Constitutional power the president has

[Quantum Windbag]

its called Executive Discretion.

The executive has no discretion on enforcing existing laws, even if he disagrees with them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Imagine the outcry if Mitt Romney had been elected president and simply refused to enforce the whole of ObamaCare. -WSJ

Didn't he run on that?

No

 

[Quantum Windbag]

President of the USA has the executive discretion to decide how best to implement existing laws and programs.

he can't make new laws and programs on his own but he can on his own decide how to best enforce them

All laws need enforced is they are law. If not, remove them

-Geaux

You obviously do not understand how government works.

Care to point out which court decisions prove him wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Didn't he run on that?

No.

Yes.

No

 

[Quantum Windbag]

President of the USA has the executive discretion to decide how best to implement existing laws and programs.

he can't make new laws and programs on his own but he can on his own decide how to best enforce them

You were shown where it was said that he could not, now you have voiced your OPINION without a shred of backing. Please present the evidence of what you say being true.

Just pretend the delays are due to de-funding in the House. That would be fine, right?

You want to point out where the House de funded anything?

 

[OKTexas]

its called Executive Discretion.

Guess you haven't bothered to read Article 2, section 3 where it says "he shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Where do you get an authorization there for your BS executive discretion?

 

[OKTexas]

The only constitutional power the president has to suspend or repeal statutes is to veto a bill or propose new legislation. Writing for the court in Clinton v. City of New York [1998], Justice John Paul Stevens noted:
"There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."
"The employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act contains no provision allowing the president to suspend, delay or repeal it. Section 1513(d) states in no uncertain terms that "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013." Imagine the outcry if Mitt Romney had been elected president and simply refused to enforce the whole of ObamaCare. -WSJ

Basically, ObamaCare, a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act, was passed into law in March of 2010, but a huge part of it was somehow "suspended" by Pres. Obama two weeks ago totally without authority. In the United States, the Congress has full power and authority to make the laws, and the President has zero authority to repeal or delay them. And yet Obama did.

Why the silence from everyone?

The supremes don't have the authority to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes either but Roberts sure as hell did it with the ACA.

 

[OKTexas]

SCOTUS has already determined "by what right", Doubletap, and that's that.

Right, they created a direct tax not authorized in the Constitution, exactly how is that going to work?

 

[DiamondDave]

SCOTUS has already determined "by what right", Doubletap, and that's that.

Right, they created a direct tax not authorized in the Constitution, exactly how is that going to work?

Gotta love how they use the SCOTUS, which went beyond constitutionally granted power... to defend other parts of the government that went beyond their constitutionally granted power...

The fed is a power hungry entity... and progs like Joke just lap it up like a dog licks up vomit

 

[OKTexas]

SCOTUS has already determined "by what right", Doubletap, and that's that.

Right, they created a direct tax not authorized in the Constitution, exactly how is that going to work?

Gotta love how they use the SCOTUS, which went beyond constitutionally granted power... to defend other parts of the government that went beyond their constitutionally granted power...

The fed is a power hungry entity... and progs like Joke just lap it up like a dog licks up vomit

Yep, ignorant people buy off on some really stupid shit.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Please read the first two Articles in the Constitution and get back to us.

Why don't you explain, o brilliant one, how those articles give the president carte blanche to ignore the will of congress.

When teaching one as you who does not understand, one begins with baby steps. Read the first two articles as I requested, because obviously no one is taking "carte blanche" with anything that you are talking about.

You're dodging your ass off as expected. I noticed, too, that you conveniently left my original quote off your pitiful attempt at misdirection.

To refresh your memory:

"Why, because you say so? Does the president really have right to negate the work of congress on a whim? Where does this majestic power originate?"

Mustering what small mental faculties you command, you replied,"Please read the first two Articles in the Constitution and get back to us."

I understand that you have trouble reading for meaning, so I will rephrase the question:

How do the first two articles of the Constitution give the president the right to negate the work of congress on a whim?

