RE: Impeachment talk (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Real0ne -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/4/2011 5:40:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

I'm not at all sure this rises to the level of impeachment. My personal, non-lawyerly guess is that 0bama0 and Holder, carefully walking the line between "defend" and "enforce" have broken no law.

But I do dream of the day when a Republican administration says: "We will not defend any legal challenge to 0bama0Care". Or, if its already dead before a Republican administration is elected, how about: " We will not defend any legal challenge to any federal gun law. We believe them to be unconstitutional".

This is a seriously dangerous course for the ship of state to tack....



well the fact that he has not been impeached should be a huge red flag that the law we think we have we really do not have or he would have been out of there long time ago.

Its a counterfeit government.

Has been since 1861





TheHeretic -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/4/2011 6:38:14 PM)

Just in my own, ever so humble opinion on these things, the President's decision to dump the DOMA defense is certainly worth discussing as a political issue. It is certainly another indicator that the Obama '12 campaign is going to be based on division and polarization, and it is certainly within the scope of executive discretion the President of the United States needs to do his job.




truckinslave -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/4/2011 7:45:28 PM)

I think it goes past a reasonable level of discretion. What's the difference between not supporting DOMA and not defending Roe?

I would, personally, love a President who did not defend Roe, and anti-gun laws, and a whole host of other legislation. I just don't think that kind of whipsaw change, potentially every election cycle, that kind of chaos, bodes well for the country.




juliadryad -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/4/2011 7:50:14 PM)

George Bush didn't really take defending the environment seriously, and debatably he and his administration lied to the American people to invade Iraq.
If people were sane they'd see this as "following right wing policies, with a mandate from the people, at least non-impeachable level of presidential discressionary power."
Obama brought in Obama care to try and fix the health system, and isn't going to defend silly anti gay laws
If people were sanethey'd see this as "following left wing policies, with a mandate from the people, at least non-impeachable level of presidential discressionary power.
Republicans obsess about conservative social engineering too much. They should focus on being fiscal conservatives.




TheHeretic -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/4/2011 8:19:00 PM)

So what mandate are we under from last November, JuliaD?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, Truck, we make it part of the campaign to send the President home to Chicago, where he can write, speak, and clean up behind Bo on the Rezco Lawn.





isoLadyOwner -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/4/2011 8:34:54 PM)

Both sides break the law. When they swap power the other side gets a pass. They are colleagues in the business of selling snake oil to the gullible masses (one sells red snake oil, the other blue snake oil).

When Republicans are handed off the baton of the Presidency they won't prosecute Obama.

Obama feeds the Corporations, Bankers, and Wall Street loyally just as the Republicans will. If by some bizarre twist of fate Obama retains power he'll continue throwing money at his Corporate donors.




Arpig -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/4/2011 8:48:49 PM)

quote:

This is a seriously dangerous course for the ship of state to tack....
Brace yourself.....I agree with you truckin, probably the first time, and quite possibly the last, but I think this is bad precedent to set. The executive branch has a responsibility to either defend the laws that are on the books, or to work to have them repealed. To simply say they will ignore challenges because they disagree with the law is a bad thing.




tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/4/2011 11:59:07 PM)

