The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Fishrrman on July 31, 2014, 01:43:34 pm
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/30/napolitano-is-the-president-incompetent-or-lawless/?page=all#pagebreak
Is the president incompetent or lawless?
Neither offers Americans much prospect for hope
By Andrew P. Napolitano
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
It has been well established under the Constitution and throughout our history that the president’s job as the chief federal law enforcement officer permits him to put his ideological stamp on the nature of the work done by the executive branch. The courts have characterized this stamp as “discretion.”
Thus, when exercising their discretion, some presidents veer toward authority, others toward freedom. John Adams prosecuted a congressman whose criticism brought him into disrepute, an act protected by the First Amendment yet punishable under the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Thomas Jefferson declined to enforce the acts because they punished speech, and pardoned all those convicted. Jimmy Carter asserted vast federal regulatory authority over the trucking and airline industries, and Ronald Reagan undid nearly all of it.
The president has discretion to adapt law enforcement to the needs of the times and to his reading of the wishes of the American people. Yet that discretion has a serious and mandatory guiding light; namely, that the president will do so faithfully.
The word “faithfully” appears in the oath of office that is administered to every president. The reason for its use is to assure Americans that their wishes for government behavior, as manifested in written law, would be carried out even if the president personally disagrees with the laws he swore to enforce.
This has not always worked as planned. President George W. Bush once famously signed into law a statute prohibiting federal agents without a search warrant from reading mail sent to persons other than themselves — and as he was literally holding his pen, he stated he had no intention of enforcing it. That was a rejection of his presidential duties and a violation of his oath.
Today, however, President Obama has taken the concept of discretion and so distorted it, and has taken the obligation of faithful enforcement and so rejected it, that his job as chief law enforcer has become one of incompetent madness or chief lawbreaker. Time after time, in areas as disparate as civil liberties, immigration, foreign affairs and health care, the president has demonstrated a propensity for rejecting his oath and doing damage to our fabric of liberty that cannot easily be undone by a successor.
He has permitted unconstitutional and unbridled spying on all Americans all the time, and he has dispatched his agents to lie and mislead the American people and their elected representatives in Congress about it. This has resulted in a federal culture in which the supposed servants of the people have become our permanent and intimate monitors and squealers on what they observe.
He has permitted illegal immigrants to remain here and continue to break the law, and he has instructed them on how to get away with it. His encouragement has resulted in the flood of tens of thousands of foreign unaccompanied children being pushed across our borders. This has resulted in culture shock to children now used as political pawns, the impairment of their lives and the imposition of grievous financial burdens upon local and state governments.
His agents fomented a revolution in Libya that resulted in the slaying of that country’s leader, the killing of the U.S. ambassador and the evacuation of the U.S. Embassy. His agents fomented a revolution in Ukraine that resulted in a Russian invasion, an active insurgency, sham elections and the killing of hundreds of innocent passengers flying on a commercial airliner.
He has dispatched CIA agents to fight undeclared and secret wars in Yemen and in Pakistan, and he has dispatched unmanned drones to kill innocents there. He has boasted that some secret reading of public positive law permits him to kill whomever he wishes, even Americans and their children.
His State Department has treated Hamas — a gang of ruthless killers whose stated purpose is the destruction of Israel — as though it were a legitimate state deserving of diplomatic niceties, and this has encouraged Hamas to persist in attacking our only serious ally in the Middle East.
His Department of Veterans Affairs has so neglected patients in government hospitals that many of them died, and it even destroyed records to hide its misdeeds. His Internal Revenue Service has enforced the law more heavily against his political opponents than against his friends, and it has destroyed government computer records in order to hide its misdeeds.
He has relieved his friends of the burdens of timely compliance with Obamacare, and he has burdened his enemies with tortured interpretations of that law — even interpretations that were rejected by the very Congress that enacted the law and interpretations that were invalidated by the Supreme Court.
He has done all these things with a cool indifference, and he has threatened to continue to do so until the pressure builds on his political opponents to see things his way.
The Framers could not have intended a president so devoid of fidelity to the rule of law that it is nearly impossible to distinguish between incompetence and lawlessness — and I am not sure which is worse. Archbishop Fulton Sheen often said he’d prefer to deal with a smart devil than a stupid one.
The Framers did give us a remedy, though, and the remedy is not a frivolous lawsuit that the federal courts will no doubt reject as a political stunt. The remedy is removal from office. This is not to be undertaken lightly, as was the case when this remedy was last used. It is the remaining constitutional means to save the freedoms the Constitution was intended to guarantee.
The choice is between two more years of government by decree or two years of prosecution. It is a choice the president has imposed upon us all.
