King Obama ignores Congress AGAIN

L

Leftwith

500+ Posts
Seriously, why are Republican leaders not calling for impeachment? This **** is out of control.
mad.gif
In reply to:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
His entire presidency is an impeachable offense.

And if someone with some balls would REALLY begin investigating, I'd bet my life savings we'd find multiple **** that would put his anti-American *** away for life.
 
Too bad Ken Starr is president of a major University without millions to go find something. Maybe he could at least ask enough qestions to catch Obama in a lie. Doubt it though. Unlike Clinton, Obama is careful and circumspect. As far at this latest Constitutional outrage Leftwith has discovered, let's get it into court and get a ruling. Looks to me like Congress is doing an obstructional overreach and the executive branch called the bluff. Checks and balances are meant to be tested now and again and unless someone pulls an Andrew Jackson and defies a Supreme Court ruling, I think our system can witstand the strain.
 
This really is disturbing. You Obama supporters should remember that there will eventually be another republican president. Do you really want him to behave the same as obama?
 
I want the chief executive to protect executive powers.
Checks and balances between the executive. legislative and judicial branches is important to me. Of course, I'm not exactly an enthusiastic Obama supporter. I'm a ticket splitter and will likely vote Republican this fall should the party ticket be headed by Huntsman or Romney.

I tend to side against obstructionists.I didn't like Bush removing U.S. attorneys for refusal to let politicians decide who to prosecute, but mostly Harry Reid was wrong in 2008 and Mitch McConnel is in 2012.
 
i am not the one rolling in the past because every election cycle conservatives resurrect the memory of saint ronny to place his ilk in the public offices that they all supposedly despise.
 
I guess Republicans' love of logic and intellect is why we are blessed with Rick Perry as the longest serving governor in Texas history and teaching of "creation science" gets inserted in the GOP state platform every year.

Hey, I admit that liberals and moderates get emotional and illogical on some issues. But Republicans play on emotion all the time. Read about Rove and wedge issues. Were they a play on voters' reason and intellect?
 
So far he has not illegally sold weapons to our sworn enemy Iran and then given the money illegally to a rebel group in central america in violation of a law he signed; and then lied about it continuously and sent his administration officials to congress to lie under oath about it. And then lied about it later. And then claimed under oath not to have known about it or been in the room when it was discussed. That was Reagan and Bush I.

All of these power crazed jerks (I am referring just to American presidents right now) pull extra legal stuff all the time and have at least since Woodrow Wilson, with the amperage going up considerably under FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Reagan.

The screaming about this reminds me of a night I spent in Costa Rica's rain forest some years ago when I got to listen to howler monkeys; the guys were taking turns screaming from adjacent sets of trees. First from one side, then from the other. I didn't think it would ever stop.

Same for political junkies here; the other guys are destroying the constitution and should be thrown in prison!!!!!

What is the worst that can happen here? Some illegals get to stay cozy with their families. BFD.

Who is starting for us at quarterback next year?
 
I guess this means that next he will allow people in prision to get out and live their families
just so it doesn't create hardship for the ones left behind
 
left?
the " he" in my post is BO
and in keeping with the not wanting to create hardships for families even though people have broken the law I just offered that to be fair he(BO) will probably then allow all prisoners to go home. It isn't any different


Not sure how you took it.
 
the recap of iran contra came from following it at the time and then follow up reading the memoirs of the Reagan and Bush I administration figures involved over the years since.

I could have done the same with Wilson's attacks on the bill of rights during and right after WW I or FDR's dodging niceties in selling armaments to the Brits and letting US military personnel help them hunt down german subs before we got in the war; or JFK's many extralegal maneuvers in Viet Nam and Cuba; or LBJ's rearrangement of reality in Viet Nam or Nixon's constant lying about the black bag jobs he authorized from within the White House after J. Edgar Hoover refused to let the FBI do it. IRan Contra was an easy choice because of the reverence that Saint Ronnie is treated with by conservatives, who have in him their own FDR----a lot of successes and a lot of baloney and reverence for a guy who was real good at looking the other way when called for.

Obama is leapfrogging over some congressional procedures that are fig leaves in themselves in order to appoint people to positions the republicans don't want filled because they want the entities involved emasculated and he doesn't want to do it.

