Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

[AmericanFirst]

The oft repeated claim by liberals that Obama's threats to do an end run around the Constitution if Congress won't accede to his demands are the same as other Presidents before him and therefore constitutional ignores reality. Reagan did in fact sign many executive orders...all Presidents do. He also worked hand in hand with Tip O'Neal to reach compromises and pass legislation. Reagan DIDN'T tell O'Neal that if he didn't get what he wanted that he would simply accomplish it with an executive order. That is what this President continually threatens and too often does. Compromise and consensus building is HARD WORK. Barack Obama can't be bothered.

really? perhaps you want to look at reagan's.

i'm sorry if it offends you that the 20 to 40 extremists in the house can't continue to hold the government hostage. but there is nothing this president is doing that is unconstitutional.
and he has every right to do the things every other president has done... no matter how much that offends the right.

as for good ole tip o'neal, he wasn't an obstructionist loon and he and reagan knew how to work together...... unlike the house crazies.

and feel free to let me know if baby bush ever would have gotten congress to take funding away from every overseas organization that even mentioned reproductive choice... cause that was his first EO.

you can google the rest. the substance of every EO from the beginning of time. so perhaps getting the obama derangement syndrome under control would be helpful

and while you're there, feel free to google the constitutionality of enacting a law that applies to only one person... like bush's congress did in the middle of the night relative to terry schiavo.

You're right, Reagan and O'Neal DID know how to work together. They both understood the process demanded give and take. Reagan didn't tell O'Neal that "elections have consequences...I won!" and then expect O'Neal to go sit in a corner. The glaring difference between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama is that the latter only "talks" about working with Republicans (all the while blaming them for whatever is wrong!) and the former actually worked with Democrats. It's the same difference between Paul Ryan and Barack Obama. Ryan actually worked with Patty Murry to come up with a bi-partisan agreement...he didn't just SAY he wanted to do it...he did it.

Obamaturd is a socialist puppet who has no idea how the American system is supposed to work.

 

[The Rabbi]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

It is Holder's job to provide legal council to the president and justify those decisions. And he failed. Much like all of your posts.

part of his job is to advise the president... like golzalez did when he said waterboarding wasn't torture.

it is white house counsel's job to advise the president on issues pertaining to the executive branch.

it is not holder's job to educate mike lee about a point that he was not appearling in regard to.

if mike lee needs a primer on the thousands of executive orders signed by all of our presidents, he should use his own aids

you can like it or not, but every president signs executive orders. they have never been found unconstitutional by the Court.

that's really all mike lee needs to know about it. and he's free to hit his little google button to see what all of those executive orders were. he can start with the almost 400 signed by reagan.

Mike Lee doesn't need educating. Unlike you he is a real attorney. But he asked Holder a valid question and Holder could not or would not answer it appropriately. Or did you miss that part since you couldnt see the entire post with your head up your ass?

 

[hazlnut]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

Cheap cop out is cheap.

Eric Holder is the Attorney General. Current events on the Hill are his business. The execution of executive orders are very much his responsibility.

How can he supervise the execution of executive orders if he doesn't know what the hell they mean?

WOW -- did you misread the thread OP.

Mike dumbass Lee wanted a lesson on SCOTUS and Constitutional Law.

That's not the AGs job.

Holder should have just, "You may have noticed, I'm no wearing a robe."

 

[The Rabbi]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

Cheap cop out is cheap.

Eric Holder is the Attorney General. Current events on the Hill are his business. The execution of executive orders are very much his responsibility.

How can he supervise the execution of executive orders if he doesn't know what the hell they mean?

WOW -- did you misread the thread OP.

Mike dumbass Lee wanted a lesson on SCOTUS and Constitutional Law.

That's not the AGs job.

Holder should have just, "You may have noticed, I'm no wearing a robe."

Geez are you one stupid sack of lying shit if you think that's what Mike Lee was asking.
Actually even if you dont think that you're still one stupid sack of lying shit.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think you are wrong.

Now we know where thinking gets you. My source is the DoJ, which you'd know if you actually clicked the link.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Department of Justice would know a bit more about appointed duties than LOLWIKI!

If your source said what you want it to say, you would have posted the relevant info, like I did.

You lose again!

Wow, you can’t be this dumb. He did post the relevant data and even put it in big red bolded large print. Really, it is pitifully obvious.

 

[FA_Q2]

part of his job is to advise the president... like golzalez did when he said waterboarding wasn't torture.

it is white house counsel's job to advise the president on issues pertaining to the executive branch.

it is not holder's job to educate mike lee about a point that he was not appearling in regard to.

if mike lee needs a primer on the thousands of executive orders signed by all of our presidents, he should use his own aids

you can like it or not, but every president signs executive orders. they have never been found unconstitutional by the Court.

that's really all mike lee needs to know about it. and he's free to hit his little google button to see what all of those executive orders were. he can start with the almost 400 signed by reagan.

The oft repeated claim by liberals that Obama's threats to do an end run around the Constitution if Congress won't accede to his demands are the same as other Presidents before him and therefore constitutional ignores reality. Reagan did in fact sign many executive orders...all Presidents do. He also worked hand in hand with Tip O'Neal to reach compromises and pass legislation. Reagan DIDN'T tell O'Neal that if he didn't get what he wanted that he would simply accomplish it with an executive order. That is what this President continually threatens and too often does. Compromise and consensus building is HARD WORK. Barack Obama can't be bothered.

really? perhaps you want to look at reagan's.

i'm sorry if it offends you that the 20 to 40 extremists in the house can't continue to hold the government hostage. but there is nothing this president is doing that is unconstitutional.
and he has every right to do the things every other president has done... no matter how much that offends the right.

as for good ole tip o'neal, he wasn't an obstructionist loon and he and reagan knew how to work together...... unlike the house crazies.

and feel free to let me know if baby bush ever would have gotten congress to take funding away from every overseas organization that even mentioned reproductive choice... cause that was his first EO.

you can google the rest. the substance of every EO from the beginning of time. so perhaps getting the obama derangement syndrome under control would be helpful

and while you're there, feel free to google the constitutionality of enacting a law that applies to only one person... like bush's congress did in the middle of the night relative to terry schiavo.

The problem is not the number of EO’s or that other presidents have used them. It is the fact that Obama is using and threating to use EO’s to CHANGE EXISTING LAW and has used them to instruct the complete disregard of law.

That is flat out unacceptable and I am damn sure that if (more likely when now) a republican disregurads congress with EO’s you are going to be fuming at them.

 

[Zander]

Typical liberal tactics.....

Question one illegal "recess appointment" made while Congress is in session, and you are "against" ALL recess appointments.

Question the use of "executive orders" that are specifically designed to circumvent Congress, and you are "against" ALL executive orders.

How fucking dull are you people?

Nuance, it's not just for Democrats.......

 

[House]

Now we know where thinking gets you. My source is the DoJ, which you'd know if you actually clicked the link.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Department of Justice would know a bit more about appointed duties than LOLWIKI!

If your source said what you want it to say, you would have posted the relevant info, like I did.

You lose again!

Wow, you can’t be this dumb. He did post the relevant data and even put it in big red bolded large print. Really, it is pitifully obvious.

His humiliation over our exchange could have ended way back on page 2, but no... he had to drag it out.