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is an analyst for the Fox News Channel. He has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution.
-
Is the president incompetent or lawless?
Why insist on just one?
-
"The choice is between two more years of government by decree or two years of prosecution. It is a choice the president has imposed upon us all."
Pity those poor Republicans.
Like it or not, they may have no choice but to make that "choice"...
-
Pity those poor Republicans.
Like it or not, they may have no choice but to make that "choice"...
The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party.
-
The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party.
And the Republicans have nearly perfected that role.
When you vote for a Republican, what do you get? Seriously. Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?
-
"The choice is between two more years of government by decree or two years of prosecution. It is a choice the president has imposed upon us all."
Pity those poor Republicans.
Like it or not, they may have no choice but to make that "choice"...
I won't he holding my breath with this crew.
-
Apparently, there are some -democrats- who are growing quite nervous about Obama's behavior.
If the impeachment snowball starts rollin', I wonder how "solid" the "democratic wall" will remain?
-
Obama has abandoned all Americans being held overseas. He has abandoned all of our former allies, and has embraced our enemies, both directly and indirectly.
His sole focus these days is himself and his 'poor little me fighting the evil Republicans' routine. His focus is completely and onlly on America and Americans.
And, as many have predicted for years now, his behavior is becoming increasingly irratic and dangerously angry, as his removal from office approaches.
I can certainly see a time when his behavior becomes so detrimental to America as a whole and to all Americans that even the Democrats would step in to stop him. I think Obama has no limit to what he may do before[if] he leaves office. He seems to me to be growing more irrational and frankly, furious with America, day by day.
We shall see. But it is going to be an unpredictable two years ahead.
-
And the Republicans have nearly perfected that role.
When you vote for a Republican, what do you get? Seriously. Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?
Astronomical debt for one thing plus amnesty and a touch of graft, corruption and incompetence to complete the brew.
-
Astronomical debt for one thing plus amnesty and a touch of graft, corruption and incompetence to complete the brew.
Sounds like a Democrat? Republicans have a damaged brand, if they don't offer anything that Democrats don't offer, who would vote for them?
-
Sounds like a Democrat? Republicans have a damaged brand, if they don't offer anything that Democrats don't offer, who would vote for them?
Only the sane. Who seem to be in increasingly short supply.
-
You'd think at least a handful of DEM senators would go to the well of the floor and say, "We didn't sign up for this Anti-Americanism and outright criminal behavior from the heads of our party."
That's all it would take, imho.
-
You'd think at least a handful of DEM senators would go to the well of the floor and say, "We didn't sign up for this Anti-Americanism and outright criminal behavior from the heads of our party."
That's because there aren't even a handful of DEM senators who didn't sign up for it...
-
That's because there aren't even a handful of DEM senators who didn't sign up for it...
I simply refuse to believe that, Dan.
Too wide a brush you're using there, imo.
-
Only the sane. Who seem to be in increasingly short supply.
I buy into the logic that you have to win the squishy middle to win national elections. Sure, you have to win your base, that goes without saying. Putting myself in the shoes of a moderate, low to medium information voter, going to the poll, I see I have Dem star that the media loves. After all Democrats are for the little guy, right? And I have Republican meanie who has been vilified by the media. I try to think about what makes Dem star different from Rep meanie. Nothing stands out, only that the Rep meanie promises to manage things better than the Dem star?
Your questioning of sanity may be more reasonable in regard to Republicans.
-
I simply refuse to believe that, Dan.
Too wide a brush you're using there, imo.
I'm with Dan. Because while you and I may see it as a problem, they see it as progress and making things right.
For the very few that don't agree... why would they commit political and financial suicide. Go to the floor, spout that stuff, and you will surely lose party support, likely not be re-elected, and forget that job on K street.
-
I simply refuse to believe that, Dan.
Too wide a brush you're using there, imo.
Yeah but your simple refusal to believe that is the only evidence that you have that I am using too wide a brush...
-
I buy into the logic that you have to win the squishy middle to win national elections. Sure, you have to win your base, that goes without saying. Putting myself in the shoes of a moderate, low to medium information voter, going to the poll, I see I have Dem star that the media loves. After all Democrats are for the little guy, right? And I have Republican meanie who has been vilified by the media. I try to think about what makes Dem star different from Rep meanie. Nothing stands out, only that the Rep meanie promises to manage things better than the Dem star?
Your questioning of sanity may be more reasonable in regard to Republicans.
Point taken. The Republicans as a whole are horrible at messaging. Even when they get it right, no one hears it. That is not going to stop until at least half of the media is under conservative control. Now, the only Repubs who get air time are the fringe kooks. The single issue warriors, if you like.
