Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We do not have a Monarchy or Dictatorship in this country. We have a Constitution that clearly lays out the three branches of government and their respective functions. What is so difficult to understand about this? I don't care which side of the aisle violates our Constitution, wrong is wrong. We're walking down a very dangerous road. Every American needs to put aside party politics for the sake of freedom.
its nick, the kid oozes stupid
Why even have three branches of government?? Separation of Powers?? After all if Congress can delegate their authority, shirking their Constitutional responsibility, we don't really need a Congress once those power has been passed on to the Executive Branch. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are EO's constitutional. (IMO)
Congress isn't delegating their authority. They're giving the president the authority to do something at his discretion, as opposed to other laws where he is bound to do something. It's not like the president can write new laws. THAT would be unconstitutional.
One last time, where in the Constitution does it allow for Congress to give powers to the President of the United States? It doesn't and it never should. No one group of men should ever have that kind of power, to usurp the Constitution along party lines and give power to a sitting President over party and issue politics. Separation of Powers is there for a reason. Congress has NO AUTHORITY to grant the President of the United States authority to create and pass laws.
One last time. That's BULLSHIT. Congress never gave the president the authority to create and pass laws. It's FALSE on the face of it, because someone like you would have already challenged it and the USSC ruled on it. Since they haven't, it's obvious to me and anyone without partisan blinders on, that you're... WRONG AGAIN!!!
so you admit you have no clue as to what you are talking aboutYou didn't prove shit. You posted a passage from the Constitution that you thought proved your point. It didn't. Congress gave president's the power to issue EO's - which means that per the passage you cited, EO's are Constitutional. Are you another one who thinks that every president in the history of the US violated the Constitution with their EO's?
Here. Educate yourself:
You're truly one of the dumber posters here.. The Constitution stands on it's own merit.. those words don't run nor do they change.. IT'S CONCISE and lays out what our Founders intended in regard to how Government should function within the confines of a Republic.. so do us all a favor and take your ignorant talking points and shove them straight up your ass.
Congress isn't delegating their authority. They're giving the president the authority to do something at his discretion, as opposed to other laws where he is bound to do something. It's not like the president can write new laws. THAT would be unconstitutional.
One last time, where in the Constitution does it allow for Congress to give powers to the President of the United States? It doesn't and it never should. No one group of men should ever have that kind of power, to usurp the Constitution along party lines and give power to a sitting President over party and issue politics. Separation of Powers is there for a reason. Congress has NO AUTHORITY to grant the President of the United States authority to create and pass laws.
One last time. That's BULLSHIT. Congress never gave the president the authority to create and pass laws. It's FALSE on the face of it, because someone like you would have already challenged it and the USSC ruled on it. Since they haven't, it's obvious to me and anyone without partisan blinders on, that you're... WRONG AGAIN!!!
Congress isn't delegating their authority. They're giving the president the authority to do something at his discretion, as opposed to other laws where he is bound to do something. It's not like the president can write new laws. THAT would be unconstitutional.
One last time, where in the Constitution does it allow for Congress to give powers to the President of the United States? It doesn't and it never should. No one group of men should ever have that kind of power, to usurp the Constitution along party lines and give power to a sitting President over party and issue politics. Separation of Powers is there for a reason. Congress has NO AUTHORITY to grant the President of the United States authority to create and pass laws.
One last time. That's BULLSHIT. Congress never gave the president the authority to create and pass laws. It's FALSE on the face of it, because someone like you would have already challenged it and the USSC ruled on it. Since they haven't, it's obvious to me and anyone without partisan blinders on, that you're... WRONG AGAIN!!!
so you admit you have no clue as to what you are talking about
Do me a favor, don't come insulting me when I wasn't even speaking to you Plaz.. don't do that.. I know precisely what I am talking about and I've explained it several times along with asking for you or anyone else to show me anywhere in the Constitution that allows for Congress to grant powers to our President.. instead I get insults.. Stow it.
no, no you dont and i am not insulting you.
If you understood what was going on then you would know Obama has every right to use Eo's.
If you have a problem take him to court, or have congress repeal it.
Other wise it is what it is.
The power to issue executive orders is based on an interpretation of the constitution and not based on a specific right or power granted to the office. The intention is something along the lines of using orders to enforce the laws that Congress has instituted. If congress decided to create a new tax on widget imports then it would be up to the president to establish the collection procedure and uphold the law. He would do this by issueing an executive order outlining what needed to be done and who was to do it. If a president issues an order that breaks new ground and is not backed by current legislation then that president has exceeded the powers granted to him and if Congress allows this then they are as much to blame as the POTUS. Maybe they should all be impeached?
Thats how I see things anyway
Ron Paul apparently has a warning for America.
The problem with Paul is he wants to replace one dictatorship with 50.
but he can..
congress has the right to appeal or Amend said law.The power to issue executive orders is based on an interpretation of the constitution and not based on a specific right or power granted to the office. The intention is something along the lines of using orders to enforce the laws that Congress has instituted. If congress decided to create a new tax on widget imports then it would be up to the president to establish the collection procedure and uphold the law. He would do this by issueing an executive order outlining what needed to be done and who was to do it. If a president issues an order that breaks new ground and is not backed by current legislation then that president has exceeded the powers granted to him and if Congress allows this then they are as much to blame as the POTUS. Maybe they should all be impeached?
Thats how I see things anyway
no, no you dont and i am not insulting you.
If you understood what was going on then you would know Obama has every right to use Eo's.
If you have a problem take him to court, or have congress repeal it.
Other wise it is what it is.
Ron Paul apparently has a warning for America.
Really? What's the number of EOs that Obama has signed in a little less than 3 years? The answer is 100. In 8 years in office, Reagan signed 381 Executive Orders. Based on the numbers, who better qualifies as a dictator? You can check the numbers at the link below. Barack Obama Executive Orders Disposition TablesRep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says President Obama's continued use of the executive order "brings the modern presidency dangerously close to an elective dictatorship." "That is arrogant," Paul said of Obama frequently using the executive order function as of late. "It is flaunting the Constitution and the whole principle of how were supposed to operate. The idea they can just do this and take over the legislative function and brag about it -- and Congress does nothing and the courts do nothing about it, it's very, very bad." "He's dictatorial, is what he is," Rep. Paul said before the end of the interview.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/09/ron_paul_obama_presidency
_on_the_verge_of_being_a_dictatorship.html
Nah, because libertarians and hard righties don't get their way does not make BHO a dictator. It means his opponents are in the minority, and in our democracy, guess what: majority rules.
Want to change it? Get a majority.
no, no you dont and i am not insulting you.
If you understood what was going on then you would know Obama has every right to use Eo's.
If you have a problem take him to court, or have congress repeal it.
Other wise it is what it is.
Yes yes yes I do.. and good.. you're my friend.. no matter our differences.
no you dont and it shows by what you are saying.
Obama has Every right to issue EO's. I defended Bushes right to do it, and i'll defend any future Presidents right to issue these. They may be wrong but he has the right to try...
This doesnt make Obama or Bush or anyone a Dictator.
