Why isn't congress pushing impeachment proceedings now?

[JakeStarkey]

All executive orders are unconstitutional. It is a tool formulated by the courts acting out of line.

Not at all. End of story.

Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?

You have no critical thinking skills if you think that you make an assertion without any evidence or proof at all then tell me the 'burden of proof is on you.' Make your best case, sonny.

 

[ShackledNation]

Not at all. End of story.

Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?

Quite the opposite...you're the one claiming that they're unconstitutional.
The burden of proof is on you.

No, you don't understand. The constitution is a limiting document. Only powers enumerated in the constitution are legitimate. The executive order is not listed under the enumerated powers of the president. If you claim the president has the power, you have to say where in the constitution that power is granted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You claim that he does not have the power, yet you give no law, SC findings, anything, other than your opinion as fact. Your "fact" is false. Truly, you have to have something more than your opinion on the Constitution. Try answering Moonglow's evidencefor starters.

 

[ShackledNation]

Not at all. End of story.

Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?

You have no critical thinking skills if you think that you make an assertion without any evidence or proof at all then tell me the 'burden of proof is on you.' Make your best case, sonny.

That is not how our constitution works. You do not have to prove why something is not constitutional. You have to prove why it is. The executive order is not constitutional because...it is not in the constitution. The Constitution lists what government can do and says anything not listed is unconstitutional for the federal government. It does not list what government cannot do and then say everything else is allowable. When I was referring to burden of proof, I was not referring to argumentation rules. I was referring to the constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Answered above. You have made a claim, now you have to support it. That is how discussion is handled. Get a moving.

 

[ShackledNation]

You claim that he does not have the power, yet you give no law, SC findings, anything, other than your opinion as fact. Your "fact" is false. Truly, you have to have something more than your opinion on the Constitution. Try answering Moonglow's evidencefor starters.

I give you the constitution. That supports the claim. That is the highest law of the land. And the constitution does not grant the power to issue executive orders. If you want to argue the constitutionality of something, you have to explain where it is listed.

Again, the constitution is a limiting document. It lists powers, not restrictions, and anything not listed is off limits. Executive orders are not listed.

 

[Moonglow]

Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?

Quite the opposite...you're the one claiming that they're unconstitutional.
The burden of proof is on you.

No, you don't understand. The constitution is a limiting document. Only powers enumerated in the constitution are legitimate. The executive order is not listed under the enumerated powers of the president. If you claim the president has the power, you have to say where in the constitution that power is granted.

U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. At the minimum, most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[1] the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the Federal Government - the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[2]

Executive order (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[idb]

Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?

Quite the opposite...you're the one claiming that they're unconstitutional.
The burden of proof is on you.

No, you don't understand. The constitution is a limiting document. Only powers enumerated in the constitution are legitimate. The executive order is not listed under the enumerated powers of the president. If you claim the president has the power, you have to say where in the constitution that power is granted.

United States Constitution
Article 2
Section 1
Clause 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

 

[idb]

Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?

Quite the opposite...you're the one claiming that they're unconstitutional.
The burden of proof is on you.

No, you don't understand. The constitution is a limiting document. Only powers enumerated in the constitution are legitimate. The executive order is not listed under the enumerated powers of the president. If you claim the president has the power, you have to say where in the constitution that power is granted.

Unites States Constitution
Article Two
SAection 3
Clause 4

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

"...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." being the relevant piece.

 

[idb]

Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?

You have no critical thinking skills if you think that you make an assertion without any evidence or proof at all then tell me the 'burden of proof is on you.' Make your best case, sonny.

That is not how our constitution works. You do not have to prove why something is not constitutional. You have to prove why it is. The executive order is not constitutional because...it is not in the constitution. The Constitution lists what government can do and says anything not listed is unconstitutional for the federal government. It does not list what government cannot do and then say everything else is allowable. When I was referring to burden of proof, I was not referring to argumentation rules. I was referring to the constitution.

