obama caves again

[Synthaholic]

If this is part of obamacare, shouldn't it go back to the congress and senate to be adjusted? Can the president just say "This part of the legislation sucks, I myself am gonna change this"?. It's a law, can the president just change the law on his own? Is this setting dangerous precedent?

Libs LOVE retroactive signing statements -- err -- amendments!

It is clearly permitted somewhere in one the Constitutional penumbras.

So, it was OK when Bush was using signing statements, but not Obama?

Keep digging that asshole!

Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued; Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton produced 247 signing statements among the three of them.[11] By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued 108 signing statements containing 505 constitutional challenges.[11] As of January 30, 2008, he had signed 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law.[12]

George W. Bush's use of signing statements was and is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 opinions) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements

 

[Synthaholic]

If this is part of obamacare, shouldn't it go back to the congress and senate to be adjusted? Can the president just say "This part of the legislation sucks, I myself am gonna change this"?. It's a law, can the president just change the law on his own? Is this setting dangerous precedent?

Libs LOVE retroactive signing statements -- err -- amendments!

It is clearly permitted somewhere in one the Constitutional penumbras.

list of george bush signing statements:

List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush

list of barack obama's signing statements

President Obama has not yet issued any signing statements

Presidential Signing Statements - List of Obama's Signing Statements

This is why Liability is so much fun: all bluster, no facts.

 

[PredFan]

I hate to couch it like this, but I maintain that the President (and his team) are not getting forced to "cave in" at all.

For the MOMENT -- and for all it's worth, it is JUST for the moment -- he seems to have taken a step backward on the matter of compelling religious objectors to be compelled to DO as he commands.

But since he is fashioning these rules and regs out of whole fucking cloth, there is no way to insure that he won't RE-CHANGE his mind later -- as in his second term if he can get re-elected.

Meanwhile, although we called Bubba "slick willie," the truth SEEMS to be that President Obama is the one being slick.

While he has framed the argument as to whether or not he can compel a religious objector to do thus and so, we are passing on the bigger issue. He maintains that he can compel insurance companies to do thus and so.

He is accruing power by edict and THAT portion of it isn't getting noted or attacked.

The dictatorial style bastard is smarter than I realized and slicker than slick willie.

The bolded.

This attempt lets us know his mind. We know he wants to do it and I have no doubt that after re-election, he will do it.

 

[IndependntLogic]

That may be. But politically he's done what he needs to do. The loss in votes will be minimal.
He'll still win in 2012. Not because he's a good president but because the GOP has screwed the pooch so badly. Seriously, these idiots are the best they could do? WTF???
Kay Bailey Hutchinson for president! Put Susana Martinez on as VP and you secure every vote on the planet! Oh well, in my dreams...

i agree with the part in bold... not as to every vote, but enough.

but then again, kay bailey hutchinson should have been their VP nominee last time.

they'd have won then, too.

I met her when I lived Houston and just fell in love with the woman. Unfortunately, she's too moderate for today's GOP.
Why the Republicans insist on candidates that will drive away Moderates and Independents is beyond me.

 

[Liability]

If this is part of obamacare, shouldn't it go back to the congress and senate to be adjusted? Can the president just say "This part of the legislation sucks, I myself am gonna change this"?. It's a law, can the president just change the law on his own? Is this setting dangerous precedent?

Libs LOVE retroactive signing statements -- err -- amendments!

It is clearly permitted somewhere in one the Constitutional penumbras.

So, it was OK when Bush was using signing statements, but not Obama?

Keep digging that asshole!

As always, you are quick to miss the bus and the point.

the POINT, you hypocritical nitwit, is that you libs were frothing at the mouth crazy angry when President Bush issued signing statements. but you go oddly silent when the ONE does so.

The POINT, you goober, is that NOW the President is relentlessly grasping ever-more power which is not his to take or wield. And the latest version is to (in effect) do so not just via a signing statement but via an unwritten after the fact silent signing statement premised upon the notion that he has some right to legislate.

I am not digging a hole, dipshit.

I have said it before and I happily say it again now. There is some merit in signing statements. Great USE can potentially be made of them when push comes to shove and the President's Executive BEHAVIOR gets challenged in Court. The issue then might be, "what was the President (or the Administration) actually doing?" It would be kind of nice to use a signing statement as evidence as to exactly HOW the administration had declared their motive, intent and designs at the time the law became law! It is, actually, kind of an honest way to create a future record.

I do not believe a signing statement can be used to make law, however. I never have. Not with the prior Administration and not now.

So, for once in your useless life, man up. Accept a direct and straightforward challenge. By WHAT constitutional claim of authority and by what Act of Congress signed into Constitutionally valid LAW may the President Compel an insurance company not only to offer a certain product, but set the rates for it?

 

[PredFan]

Your colleagues disagree with you. I do have a clue, I actually did research. You should try the same.

Bull shit. Show the research.

