for lying about having sex with someone other than his wife; heaven knows that is as bad as say, breaking into offices, and illegal wire-taps.
 
Top