-
You'd think at least a handful of DEM senators would go to the well of the floor and say, "We didn't sign up for this Anti-Americanism and outright criminal behavior from the heads of our party."
That's all it would take, imho.
I agree with you about that being all it would take but independent thought or action is not allowed in the Democrat party these days. None what-so-ever!
-
Point taken. The Republicans as a whole are horrible at messaging. Even when they get it right, no one hears it. That is not going to stop until at least half of the media is under conservative control. Now, the only Repubs who get air time are the fringe kooks. The single issue warriors, if you like.
I understand the challenge on messaging, but I disagree that the media has to change for the Reps to get their message out. The media isn't changing. But, there is Fox, and there is a ton of alternate media. If the Reps got the message right, and believed it, and got majority member buy in, they could destroy the Democrats.
I don't believe the Republicans want to get the message right. The Republican party is now a European style conservative party. That is to say, they love big government too, and simply promise to manage it better.
-
In 1974 the House Judiciary Committee voted thusly on the first Article I. of Impeachment, of President Nixon:
Democrats 21 of 21 yes
Republicans 6 of 17 yes
IOW nearly 1/3 of "opposition" party committee member voted in favor of impeachment of their own party's President
Do people yammering about how bad the Republicans are, think 1/3 of democrats in congress today would vote to impeach Obama now?
Why? Because a strong enough POLITICAL case has not been made. It is not up to Krauthammer, Turley, Napolitano.
It IS up to democrat voters. Impeachment relies on voters of the President's own party losing confidence, trust, faith in him.
That was the case with Nixon, but is NOT the case with Clinton or Obama.
-
In 1974 the House Judiciary Committee voted thusly on the first Article I. of Impeachment, of President Nixon:
Democrats 21 of 21 yes
Republicans 6 of 17 yes
IOW nearly 1/3 of "opposition" party committee member voted in favor of impeachment of their own party's President
Do people yammering about how bad the Republicans are, think 1/3 of democrats in congress today would vote to impeach Obama now?
Why? Because a strong enough POLITICAL case has not been made. It is not up to Krauthammer, Turley, Napolitano.
It IS up to democrat voters. Impeachment relies on voters of the President's own party losing confidence, trust, faith in him.
That was the case with Nixon, but is NOT the case with Clinton or Obama.
You could save a lot of time by just going to all the threads and repeatedly posting "Impeachment is bad!".
There was one minor mention of impeachment, and you went off. Could it be that you want to steer the topic away from discussing how tragically horrid the Republican party is today?
-
You could save a lot of time by just going to all the threads and repeatedly posting "Impeachment is bad!".
There was one minor mention of impeachment, and you went off. Could it be that you want to steer the topic away from discussing how tragically horrid the Republican party is today?
Yeah, and repeating "how tragically horrid the Republican party is today" on every thread gets pretty old, too.
Impeachment is not "bad" as you put it. Impeachment is not wise at this time. Can you grasp those distinctions?
-
Yeah, and repeating "how tragically horrid the Republican party is today" on every thread gets pretty old, too.
Impeachment is not "bad" as you put it. Impeachment is not wise at this time. Can you grasp those distinctions?
Gee, you have that condescending, arrogant tone of a hardcore liberal. One might suspect you want to keep the impeachment talk in the forefront simply because it isn't wise?
In any case, yes, it is important to note how bad the Republicans have become. I note that you don't refute it, you simply insult. Go for it.
-
truth_seeker wrote above:
[[ In 1974 the House Judiciary Committee voted thusly on the first Article I. of Impeachment, of President Nixon:
Democrats 21 of 21 yes
Republicans 6 of 17 yes
IOW nearly 1/3 of "opposition" party committee member voted in favor of impeachment of their own party's President
Do people yammering about how bad the Republicans are, think 1/3 of democrats in congress today would vote to impeach Obama now? ]]
Got a problem with your "numbers" above.
Not that they aren't correct.
An Obama impeachment could fly through the House easily, we "have the numbers" there and it doesn't need to be "bipartisan" -- it just needs to BE.
By 2015 we should have the Senate, too -- hopefully with 53-54 Republicans.
It would still require 13-14 democratic Senators for a conviction, I realize that's an uphill climb.
But if Obama's behavior continues to grow more lawless and erratic by that time, I believe at least -some- of the democratic Senators may become "persuadable" to vote to remove him (and Valerie, the real president), in favor of Joe Biden instead. Remember, Biden was "one of their own", and putting him into the Oval Office might solve "the Hillary problem" and give the 'rats a headstart on 2016 by having a re-electable incumbent in the presidency.
There was a time when "bipartisanship" meant something in the Congress.