What disease does the pill prevent?

http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/med/2007-0103-200416/vandenbroucke_82_oral.pdf

Oral Contraceptive Use for the Primary Prevention of Ovarian Cancer: Review Protocol

Oral Contraceptives and Cancer Risk: Q & A - National Cancer Institute


there's more. ass hole.

I stand corrected on this issue.

 

[jillian]

That may be. But politically he's done what he needs to do. The loss in votes will be minimal.
He'll still win in 2012. Not because he's a good president but because the GOP has screwed the pooch so badly. Seriously, these idiots are the best they could do? WTF???
Kay Bailey Hutchinson for president! Put Susana Martinez on as VP and you secure every vote on the planet! Oh well, in my dreams...

i agree with the part in bold... not as to every vote, but enough.

but then again, kay bailey hutchinson should have been their VP nominee last time.

they'd have won then, too.

I met her when I lived Houston and just fell in love with the woman. Unfortunately, she's too moderate for today's GOP.
Why the Republicans insist on candidates that will drive away Moderates and Independents is beyond me.

when they picked palin over her last time, i was appalled. i wanted to smack mccain in the head. but then again, i also voted for Hillary in the primary.

i don't know why the GOP does that. well, yes, i kinda do... it's because the "base" is full of extremists who have hijacked the party from the smart guys. they don't want moderates. they want people who will drool and sputter and be as ugly to "the enemy" as they can be.

I have news for you. I think if John Boehner didn't have Eric Cantor breathing down his neck, trying to steal the speakership out from under him, he and the president would be able to reach agreement on most things. He doesn't seem like a bad guy.

But the extreme right wants bad guys now. it's sad, actually.

 

[Liability]

Libs LOVE retroactive signing statements -- err -- amendments!

It is clearly permitted somewhere in one the Constitutional penumbras.

list of george bush signing statements:

List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush

list of barack obama's signing statements

President Obama has not yet issued any signing statements

Presidential Signing Statements - List of Obama's Signing Statements

This is why Liability is so much fun: all bluster, no facts.

The claim that President Obama has "not" issued any signing statements is false.

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 | The White House

Idiots like you lap up ANY claim without a concern in the world for the instantly verifiable falseness of that claim AS LONG AS it suits your petty partisan hack agendas.

Turns out, you (but not JUST you) are the one(s) with the problem of being bluster-laden and non-factual.

 

[NYcarbineer]

shocker, i know

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/u...n-on-birth-control-rule-officials-say.html?hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/u...th-control-coverage-rule.html?pagewanted=2&hp

What kind of a 'cave in' by Obama results in the bishops being skeptical, Republicans complaining about it ,and Planned Parenthood giving it the thumbs up???

 

[Liability]

If this is part of obamacare, shouldn't it go back to the congress and senate to be adjusted? Can the president just say "This part of the legislation sucks, I myself am gonna change this"?. It's a law, can the president just change the law on his own? Is this setting dangerous precedent?

Libs LOVE retroactive signing statements -- err -- amendments!

It is clearly permitted somewhere in one the Constitutional penumbras.

list of george bush signing statements:

List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush

list of barack obama's signing statements

President Obama has not yet issued any signing statements

Presidential Signing Statements - List of Obama's Signing Statements

False:

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 | The White House

 

[IndependntLogic]

i agree with the part in bold... not as to every vote, but enough.

but then again, kay bailey hutchinson should have been their VP nominee last time.

they'd have won then, too.

I met her when I lived Houston and just fell in love with the woman. Unfortunately, she's too moderate for today's GOP.
Why the Republicans insist on candidates that will drive away Moderates and Independents is beyond me.

when they picked palin over her last time, i was appalled. i wanted to smack mccain in the head. but then again, i also voted for Hillary in the primary.

i don't know why the GOP does that. well, yes, i kinda do... it's because the "base" is full of extremists who have hijacked the party from the smart guys. they don't want moderates. they want people who will drool and sputter and be as ugly to "the enemy" as they can be.

I have news for you. I think if John Boehner didn't have Eric Cantor breathing down his neck, trying to steal the speakership out from under him, he and the president would be able to reach agreement on most things. He doesn't seem like a bad guy.

But the extreme right wants bad guys now. it's sad, actually.

Absolutely right and displayed often, right on this board.

 

[PredFan]

Umm, no polygamy is not Legal.

Are you claiming that there are no mormons married to more than one woman?

I'm claiming that polygamy is illegal in the united states, i thought that was obvious.

It is in fact illegal, however:

"Today, over 14 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) are strictly monogamist, and members who are known to practice polygamy are excommunicated. Still, the practice of plural marriage continues among tens of thousands of members of various fundamentalist splinter groups long disassociated from the main body of the church, such as the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB) or the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS). These polygamist sects are generally located in Utah, Arizona, Texas, and other parts of the Western United States, Canada, and Mexico. Even though polygamy is generally illegal in all 50 states and in all three countries, practitioners are almost never prosecuted unless there is evidence of abuse, statutory rape, welfare fraud, or tax evasion."