Historically, signing statements have served a largely innocuous and ceremonial
function. They are issued by the President to explain his reasons for signing a bill into
law. A signing statement thus serves to promote public awareness and discourse in
much the same way as a veto message. Controversy arises when a signing statement is
used not to extol the virtues of the bill being signed into law, but to simultaneously
condemn a provision of the new law as unconstitutional and announce the President’s
refusal to enforce the unconstitutional provision. This refusal to enforce laws represents
a controversial exercise of presidential power, but it is crucial to keep this controversy
distinct from the vehicle by which that power is announced—the signing
statement. There is nothing inherently wrong with or controversial about signing
statements. Most do not contain an assertion of presidential power. For those that do,
the signing statement itself ironically serves the laudable function of promoting accountability.
Even if one rejects the idea that the President may refuse to enforce a law,
at least the President is openly declaring what he plans to do. Put differently, if the
President is to sign a bill into law with his fingers crossed, better that they be crossed
where we can see them than that they be crossed behind his back. The controversy,
then, is not over the use of signing statements but over the assertion of a non-enforcement
power that is sometimes declared in signing statements.
The controversy over whether the President has the authority to refuse to enforce
laws he views as unconstitutional has been sharpened during the current administration
by the frequency with which it has asserted this authority. In a recent and important
study, political science Professor Phillip J. Cooper has analyzed the exercise of this nonenforcement
power by the Bush Administration. He found that President Bush has deployed
the non-enforcement power with unprecedented breadth and frequency—over
500 times during the first term alone. The figures from the study were updated in an
excellent article by Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage, which puts the number at
over 750, which is more than all of President Bush’s predecessors combined. As a result,
a front page article in USA Today cataloging the ways in which the Bush Administration
has sought to expand presidential power listed presidential non-enforcement (using the
label “signing statements”) first.


http://www.acslaw.org/files/Kinkopf-Signing%20Statements-Jun%202006-Advance%20Vol%201.pdf

Boston Globe Washington correspondent Charles Savage was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting today for series of articles uncovering the Bush Administration's widespread practice of using "presidential signing statements" to circumvent hundreds of existing laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the president himself.

The articles by Savage brought national attention to a little-known prerogative of presidential power and resulted in Senate oversight hearings and a declaration from the American Bar Association said that such actions were "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers."

Among the laws Bush has said he can ignore include those banning torture, new safeguards in the Patriot Act, various military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, "whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

In his articles, Savage also revealed other behind-the-scenes tactics aimed at expanding presidential power, including the administration's use of political appointees to hire lawyers for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.


https://bostonglobe.com/aboutus/pressrel/release.aspx?id=7552

Since the original article by Savage is restricted to subscribers or those who pay...and frankly, Im not going to do either...

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles/2006/bush_signing_statements.php




Pleasurepleasing -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/5/2011 12:41:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Just in my own, ever so humble opinion on these things, the President's decision to dump the DOMA defense is certainly worth discussing as a political issue. It is certainly another indicator that the Obama '12 campaign is going to be based on division and polarization, and it is certainly within the scope of executive discretion the President of the United States needs to do his job.

That's a stretch on how Obama's decision here makes it an indicator at all about 2012. All candidates now try to win by division and polarization...ask Karl Rove.




Arpig -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/5/2011 12:44:27 AM)

ok, not much of a precedent being set. I was not aware that Presidents could choose what laws to enforce like that. Its a weird system you guys have down south




tazzygirl -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/5/2011 12:48:35 AM)

Seems its been going on for a long time... well before Bush. I only included the article about Bush to show that his added uo to more than all the previous administrations... at the 700+ level... not the 500+ one.




DomKen -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/5/2011 5:46:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Just in my own, ever so humble opinion on these things, the President's decision to dump the DOMA defense is certainly worth discussing as a political issue. It is certainly another indicator that the Obama '12 campaign is going to be based on division and polarization, and it is certainly within the scope of executive discretion the President of the United States needs to do his job.

Yeah its all about division and polarization. Defending a law meant to permanently make some people 2nd class citizens isn't fundamentally contrary to the founding principles of this nation.

Or maybe this was the right and economical thing to do since the law is a clear violation of 14th amendment and would be overturned eventually.




joether -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/5/2011 6:56:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Just in my own, ever so humble opinion on these things, the President's decision to dump the DOMA defense is certainly worth discussing as a political issue. It is certainly another indicator that the Obama '12 campaign is going to be based on division and polarization, and it is certainly within the scope of executive discretion the President of the United States needs to do his job.

Yeah its all about division and polarization. Defending a law meant to permanently make some people 2nd class citizens isn't fundamentally contrary to the founding principles of this nation.