These days, it's a dead concept.
The ObamaCare vote killed and buried it.
We don't need -- nor do we necessarily want -- "bipartisanship" any more.
All we want (at least all -I- want), is to WIN.
I think we can win on the impeachment issue, if it is properly prepared and presented to the American people in early 2015.
And I believe it is absolutely necessary that the Republicans pursue it, IF they wish to continue their existence as a party that opposes what the democrats are doing to the country.
Otherwise, as Relic wrote above, they are well on their way to devloving into a European-style "Conservative" party that essentially represents nothing at all, and is for all practical purposes.... irrelevant.
-
I agree with you about that being all it would take but independent thought or action is not allowed in the Democrat party these days. None what-so-ever!
What I'm talking about here are actually political martyrs. They would go down in history as honorable men that chose the Rule of Law and the Constitution as written, over an obviously anti-USA administration.
All it takes is one powerful person in the Democrat party.
....and not being naive here, but one that wouldn't need to fear metadata. :laugh:
-
They would go down in history as honorable men that chose the Rule of Law and the Constitution as written, over an obviously anti-USA administration.
All it takes is one powerful person in the Democrat party.
Which is why I don't think that even one powerful, honorable man exists in the Demonrat Party.
You're just expecting too much from a politician, much less a Demonrat...
-
Which is why I don't think that even one powerful, honorable man exists in the Demonrat Party.
You're just expecting too much from a politician, much less a Demonrat...
Giving every possible 'benefit of a doubt', anybody over the age of 60 knows this POS hates the United States and particularly Christians, Jews and Caucasians. And knows this is bloodless *so far* coup attempt.
-
Giving every possible 'benefit of a doubt', anybody over the age of 60 knows this POS hates the United States and particularly Christians, Jews and Caucasians. And knows this is bloodless *so far* coup attempt.
And anyone who knows leftists, knows that they put their political beliefs above all else. My brother is over 60, retired union type, somewhat racist, non practicing Catholic, white guy. He still fawns over Obama and refuses to see that Obama dislikes people like my brother.
I submit that there are few, possibly not any, Democrat politicians who see Obama as anything other than progressive.
-
Up-thread someone said Republicans are becoming irrelevant. I'm confused. Aren't they already an elephant?
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. What he was doing in my pajamas I don't know.
:tongue2:
-
And anyone who knows leftists, knows that they put their political beliefs above all else. My brother is over 60, retired union type, somewhat racist, non practicing Catholic, white guy. He still fawns over Obama and refuses to see that Obama dislikes people like my brother.
I submit that there are few, possibly not any, Democrat politicians who see Obama as anything other than progressive.
If that's the case, then I'm going to learn to appreciate my irregular heartbeat as a gift.
-
Up-thread someone said Republicans are becoming irrelevant. I'm confused. Aren't they already an elephant?
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. What he was doing in my pajamas I don't know.
:tongue2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jv_XR6RMAI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jv_XR6RMAI)
-
If that's the case, then I'm going to learn to appreciate my irregular heartbeat as a gift.
It is. bleep thing keeps on giving as well.
-
Gee, you have that condescending, arrogant tone of a hardcore liberal. One might suspect you want to keep the impeachment talk in the forefront simply because it isn't wise?
In any case, yes, it is important to note how bad the Republicans have become. I note that you don't refute it, you simply insult. Go for it.
I believe impeachment is unwise at this time. (several others here agree.)
I criticize the GOP continually, even dealing with specifics. Just yesterday I said they had weak candidates, and a weak message.
Don't let me get under your skin. Observe how effectively Fishrrman discusses his opinion, without making it personal.
-
I believe impeachment is unwise at this time. (several others here agree.)
I criticize the GOP continually, even dealing with specifics. Just yesterday I said they had weak candidates, and a weak message.
Don't let me get under your skin. Observe how effectively Fishrrman discusses his opinion, without making it personal.
You're too insignificant to get under my skin. You're a one trick pony who seldom offers anything of substance, only lightly veiled racism to go with your love of the GOPe. I don't need instruction on who to emulate, I have my style, and I'm pretty effective at expressing myself.
You seem to subvert more than you contribute, but that is your style. You must have picked that up at TBL? In any case, just so you realize, (liberals tend to forget what they say and do, see: Sheila Jackson Lee's discussion of impeachment), I scolded you for making impeachment a topic... you opened with the insults, questioning my ability to "grasp".
It's ok, insults from the likes of you are meaningless.
-
You're too insignificant to get under my skin. You're a one trick pony who seldom offers anything of substance, only lightly veiled racism to go with your love of the GOPe. I don't need instruction on who to emulate, I have my style, and I'm pretty effective at expressing myself.