I wish a pox on both houses and did not vote for Obama before and don't plan to do so this year.

As for the constitution, everybody wraps themselves up in it and acts like it is sacred and being soiled by those whom they disagree with. Sort of like the way they put a hundred flags right behind them when they appear in public so people wont throw zhit at them.

The constitution was a compromise document and is vague for a very good reason; its authors were pragmatic men (no girls allowed) who knew that they could not anticipate every possibility and kept it ambiguous.

The provision for out of session appointments was not something they lost a lot of sleep over. Or spent a lot of time speculating about its use. Obama is skating on thin ice here but the idea that it is some dastardly offense like pulling burglaries or financing wars in central america in ways that have been specifically outlawed strikes me as REALLY ******* STUPID.
 
huisache, the writers of the Constitution were very serious about the separation of powers. Obama's appointments without Senate recess attacks that separation. I think we all should care when Obama or Bush does. I know I do. It puts too much power into one man's hands.

I read an article that recess appointment shouldn't have even been used in this case because the Congress chose not to approve the appoints beforehand. This isn't just a technicality we shouldn't worry about. In this case the Congress said no, so the President forced it through anyway using a "recess appointment" when there was no recess. It's a double whammy against the Constitution actually.
 
"huisache, the writers of the Constitution were very serious about the separation of powers. Obama's appointments without Senate recess attacks that separation."

Actually, it attacks the rules that the Senate came up with for themselves (whether or not something counts as a "recess").

"I read an article that recess appointment shouldn't have even been used in this case because the Congress chose not to approve the appoints beforehand. This isn't just a technicality we shouldn't worry about. In this case the Congress said no, so the President forced it through anyway using a "recess appointment" when there was no recess."

You understand that this is why Presidents make recess appointments, right? To push through appointments that can't be overridden for a year? Every President back to Washington has done them. If you're implying that Obama shouldn't have made the appointment because it wouldn't have passed the Senate's approval, not only are you incorrect, but you have a misunderstanding of the event (whether or not it counted as a recess).

"It's a double whammy against the Constitution actually."

Firstly, since you're into separation of powers, and the President has the power to make recess appointments, I'm unsure why you think that making an unpopular decision is unconstitutional. Secondly, it's not that the appointment wouldn't have passed, it's that the Senate GOP members would have placed it on an indefinite hold (still would have gotten over 50 percent if it was put to a vote). You'll notice how the Constitution has nothing in it about filibustering, so is the Senate performing a "whammy" on the Constitution? Third, the Constitution doesn't have any rule in it about what is a recess, so how is it any sort of whammy, let alone the double whammy of which you speak? The Senate has its own rules in place for the aforementioned reasons, and THAT'S why Obama should be criticized for making appointments. Not because he's violating any sort of Constitution.
 
Monahorns: I don't disagree with your points but tire of seeing people calling for impeachment for every purported insult to the spirit of the constitution.

As for that document, I studied it in college, took a couple of courses on it in law school, have been involved in a scads of cases involving its interpretation and was for years an ardent student of the civil war, which involved more constitutional issues than combatants (rhetorical hyperbole there) and a couple of things seem obvious to me: the founders were drawing up a practical document for governance and kept it vague and ambiguous on purpose and made lots of compromises-----so getting one's nose out of joint about some aspect of interpretation seems pointless.

The constitution was made to control the government of a handful of states on the eastern seaboard with a smallish population and no revenues to speak of. History and our wishes have caused that circumstance to change to the point that the constitution is not much help in trying to figure out what the founders would have done or we should do in current circumstances.

For example, the constitution does not even consider political parties or their nefarious effects, it does not contemplate an elaborate set of cabinet posts or sub cabinet posts, or administrative agencies. My reading of the document suggests that the advise and consent requirements were set up to keep presidents from sticking incompetent people or bribe payers in place. So far as I can determine, the objections to the people Obiewon just appointed were purely political. There was no graft involved and they are perfectly competent------they are going to be competent at doing what the opposition doesn't want them doing.

I take the same stand with them as I did with Clarence Thomas. I did not think he was well qualified but he was the president's choice and the opposition to him was obscene and uncalled for. As it turned out, he has made an excellent justice, though not one I agree with substantively. I would not have picked him but then I did not win that election.

Obama should get the people he wants in place. If the republicans don't like it, win the next elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top