If something is claimed to be constitutional, and there is no previous court ruling to say otherwise, then isn't it accepted as such until it is challenged?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Quite the opposite...you're the one claiming that they're unconstitutional.
The burden of proof is on you.

No, you don't understand. The constitution is a limiting document. Only powers enumerated in the constitution are legitimate. The executive order is not listed under the enumerated powers of the president. If you claim the president has the power, you have to say where in the constitution that power is granted.

U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. At the minimum, most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[1] the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the Federal Government - the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[2]

Executive order (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

one more time for the moron class, This thread is not about obama using the Executive Order, it is about how he's using them. The way he's using them why even have a congress?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Executive orders are regulations issued by the President. Provided that they are based either on his constitutional powers or laws passed by Congress, they have the force of law. Federal courts will enforce them just as if they had been enacted by Congress, provided that they do not conflict with federal laws.

Read more: Executive Orders: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

Wouldn't amnesty conflict with current immigration laws?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

littledeb is not bright, but even she is not that stupid. The answer means she is drinking early in NC tonight.

I am a way smarter than you junior.

laugh junior, I know it and you are to stupid to realize it.

 

[Annie]

Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.

Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.

Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.

Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
Isn't this how dictators begin?

Hmm. Up to this point, with the possible exception of Gun running, the man hasn't donne anything impeachable.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bigreb is one of those people who are all talk. Had this been 1860 he wouldnt have done shit. he would have hid in his barn and shit his pants.

Hence why he sits at home on his computer and posts shit like this and never actually does anything.

Dude I don't have an avatar of a tranformer, you do. Kind of childlike.

child like that has a movie that just made 500 million bucks...

calling my hobby childlike when TF's are so mainstream now is pathetic.

You have no argument so you are resorting to personal attacks,

child like that has a movie that just made 500 million bucks

Just because a movie takes in a lot of money doesn't mean it's for adults, parents give money to their children so they can go see the movie.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Come on people why is congress sitting on their ass and dong nothing? obama tried to get cap and trade passed in 2009 that was a fail, so he get's his EPA thugs to create rules that will work as good as passing cap and trade.

Next he by-passes congress and uses the military in Libya with out congressional approval.

Next last year the dream act was not passed by congress but obama issues a presidential order by-passes congress again and passes the dream act.

Why is he being allowed to misuse the "presidential order"
Isn't this how dictators begin?

Hmm. Up to this point, with the possible exception of Gun running, the man hasn't donne anything impeachable.

Executive orders are regulations issued by the President. Provided that they are based either on his constitutional powers or laws passed by Congress, they have the force of law. Federal courts will enforce them just as if they had been enacted by Congress, provided that they do not conflict with federal laws.

Read more: Executive Orders: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

Wouldn't amnesty conflict with current immigration laws?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not at all. End of story.

Burden of proof is on you. Where does the constitution grant the president the power to issue an executive order?

You have no critical thinking skills if you think that you make an assertion without any evidence or proof at all then tell me the 'burden of proof is on you.' Make your best case, sonny.

liberal progressive code words

 

[idb]

I am a way smarter than you junior.

laugh junior, I know it and you are to stupid to realize it.

That's 'too' stupid bigrednec

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigrebnc has been corrected for trying to formulate an assertion without evidence then demand others refute it.

Not all Righty Extremist Fascists are anti-critical thinking skills but most here are. Their code talk means "I don't know, I don't what to know, and don't confuse me."

 

[driveby]

Wouldn't the President be presumed to represent the ultimate will of the people?
After all, he was voted into the position by The People.

When Congress didn't pass it and that is the will of the people.
obama is using the executive order as a dictator rubber stamp.

How about if a bill can't make through congress because of legislative shennigans, we put that bill up for a vote on a National level.

Majority wins.

I like that, you sure as fuck wouldn't have Obama care if that were the case......