You seem to subvert more than you contribute, but that is your style. You must have picked that up at TBL? In any case, just so you realize, (liberals tend to forget what they say and do, see: Sheila Jackson Lee's discussion of impeachment), I scolded you for making impeachment a topic... you opened with the insults, questioning my ability to "grasp".
It's ok, insults from the likes of you are meaningless.
I would prefer, simply as a long-standing member here, that if you feel the need to post that, do it in a PM.
Incidentally, Truth_Seeker is a valued member here.
Thank you.
-
I would prefer, simply as a long-standing member here, that if you feel the need to post that, do it in a PM.
Incidentally, Truth_Seeker is a valued member here.
Thank you.
Your preference is noted, and will be given the weight it deserves.
I would prefer, in the future, if you have a problem with my posts, or my style, you PM me. I don't generally respond well to self appointed forum sheriffs. Your longevity, or your value of another poster is immaterial to me.
-
(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5238c9c5ecad047f12b2751a/internet-famous-grumpy-cat-just-landed-an-endorsement-deal-with-friskies.jpg)
You can tell it's a hot summer.
-
(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5238c9c5ecad047f12b2751a/internet-famous-grumpy-cat-just-landed-an-endorsement-deal-with-friskies.jpg)
You can tell it's a hot summer.
Actually, here in Ohio it's been extraordinarily cool. A little wet, but generally to my liking.
This is a place to express oneself, is it not? I'm doing so. And I generally respond in kind. It's what I do. :beer:
-
Actually, here in Ohio it's been extraordinarily cool. A little wet, but generally to my liking.
This is a place to express oneself, is it not? I'm doing so. And I generally respond in kind. It's what I do. :beer:
As you should. We all should.
Just - sometimes a little humor cools tempers down. This place is amazing, when you look at it. We all mostly police ourselves, argue like hell and don't fuss about it. :beer:
-
Your preference is noted, and will be given the weight it deserves.
I would prefer, in the future, if you have a problem with my posts, or my style, you PM me. I don't generally respond well to self appointed forum sheriffs. Your longevity, or your value of another poster is immaterial to me.
That's not the point, Relic. You know what I'm talking about.
We simply don't speak to one another in that manner here. That's all.
Your post....and I read them all, sir...was a shocking attack to read. And for somebody who appreciates an alternative POV expressed here, more so.
Truth_Seeker, IMO, keeps us honest. I wish you could see it that way.
Sorry for setting you off.
-
That's not the point, Relic. You know what I'm talking about.
We simply don't speak to one another in that manner here. That's all.
Your post....and I read them all, sir...was a shocking attack to read. And for somebody who appreciates an alternative POV expressed here, more so.
Truth_Seeker, IMO, keeps us honest. I wish you could see it that way.
Sorry for setting you off.
We are looking at the same thing, and see it differently. As I said, your valuation of other posters may vary from my own, but I never, ever suggest infringing on their posts. I called out what I saw, and was personally attacked. I respond in kind to those kind of things.
You didn't "set me off". I am not doing this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ9wNT21c_s
The direction the thread was taking was another beating of the GOP for being irrelevant. TS interjected the impeachment debate, (which, oddly, I agree with him about the futility of impeachment). It seemed like a little misdirection to me, I commented as such. When I was attacked, I returned in kind.
When you decided to play "adult in the room", I politely told you to stuff it. :whistle:
This is all fun and games really. No anger, but, really, should I have to hold back here, so long as I'm not abusive or crude? Yeah, I will admit, smug will get a response from me. It's just what I do.
Ok, with apologies to GormetDan:
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/ea/ea818c47f87d1cc618a08e527aa40f123611b77aee0cf8f5981e3262f88e1e9b.jpg)
-
Alrighty then....let's get back on topic.....shall we!
-
aligncare wrote above:
[[ Up-thread someone said Republicans are becoming irrelevant. I'm confused. Aren't they already an elephant? ]]
Shucks, that was me, and being thick as I usually am, I never even saw the connection.
Yes, already an elephant.
Perhaps soon to become.... the "irrelevant elephant" ?? :)
-
(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5238c9c5ecad047f12b2751a/internet-famous-grumpy-cat-just-landed-an-endorsement-deal-with-friskies.jpg)
You can tell it's a hot summer.
:bigsilly:
-
(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5238c9c5ecad047f12b2751a/internet-famous-grumpy-cat-just-landed-an-endorsement-deal-with-friskies.jpg)
You can tell it's a hot summer.
I so missed an opportunity here....
This place is getting to be more and more like TOS, what's next pictures of cats?! /s
-
Sheesh