Or maybe this was the right and economical thing to do since the law is a clear violation of 14th amendment and would be overturned eventually.


DOMA was silly concept from the very start. It targeted a whole segment of people, who just wanted to live their lives in peace and be happy. Some of those people are on collarme.com, and some I would imagine, venture on to these very forums. If 'Defense of Marriage Act' REALLY defended marriage, it would have made divorces all but impossible to take place. Last I checked THE FACTS, divorces are the reason more marriages end, then whether two lesbians get married.

Frankly if you judge your marriage on the concept that gay people can marry; then your marriage is shallow and will eventually disolve soon enough.

DOMA was simply hatred from conservatives towards gays, lesbians, transgender US Citizens. It really is disappointing people just can not admit to themselves, that this is what the bill did/does to a whole segment of our nation. President Obama did what he did, for the best of the nation. I do however, get a chuckle when I hear people rant against Mr. Obama with regards to DOMA. Often, they flattly ignore/ignorant that former President George W. Bush, allowed the Assault Weapons Ban to expire on his watch.

Which do you think is worst for the nation? A tenth of the population allowed to marry/divorces, who share the same rights and privalages as the other ninty percentage already do? Or allowing more bloodshed on our nation's streets?




Sanity -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/5/2011 7:16:59 AM)


Of course, it will only be the presidents prerogative to ignore the  law as long as its a Dem in office. The minute a more centrist president assumes the presidency such an offense will immediately become grounds  for impeachment, or worse.




mnottertail -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/5/2011 8:01:31 AM)

Hardly follows any sort of logic.

1 Republican (democrat, sort of ambiguous)  (Johnson)
1 Democrat (socialist, marxist, communist) but very good at soliciting blowjobs (Clinton)

Both wiped their ass with the impeachment.

And you won't get a centrist, because Sam Nunn ain't gonna run. 




truckinslave -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/5/2011 10:25:32 AM)

Thanks for the warning, Arpig [:D] The doc said it was probably a good thing the smelling salts were handy.




flcouple2009 -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/5/2011 11:01:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Just in my own, ever so humble opinion on these things, the President's decision to dump the DOMA defense is certainly worth discussing as a political issue. It is certainly another indicator that the Obama '12 campaign is going to be based on division and polarization, and it is certainly within the scope of executive discretion the President of the United States needs to do his job.


How about the DOMA was just a dumb ass idea in the first place.

It was the Republicans pandering to the religious right instead of paying attention to things those unimportant details like the economy.




DomKen -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/5/2011 12:29:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Of course, it will only be the presidents prerogative to ignore the  law as long as its a Dem in office. The minute a more centrist president assumes the presidency such an offense will immediately become grounds  for impeachment, or worse.

No Democratic controlled House has ever pased articles of impeachment. 2 Republic controlled Houses have and both were judged by history to have been politically motivated.

Also the President is not ignoring the law, it remains in force, he has imply decided to not spend any more money defending the constitutionality of the law.




DomKen -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/5/2011 12:34:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Hardly follows any sort of logic.

1 Republican (democrat, sort of ambiguous)  (Johnson)
1 Democrat (socialist, marxist, communist) but very good at soliciting blowjobs (Clinton)

Both wiped their ass with the impeachment.

And you won't get a centrist, because Sam Nunn ain't gonna run. 

Just to be clear Andrew Johnson was a Democrat who ran on the National Union ticket with Lincoln. The Republicans in Congress passed the unconstitutional tenure in office act to keep Johnson from appointing his own cabinet and running reconstruction accolrdingly.




eihwaz -> RE: Impeachment talk (3/5/2011 8:02:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig
ok, not much of a precedent being set. I was not aware that Presidents could choose what laws to enforce like that. Its a weird system you guys have down south

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Of course, it will only be the presidents prerogative to ignore the  law as long as its a Dem in office.

Although the administration has decided not to defend the law's constitutionality, it has stated its intention to continue to enforce the law.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875