So there are those who are free to practice their religious beliefs.

 

[jillian]

Libs LOVE retroactive signing statements -- err -- amendments!

It is clearly permitted somewhere in one the Constitutional penumbras.

list of george bush signing statements:

List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush

list of barack obama's signing statements

President Obama has not yet issued any signing statements

Presidential Signing Statements - List of Obama's Signing Statements

False:

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 | The White House

i don't think that's the kind of statement they mean.
signing statements, which don't seek to alter the meaning of laws, have always been used. it was the *way* bush used them that was so onerous.

but good find.

 

[PredFan]

No, you really didn't "win" Now you just get to pay more for your Insurance. Here in America. The church won. Americans lose again.

You cannot be blaming the church.

Sure you can. 98% of sexually active Catholic women use birth control, even though it's against church teachings. The church needs a Third Vatican Council to bring it into, at least, the 20th century.

So, the Catholic Church is responsible for increases in insurance rates?? Or did you not read the posts?

 

[PredFan]

no, a US Law trumping what the 1st Amendment says is a US Law trumping what the first amendment says, in my mind. Meaning - Religious Law obviously doesn't take (as Ernie suggested) precedent or else we'd have all kinds of crazy fucked up Religions popping up to skirt existing US Law.

And yet Mormons can marry more than one person!

Honestly, I don't know how you live in a brain that small.

Not legally. Kinda fucks up your argument.

Not really, they are allowed even if it is technically illegal.

" Today, over 14 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) are strictly monogamist, and members who are known to practice polygamy are excommunicated. Still, the practice of plural marriage continues among tens of thousands of members of various fundamentalist splinter groups long disassociated from the main body of the church, such as the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB) or the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS). These polygamist sects are generally located in Utah, Arizona, Texas, and other parts of the Western United States, Canada, and Mexico. Even though polygamy is generally illegal in all 50 states and in all three countries, practitioners are almost never prosecuted unless there is evidence of abuse, statutory rape, welfare fraud, or tax evasion."

 

[Synthaholic]

Libs LOVE retroactive signing statements -- err -- amendments!

It is clearly permitted somewhere in one the Constitutional penumbras.

So, it was OK when Bush was using signing statements, but not Obama?

Keep digging that asshole!

As always, you are quick to miss the bus and the point.

the POINT, you hypocritical nitwit, is that you libs were frothing at the mouth crazy angry when President Bush issued signing statements. but you go oddly silent when the ONE does so.

Why isn't it the POINT that you wingnuts were oddly silent when Shrub was using signing statements, but are now frothing at the mouth crazy angry when President Obama does so?

 

[G.T.]

And yet Mormons can marry more than one person!

Honestly, I don't know how you live in a brain that small.

Not legally. Kinda fucks up your argument.

Not really, they are allowed even if it is technically illegal.

" Today, over 14 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) are strictly monogamist, and members who are known to practice polygamy are excommunicated. Still, the practice of plural marriage continues among tens of thousands of members of various fundamentalist splinter groups long disassociated from the main body of the church, such as the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB) or the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS). These polygamist sects are generally located in Utah, Arizona, Texas, and other parts of the Western United States, Canada, and Mexico. Even though polygamy is generally illegal in all 50 states and in all three countries, practitioners are almost never prosecuted unless there is evidence of abuse, statutory rape, welfare fraud, or tax evasion."

It is the signing of the Law which made it illegal which made the argument against "shall make no law" in the 1st amendment. That's the whole point, not the willy nilly way the law is or isn't followed, but the fact that congress made the law despite "shall make no law" right there in the 1st.

 

[Liability]

Saul Alinsky Explains Community Organizing as an Outside Agitator. - YouTube

MILTON FRIEDMAN-what alinsky never told obama... - YouTube

Wow.

Milton absolutely nailed that windbag liberal pontificator.

 

[Synthaholic]

Libs LOVE retroactive signing statements -- err -- amendments!

It is clearly permitted somewhere in one the Constitutional penumbras.

list of george bush signing statements:

List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush

list of barack obama's signing statements

President Obama has not yet issued any signing statements

Presidential Signing Statements - List of Obama's Signing Statements

False:

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 | The White House

Well, that's one! Only another 749 to go to catch up with Shrub!

I guess this is parity in your mind.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Libs LOVE retroactive signing statements -- err -- amendments!

It is clearly permitted somewhere in one the Constitutional penumbras.

list of george bush signing statements:

List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush

list of barack obama's signing statements

President Obama has not yet issued any signing statements

Presidential Signing Statements - List of Obama's Signing Statements

False:

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 | The White House

"I'm gonna need a bigger-net, 'round-about the General Election, when these suckers are spawning, NEXT!!!!"​