Feel free to quote from those first two articles when favoring me with the light of your inestimable intellect.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why don't you explain, o brilliant one, how those articles give the president carte blanche to ignore the will of congress.

When teaching one as you who does not understand, one begins with baby steps. Read the first two articles as I requested, because obviously no one is taking "carte blanche" with anything that you are talking about.

You're dodging your ass off as expectedt.

You are the one dodging, little one.

You made the affirmation that the President does not have the power to do so. I told you to read Article I and II. You have to now show us why the President does not have the power with evidence. You can't do that. Your fail.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

When teaching one as you who does not understand, one begins with baby steps. Read the first two articles as I requested, because obviously no one is taking "carte blanche" with anything that you are talking about.

You're dodging your ass off as expectedt.

You are the one dodging, little one.

You made the affirmation that the President does not have the power to do so. I told you to read Article I and II. You have to now show us why the President does not have the power with evidence. You can't do that. Your fail.

Ducking again? Answer the question or slink away. I won't mind if you do. Ill ask it again, since you seem not to comprehend.

How do Articles I and II of the US Constitution give the president the power to ignore the will of congress?

You see, sir, that's a question, not an assertion. You can answer it or continue to backpedal. It doesn't matter to me.

 

[OKTexas]

When teaching one as you who does not understand, one begins with baby steps. Read the first two articles as I requested, because obviously no one is taking "carte blanche" with anything that you are talking about.

You're dodging your ass off as expectedt.

You are the one dodging, little one.

You made the affirmation that the President does not have the power to do so. I told you to read Article I and II. You have to now show us why the President does not have the power with evidence. You can't do that. Your fail.

See post #46 and try to explain that away. So far you have ignored it but no surprises there. While you're at it try to explain post #48 also, I'm sure you won't touch that one either.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is up to you to show BHO is not faithfully executing the laws.

This OP fail all the way.

 

[OKTexas]

It is up to you to show BHO is not faithfully executing the laws.

This OP fail all the way.

That can be shown by the answer to one question. Is he enforcing the law as written, passed and signed by himself. The short answer is HELL NO! Therefore he is not performing the duties and responsibilities of his office as he swore to do. Ready for the next deflection.

BTW you forgot to address post #48.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is up to you to show BHO is not faithfully executing the laws.

This OP fail all the way.

That can be shown by the answer to one question. Is he enforcing the law as written, passed and signed by himself.

#48 and above has been addressed. You are not the judge of how the law is fulfilled. The president is until the Congress or SCOTUS says otherwise. BHO and GWB both fulfilled the laws whether we agreed with what they were doing.

Yes, you have fail now, obviously.

 

[OKTexas]

It is up to you to show BHO is not faithfully executing the laws.

This OP fail all the way.

That can be shown by the answer to one question. Is he enforcing the law as written, passed and signed by himself.

#48 and above has been addressed. You are not the judge of how the law is fulfilled. The president is until the Congress or SCOTUS says otherwise. BHO and GWB both fulfilled the laws whether we agreed with what they were doing.

Yes, you have fail now, obviously.

You're a real piece, I won't say of what. You act like you're some big authority until you get boxed in, then you defer to a higher power. Give me a fucking break, loser.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You're a real piece, I won't say of what. You act like you're some big authority until you get boxed in, then you defer to a higher power. Give me a fucking break, loser.

Until you offer evidence, not questions, to your proposition in the affirmative, you have no right to expect anyone else to do anything other than say, "Where's the proof?"

You have to offer evidence, kid.

 

[OKTexas]

You're a real piece, I won't say of what. You act like you're some big authority until you get boxed in, then you defer to a higher power. Give me a fucking break, loser.

Until you offer evidence, not questions, to your proposition in the affirmative, you have no right to expect anyone else to do anything other than say, "Where's the proof?"

You have to offer evidence, kid.

Really, the quote from Article 2, section 3, demonstrating that your dear leader is ignoring his constitutional duty is not proof? Also claiming someone else has done the same thing is not justification for your dear leader doing so, he didn't take the oath for anyone but himself.