Is a Constitutional Crisis on the way?

[ThoughtCrimes]

Again, POTUS ignores them.............Just as he did a contempt charge on Oil Platform Permits in the Gulf of Mexico................

Then what........................

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Ken Salazar at Interior was the person held in contempt back in 2011 for the permit thingy.

 

[eagle1462010]

Per Constitution the Executive has authority to execute laws. All O is doing is not executing those provisions until later.

The law was had a specific date...........

Do you realize how I see our history? Do whatsoever even without prior precedence and grab power. Look at how the Courts have a portion of the legislative power to make new laws.

It's the back door method of getting laws and regulations on the books without Congressional Consent.

Which is exactly why we need a Constitutional Convention and put a leash and a dang bell on the Fed.

 

[eagle1462010]

Again, POTUS ignores them.............Just as he did a contempt charge on Oil Platform Permits in the Gulf of Mexico................

Then what........................

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Ken Salazar at Interior was the person held in contempt back in 2011 for the permit thingy.

And their response...................nothing but excuses as they continued to delay the permits...........................In other words, they really didn't give a rats Azz about the Federal Court Ruling.

 

[MaxGrit]

The law was had a specific date...........

Do you realize how I see our history? Do whatsoever even without prior precedence and grab power. Look at how the Courts have a portion of the legislative power to make new laws.

It's the back door method of getting laws and regulations on the books without Congressional Consent.

Which is exactly why we need a Constitutional Convention and put a leash and a dang bell on the Fed.

Yes the States was supposed to be another check to Federal power expansion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong answer there hero, EPA can only do things consistent with existing law, anything else requires legislation.

"Existing law" is quite a broad category.

Which EPA regulations are not consistent with existing law?

Existing law does not allow them to regulate carbon dioxide that was done by the courts, which they have no more power to amend existing law than the president. Of course they seem to lack that knowledge as they have demonstrated many times.

This doesn't make any sense.

Neither the president nor the Supreme Court 'amended' any laws.

It is both necessary and appropriate for administrative and regulatory entities to infer the intent of Congress when implementing the policies authorized by acts of Congress.

Indeed, Congress writes its laws with the full understanding and intent that administrators and regulators will develop the details and specifics of actual implementation.

And when corporations or private citizens perceive a regulatory agency's implementation as contrary to Congress' intent, they are at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the policy.

When the Supreme Court determines that a regulatory agency is implementing policy as intended by Congress, that decision in no way 'amends' existing law – it's ignorant and ridiculous to maintain otherwise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It stems from his ignoring and extending hard deadlines in the ACA law, essentially rewriting the law, which he has no authority to do.

Per Constitution the Executive has authority to execute laws. All O is doing is not executing those provisions until later.

The law was had a specific date...........

Which was appropriate and wisely delayed in accordance with IRS regulatory code and established legal precedent.

No laws were 'rewritten,' no laws were 'ignored,' no laws were 'violated,' and no laws were 'amended.'

 

[eagle1462010]

"Existing law" is quite a broad category.

Which EPA regulations are not consistent with existing law?

Existing law does not allow them to regulate carbon dioxide that was done by the courts, which they have no more power to amend existing law than the president. Of course they seem to lack that knowledge as they have demonstrated many times.

This doesn't make any sense.

Neither the president nor the Supreme Court 'amended' any laws.

It is both necessary and appropriate for administrative and regulatory entities to infer the intent of Congress when implementing the policies authorized by acts of Congress.

Indeed, Congress writes its laws with the full understanding and intent that administrators and regulators will develop the details and specifics of actual implementation.

And when corporations or private citizens perceive a regulatory agency's implementation as contrary to Congress' intent, they are at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the policy.

When the Supreme Court determines that a regulatory agency is implementing policy as intended by Congress, that decision in no way 'amends' existing law – it's ignorant and ridiculous to maintain otherwise.

Then why did they attempt to pass cap and trade? They are now implementing part of that failed bill now.

 

[eagle1462010]

Per Constitution the Executive has authority to execute laws. All O is doing is not executing those provisions until later.

The law was had a specific date...........

Which was appropriate and wisely delayed in accordance with IRS regulatory code and established legal precedent.

No laws were 'rewritten,' no laws were 'ignored,' no laws were 'violated,' and no laws were 'amended.'

The law had a specific date. Period.

 

[OKTexas]

"Existing law" is quite a broad category.

Which EPA regulations are not consistent with existing law?

Existing law does not allow them to regulate carbon dioxide that was done by the courts, which they have no more power to amend existing law than the president. Of course they seem to lack that knowledge as they have demonstrated many times.

This doesn't make any sense.

Neither the president nor the Supreme Court 'amended' any laws.

It is both necessary and appropriate for administrative and regulatory entities to infer the intent of Congress when implementing the policies authorized by acts of Congress.

Indeed, Congress writes its laws with the full understanding and intent that administrators and regulators will develop the details and specifics of actual implementation.

And when corporations or private citizens perceive a regulatory agency's implementation as contrary to Congress' intent, they are at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the policy.

When the Supreme Court determines that a regulatory agency is implementing policy as intended by Congress, that decision in no way 'amends' existing law – it's ignorant and ridiculous to maintain otherwise.

Really, how did a penalty written into the law and held unconstitutional, suddenly become a TAX without further congressional action?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Doc. This is what you get when a Temporary Majority goes amuk.............and passes laws as my way or the highway....................

The Dems have no one to blame but themselves on this..............They own it.

Well, you see it that way because you want it to be that way.

It's not true, though. Both sides are equally at fault.

