Author Topic:  (Read 3041 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,568
    • Boiling Frogs
« on: June 02, 2014, 12:15:30 AM »
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 08:26:01 AM by Luis Gonzalez »

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2014, 08:13:08 AM »
When you have a significant portion of the population who pay for the nation while miscreants, breeders and ne'erdwells living high off the government teat, there is little future for a nation.  Why study the fall of the Empire when we are living it?
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,274
    • Auktion Online
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2014, 01:23:28 PM »
History demonstrates time and time again that he socialists are the worst dictators.  Capitalist-based dictatorships such as Singapore can work quite well (better than unrestrained democracy, in fact).  But give a socialist power and he will turn into an arrogant bastard.  It comes with the certainty of knowing better than everyone else what's good for them.
"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,568
    • Boiling Frogs
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2014, 04:44:56 PM »
History demonstrates time and time again that he socialists are the worst dictators.  Capitalist-based dictatorships such as Singapore can work quite well (better than unrestrained democracy, in fact).  But give a socialist power and he will turn into an arrogant bastard.  It comes with the certainty of knowing better than everyone else what's good for them.

I posted Ali Sina's piece when he first published it back in 2008 on another forum, the entire discussion became stuck on the word "Fuehrer", and its historical connotations. Very few people could get past that point, suggesting that it was absurd to say that Obama would throw Jews in the oven.

I imagine that most of those people never actually read the piece.

The term denotes an absolute leader, with a cult of personality following.

Obama has a (diminishing) cult of personality thing going on, and he continues to expand the power of the Executive.

The fact that he decreed that a portion of a duly enacted law placed an unconstitutional restraint on his power, without bothering with the Judicial branch's opinion on the subject, then announced that he would not abide by those restraints, is scary as Hell.   

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 49,967
  • TBR Illuminati
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2014, 10:45:58 PM »
Several presidents have used so-called "signing statements" to indicate that they feel the bill contains unconstitutional provisions and to indicate that the executive will construe those provisions as narrowly as possible.

In point of fact, Samuel A. Alito, as a staff attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel wrote a memo in 1986
Quote
making the case for "interpretive signing statements" as a tool to "increase the power of the Executive to shape the law." Alito proposed adding signing statements to a "reasonable number of bills" as a pilot project, but warned that "Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation."

Further, from the wikipedia article on signing statements:
Quote
A November 3, 1993 memo from White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum explained the use of signing statements to object to potentially unconstitutional legislation:

    "If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority."


The practice may be unsavory, but it is not unprecedented and it is bipartisan.

Offline 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,546
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2014, 07:03:38 AM »
"We did not negotiate with terrorists! We negotiated with Qatar!"
 
Well, well, well, ... how convenient. And I bought a house and never negotiated with the seller. I negotiated with a real estate agent. See the difference?
 
I once negotiated a settlement with a plaintiff and never negotiated with the plaintiff. I negotiated with the judge and the attorneys, not with the plaintiff. See the difference?
 
This administration's excuses for ignoring the Law, the Congress, and the Constitution are insultingly stupid.
 
The facts are:
 
Yes, Obama broke the law. His own law by the way.
Yes, Obama and by proxy America did negotiate with terrorists.
Yes, Americans and others around the world are in much more danger now, than they were before the exchange. Terrorists now know that hostages equal prisoners.
 
Ignoring or spinning these facts is dangerous and changes nothing. They still exist with or without the approval of the American media.
 
If Congress lets this stand with no challenge, then they will have obviated themselves. Obama will have effectively neutered Congress and the rule of law.
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf