George Will- Obama’s Unconstitutional Steps Worse than Nixon’s

[Geaux4it]

Coming from no other than Mr. Will who is no friend of the Republicans

-Geaux

George Will: Obama?s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon?s - The Washington Post

By George F. Will, Published: August 14

President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority.

 

[regent]

Coming from no other than Mr. Will who is no friend of the Republicans

-Geaux

George Will: Obama?s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon?s - The Washington Post

By George F. Will, Published: August 14

President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority.

Where does the Constitution confer upon upon the Supreme Court the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Another question, is a law of Congress or a presidential act Constitutional until the Court declares it unconstitutional?

 

[onecut39]

Coming from no other than Mr. Will who is no friend of the Republicans

-Geaux

George Will: Obama?s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon?s - The Washington Post

By George F. Will, Published: August 14

President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority.

Where does the Constitution confer upon upon the Supreme Court the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Another question, is a law of Congress or a presidential act Constitutional until the Court declares it unconstitutional?

Nowhere

Yes

 

[Geaux4it]

Coming from no other than Mr. Will who is no friend of the Republicans

-Geaux

George Will: Obama?s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon?s - The Washington Post

By George F. Will, Published: August 14

President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority.

Where does the Constitution confer upon upon the Supreme Court the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Another question, is a law of Congress or a presidential act Constitutional until the Court declares it unconstitutional?

Nowhere

Yes

POTUS does not have the authority to alter or revise law

Obama is breaking the law and is not upholding the responsibilities of the office. He needs removed via impeachment if he will not resign

-Geaux

 

[regent]

Where does the Constitution confer upon upon the Supreme Court the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Another question, is a law of Congress or a presidential act Constitutional until the Court declares it unconstitutional?

Nowhere

Yes

POTUS does not have the authority to alter or revise law

Obama is breaking the law and is not upholding the responsibilities of the office. He needs removed via impeachment if he will not resign

-Geaux

So who decided that Obama is breaking the law, George Will, some posters or whom?

 

[Antares]

Coming from no other than Mr. Will who is no friend of the Republicans

-Geaux

George Will: Obama?s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon?s - The Washington Post

By George F. Will, Published: August 14

President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority.

Where does the Constitution confer upon upon the Supreme Court the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Another question, is a law of Congress or a presidential act Constitutional until the Court declares it unconstitutional?

Good lord this is a stupid question.

 

[Geaux4it]

Nowhere

Yes

POTUS does not have the authority to alter or revise law

Obama is breaking the law and is not upholding the responsibilities of the office. He needs removed via impeachment if he will not resign

-Geaux

So who decided that Obama is breaking the law, George Will, some posters or whom?

So who decided it was lawful and Constitutional what Adolf Obama did?

Just another example of his disdain for the system of government

-Geaux

 

[dilloduck]

I've asked over and over. Where is the opposition ? Where is the minority voice ? Apparently George is just going to ask the question too instead of confronting Obama about it. I've never seen such total capitulation in my life.

 

[Geaux4it]

I've asked over and over. Where is the opposition ? Where is the minority voice ? Apparently George is just going to ask the question too instead of confronting Obama about it. I've never seen such total capitulation in my life.

We need the guy to yell out 'YOU LIE'

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

There you have it. The powers to the Executive Branch via the Constitution do not include the authority to revise or alter law.

Obama only thinks he has that power. i.e, he has no 'ability'

-Geaux

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Coming from no other than Mr. Will who is no friend of the Republicans

-Geaux

George Will: Obama?s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon?s - The Washington Post

By George F. Will, Published: August 14

President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority.

Where does the Constitution confer upon upon the Supreme Court the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Another question, is a law of Congress or a presidential act Constitutional until the Court declares it unconstitutional?

Are you trying to tel me you disagree with the ability of the Judicial branch to check the Legislative branch when it does something wrong? What are we supposed to do if Congress passes a law making it illegal to disagree with the government, pretend they will get it right the next time?

 

[dilloduck]

I've asked over and over. Where is the opposition ? Where is the minority voice ? Apparently George is just going to ask the question too instead of confronting Obama about it. I've never seen such total capitulation in my life.

We need the guy to yell out 'YOU LIE'

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

There you have it. The powers to the Executive Branch via the Constitution do not include the authority to revise or alter law.

Obama only thinks he has that power. i.e, he has no 'ability'

-Geaux

We don't have 'that guy'. That outta tell us something.

 

[regent]

Coming from no other than Mr. Will who is no friend of the Republicans

-Geaux

George Will: Obama?s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon?s - The Washington Post

By George F. Will, Published: August 14

President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority.

Where does the Constitution confer upon upon the Supreme Court the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Another question, is a law of Congress or a presidential act Constitutional until the Court declares it unconstitutional?

Are you trying to tel me you disagree with the ability of the Judicial branch to check the Legislative branch when it does something wrong? What are we supposed to do if Congress passes a law making it illegal to disagree with the government, pretend they will get it right the next time?

What I agree or disagree with is not what I am asking I am asking, where does the Constitution confer the power of judicial review on the Supreme Court.
The second question is, is a presidential act or law of Congress constitutional until the Court rules otherwise?
Want to answer?

 

[hjmick]

^

 

[francoHFW]

No friend of Republicans? On what planet?

 

[Geaux4it]

The one Adolf Obama is destroying

-Geaux

 

[dilloduck]

No friend of Republicans? On what planet?

GOP--Dem--what's the difference ? Obama's running roughshod over America. That doesn't bother you ?

 

[BlueGin]

I've asked over and over. Where is the opposition ? Where is the minority voice ? Apparently George is just going to ask the question too instead of confronting Obama about it. I've never seen such total capitulation in my life.

We need the guy to yell out 'YOU LIE'

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

There you have it. The powers to the Executive Branch via the Constitution do not include the authority to revise or alter law.

Obama only thinks he has that power. i.e, he has no 'ability'

-Geaux

We don't have 'that guy'. That outta tell us something.

Nothing new. That is true in all walks of life...not just politics. There are very few people that will actually put themselves on the line.

 

[dilloduck]

We need the guy to yell out 'YOU LIE'

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

There you have it. The powers to the Executive Branch via the Constitution do not include the authority to revise or alter law.

Obama only thinks he has that power. i.e, he has no 'ability'

-Geaux

We don't have 'that guy'. That outta tell us something.

Nothing new. That is true in all walks of life...not just politics. There are very few people that will actually put themselves on the line.

That's a very good point. I'd give you some rep if it really meant something.

 

[BlueGin]

We don't have 'that guy'. That outta tell us something.

Nothing new. That is true in all walks of life...not just politics. There are very few people that will actually put themselves on the line.

That's a very good point. I'd give you some rep if it really meant something.

Probably better to save your fake rep for times when it will do you the most good anyway.

 

[dilloduck]

Nothing new. That is true in all walks of life...not just politics. There are very few people that will actually put themselves on the line.

That's a very good point. I'd give you some rep if it really meant something.

Probably better to save your fake rep for times when it will do you the most good anyway.

Are there rep advisors to help me ?