Aren't you glad you got to find out what's inside it?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Again, POTUS ignores them.............Just as he did a contempt charge on Oil Platform Permits in the Gulf of Mexico................

Then what........................

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Ken Salazar at Interior was the person held in contempt back in 2011 for the permit thingy.

And their response...................nothing but excuses as they continued to delay the permits...........................In other words, they really didn't give a rats Azz about the Federal Court Ruling.

The "excuses" you refer to revolved around the 11 people killed when that BP drilling platform caught fire and exploded from a failure on the sea floor causing the largest oil spill in history, which lead to an extensive investigation by the Interior Dept. and others. That imposed a moratorium on deep water drilling while the parties of the investigation found the answers to the problem and found solutions to those problems. That a Louisiana Federal Judge got pressured to act before the deep-water drilling moratorium was lifted was irresponsible and a partisan ploy! The truth or the tribal myths...you decide.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So, you're gonna go with the "I know better than the SCOTUS does" argument?

Juries routinely knew better than the Scotus. They nullified the fugitive slave laws and Prohibition and they were amend out of the Constitution. Juries are made of regular dudes from the street.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Existing law does not allow them to regulate carbon dioxide that was done by the courts, which they have no more power to amend existing law than the president. Of course they seem to lack that knowledge as they have demonstrated many times.

This doesn't make any sense.

Neither the president nor the Supreme Court 'amended' any laws.

It is both necessary and appropriate for administrative and regulatory entities to infer the intent of Congress when implementing the policies authorized by acts of Congress.

Indeed, Congress writes its laws with the full understanding and intent that administrators and regulators will develop the details and specifics of actual implementation.

And when corporations or private citizens perceive a regulatory agency's implementation as contrary to Congress' intent, they are at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the policy.

When the Supreme Court determines that a regulatory agency is implementing policy as intended by Congress, that decision in no way 'amends' existing law – it's ignorant and ridiculous to maintain otherwise.

Really, how did a penalty written into the law and held unconstitutional, suddenly become a TAX without further congressional action?

Nothing "turned into a tax". The law itself didn't change at all.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Do you realize how I see our history? Do whatsoever even without prior precedence and grab power. Look at how the Courts have a portion of the legislative power to make new laws.

It's the back door method of getting laws and regulations on the books without Congressional Consent.

Which is exactly why we need a Constitutional Convention and put a leash and a dang bell on the Fed.

Yes the States was supposed to be another check to Federal power expansion.

That died with the 17th Amendment. Now we have career Senators like Mccain and Feinstien and Schumer.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Doc. This is what you get when a Temporary Majority goes amuk.............and passes laws as my way or the highway....................

The Dems have no one to blame but themselves on this..............They own it.

Well, you see it that way because you want it to be that way.

It's not true, though. Both sides are equally at fault.

Aren't you glad you got to find out what's inside it?

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

 

[billyerock1991]

Proverbs 28:4
"Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law resist them."

The House has officially decided to sue Obama for the usurpation of legislative powers, all of which are vested in Congress according to Article I of the US Constitution.

Without a doubt, the courts will rule AGAINST Obama, even it takes 6-18 months.

The question however is how Obama will react. Will he scoff at both the Legislative and Judicial Branches and plow along anyway? What happens then?

Quite literally, the Court will be asked to resolve the following question:

Is Obama a dictator?

And herein lies the problem. If he is a dictator, the Court's opinion will not shake him, it will merely be an opinion.

If they rule that he is not a dictator, then we no longer have need of Congress, since apparently the President can rightfully assume any and all legislative powers at any time. Congress would merely function as Caesar's Rubber Stamp at best. Congress becomes worthless.

you rightwingnutjogs are really fucked in the head ... it won't go any where ... rag all you want ...whine all you want ... cry and stop your feet, you rightnutjobs haven't a leg to stand on...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Well, you see it that way because you want it to be that way.

It's not true, though. Both sides are equally at fault.

Aren't you glad you got to find out what's inside it?

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Aren't you glad you got to find out what's inside it?

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

No, I understood what you were referencing. It just had absolutely nothing to do with my post.

 

[OKTexas]

This doesn't make any sense.

Neither the president nor the Supreme Court 'amended' any laws.

It is both necessary and appropriate for administrative and regulatory entities to infer the intent of Congress when implementing the policies authorized by acts of Congress.

Indeed, Congress writes its laws with the full understanding and intent that administrators and regulators will develop the details and specifics of actual implementation.

And when corporations or private citizens perceive a regulatory agency's implementation as contrary to Congress' intent, they are at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the policy.

When the Supreme Court determines that a regulatory agency is implementing policy as intended by Congress, that decision in no way 'amends' existing law – it's ignorant and ridiculous to maintain otherwise.

Really, how did a penalty written into the law and held unconstitutional, suddenly become a TAX without further congressional action?

Nothing "turned into a tax". The law itself didn't change at all.

So you're saying the penalty written in the individual mandate is still unconstitutional, like the court said? And no one will be charged that penalty for not buying insurance? BTW you might want to check the proposed 2014 tax forms for the line to calculate the TAX.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Really, how did a penalty written into the law and held unconstitutional, suddenly become a TAX without further congressional action?

Nothing "turned into a tax". The law itself didn't change at all.

So you're saying the penalty written in the individual mandate is still unconstitutional, like the court said? And no one will be charged that penalty for not buying insurance? BTW you might want to check the proposed 2014 tax forms for the line to calculate the TAX.

The court didn't say the "penalty" was unconstitutional. They said that it was constitutional, because of the constitutional powers to tax.