Obama threatens vetoes of bills requiring him to follow the law

[thereisnospoon]

The specifics of the bill are a little hard to understand. The "it protects the Constitution" definition is kind of vague. What it amounts to is that either the House or the Senate, either one can act independently, can throw the President in front of the Supreme Court whenever they feel like.

The Separation of Powers clause prohibits the POTUS from doing this.
Now the Legislative branch is doing precisely what Obama dared them to do.
That is to call him on his acting as though he were an elected king.

Separation of Powers does not prohibit to do what Obama has done. He is within the rules, as have all the other Presidents who have acted in the same.
Obama did not dare the Legislative branch to do anything except maybe to vote on some legislation. Apparently the House has not taken up that dare.
He is acting like the POTUS. Maybe the House Republicans should act like House Congressmen. Talk about a waste of taxpayer's dollars.

Oh? OK, how about you show some examples.

 

[RandomVariable]

The Separation of Powers clause prohibits the POTUS from doing this.
Now the Legislative branch is doing precisely what Obama dared them to do.
That is to call him on his acting as though he were an elected king.

Separation of Powers does not prohibit to do what Obama has done. He is within the rules, as have all the other Presidents who have acted in the same.
Obama did not dare the Legislative branch to do anything except maybe to vote on some legislation. Apparently the House has not taken up that dare.
He is acting like the POTUS. Maybe the House Republicans should act like House Congressmen. Talk about a waste of taxpayer's dollars.

Oh? OK, how about you show some examples.

Allow me to introduced Rep. Nadler from NY. He'll tell you all about it.
House of Representatives Live Video: HouseLive.gov

 

[bendog]

How laws are implemented

Stage 9: The Law is Implemented and Enforced

Presidential Signing Statements

caveat to the first link. I think Lexis may overstate. If it can be shown that a potus has absolutely no intention of implementing a validly enacted law, I think he can be sued. But as a practical matter, he really cannot, because as the link correctly notes, the exec has the power to propose regulations to implement a law, and that can be delayed. Moreover, there are some laws, like Defense of Marriage, that a potus can just tell the DOJ not to prosecute anyone for not complying.

 

[Howey]

Who's to say that the health care bill didn't allow him to make these changes?

Not only does the ACA allow it, the Constitution does too.

This is just more teabaggers crying.

 

[Antares]

Separation of Powers does not prohibit to do what Obama has done. He is within the rules, as have all the other Presidents who have acted in the same.
Obama did not dare the Legislative branch to do anything except maybe to vote on some legislation. Apparently the House has not taken up that dare.
He is acting like the POTUS. Maybe the House Republicans should act like House Congressmen. Talk about a waste of taxpayer's dollars.

No, he does not have the power to unilaterally change laws as he sees fit.
His job is to "faithfully" execute the Law as passed by the congress critters.

Is this an example of what you mean?: Bush could bypass new torture ban

When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

g,g,g......really?

You see unlike most of the Left I am not a lockstep guy....don't assume I supported everything Bush did.

The President's authority is ONLY to "faithfully" execute the laws AS passed by Congress.

That's it.

 

[Antares]

the tea baggers couldn't prevail in a suit, so they seek to change the rules. LOL

House targets Obama's law enforcement | TheHill

the exec has always been 'sueable" if it can be shown he's intentionally refusing to comply with a law. But, here, the tea baggers WANT TO REPEAL OBAMACARE yet they sue him for not fully implementing it. The exec has always had discretion to gradually implement a law that is legally passed, because the IS THE ROLE OF THE EXEC BRANCH TO EXECUTE THE LAWS. To funny. The party of sophomores.

The exec has always had discretion to gradually implement a law that is legally passed, because the IS THE ROLE OF THE EXEC BRANCH TO EXECUTE THE LAWS.

I figured you to be brighter than this.

IS THE ROLE OF THE EXEC BRANCH TO EXECUTE THE LAWS.

AS passed son, as passed.

He has NO legal authority to unilaterally change them.

 

[Antares]

Who's to say that the health care bill didn't allow him to make these changes?

Not only does the ACA allow it, the Constitution does too.

This is just more teabaggers crying.

No extra constitutional sourcing.

Cite the passage of the Constitution that gives him that authority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Every president from 1933 on would veto such a bill.