Obama Impeachment

[teknoman2]

[Guard Dog]

Meanwhile we've got the "Enforce the Law" act that just sailed through the House.

 

Not entirely sure that this is going to go the way that those in the house want it to if you ask me.

No, the plan here is if they can get it through the Senate (possible but unlikely) the President will veto it and they get a nice little potical soundbite or two out of it for the elections. Oh look, the President refuses to obey the law, executive over reach, Obama is a dicatator, that kind of thing.

 

While I do think executive abuse and over reach are a serious problem that WILL need to be addressed before Obama leaves office, this bill is desiged to be vetoed. I do not approve of the legislature send up bills designed to fail for purely poitical purposes. That is not what congress is for and, quite honestly is an abuse of their power.

 

Besides, the Dems can torpedo this in the Senate and deprive the GOP of the soundbite. They will still get one but it won't be as effective as if Obama vetoed it. But the House GOP does love their quioxitc causes.

[Calax]

 

Meanwhile we've got the "Enforce the Law" act that just sailed through the House.

 

Not entirely sure that this is going to go the way that those in the house want it to if you ask me.

No, the plan here is if they can get it through the Senate (possible but unlikely) the President will veto it and they get a nice little potical soundbite or two out of it for the elections. Oh look, the President refuses to obey the law, executive over reach, Obama is a dicatator, that kind of thing.

 

While I do think executive abuse and over reach are a serious problem that WILL need to be addressed before Obama leaves office, this bill is desiged to be vetoed. I do not approve of the legislature send up bills designed to fail for purely poitical purposes. That is not what congress is for and, quite honestly is an abuse of their power.

 

Besides, the Dems can torpedo this in the Senate and deprive the GOP of the soundbite. They will still get one but it won't be as effective as if Obama vetoed it. But the House GOP does love their quioxitc causes.

 

Eh, the way I see it, if it did get through, they'd be to scared to use it because it'd have to end up in the supreme court to see if it's really constitutional. Also he could reverse everything and ask the house and senate to let him enforce the various laws that they voted into place by not holding up appointees.

[Meshugger]

Meanwhile we've got the "Enforce the Law" act that just sailed through the House.

 

Not entirely sure that this is going to go the way that those in the house want it to if you ask me.

 

Care to elaborate on what this is?

[Calax]

 

Meanwhile we've got the "Enforce the Law" act that just sailed through the House.

 

Not entirely sure that this is going to go the way that those in the house want it to if you ask me.

 

Care to elaborate on what this is?

 

From what I could pick up from the various news reports, it basically is a law that allows congress to sue the executive if they don't feel he's properly enforcing their laws. And it makes sure that these lawsuits would be expedited through the court system so that the republicans (should they get it through which is doubtful) would be able to quickly get their satisfaction... until a republican president is going up against a democratic legislature.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Meanwhile we've got the "Enforce the Law" act that just sailed through the House.

 

Not entirely sure that this is going to go the way that those in the house want it to if you ask me.

 

 

Care to elaborate on what this is?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4138

[Calax]

*reads the better summary from Lib Of Congress*

 

You know... if that does pass.....

 

Congress can sue itself for failing to do anything.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

*reads the better summary from Lib Of Congress*

 

You know... if that does pass.....

 

Congress can sue itself for failing to do anything.

Would be interesting to say the least.

[Meshugger]

Thanks everyone!

[Guard Dog]

As I posted above, I really doubt that bill is a serious attempt to accomplish anything. It looks like a bill designed to be either vetoed or scuttled in the senate for the pure purposes of making commercials and other kinds of political hay of it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

As I posted above, I really doubt that bill is a serious attempt to accomplish anything. It looks like a bill designed to be either vetoed or scuttled in the senate for the pure purposes of making commercials and other kinds of political hay of it.

"In 2014 Obama refused to obey the Law. Help us elect Rep. Generic Republican who will force him to be held accountable!"

 

Certainly seems like ad fodder. Nice to know congress is focusing on what is important.

[Guard Dog]

 

As I posted above, I really doubt that bill is a serious attempt to accomplish anything. It looks like a bill designed to be either vetoed or scuttled in the senate for the pure purposes of making commercials and other kinds of political hay of it.

"In 2014 Obama refused to obey the Law. Help us elect Rep. Generic Republican who will force him to be held accountable!"

 

Certainly seems like ad fodder. Nice to know congress is focusing on what is important.

 

Yup. Sad thing is they are getting my vote this year. Not because of this or because they deserve it. I'm voting Republican only because they are slightly less repulsive than Democrats IMHO.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I dunno GD, I'm probably going to vote third party if possible. Don't want to vote Republican, as most running in Texas are basing a good portion of their campaigns on opposing abortions or stoping the "Illegal invasion", which is both infeasible and pretty pathetic pandering IMO.

[Guard Dog]

I vote Libertarian whenever they have a candidate in the race. But they just have no real presence where I live. When I lived in Florida and was actually involved in politics we were a viable party there. 

[HoonDing]

I vote green this year.

[Bryy]

 I'm voting Republican only because they are slightly less repulsive than Democrats IMHO.

 

... yeah. Okay.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Once a President blatantly refuses to follow or enforce the law, he's no longer a President, he's a dictator and a tyrant.

 

Edit : Congress is trying to give themselves standing to sue when the President refuses to follow the law Congress passed and a President signed. Nothing sinister in that. Right now a President can get away with ignoring laws because in many cases no one has standing to sue, since you can't sue as a taxpayer or a citizen. Even if someone has standing, it takes years to work through the courts, meanwhile the damage is done. Thus in many cases the only remedy for a lawless President is impeachment, which is usually not practical.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[Bryy]

Once a President blatantly refuses to follow or enforce the law, he's no longer a President, he's a dictator and a tyrant.

I think it takes a little bit more than that.

[Calax]

Once a President blatantly refuses to follow or enforce the law, he's no longer a President, he's a dictator and a tyrant.

 

Edit : Congress is trying to give themselves standing to sue when the President refuses to follow the law Congress passed and a President signed. Nothing sinister in that. Right now a President can get away with ignoring laws because in many cases no one has standing to sue, since you can't sue as a taxpayer or a citizen. Even if someone has standing, it takes years to work through the courts, meanwhile the damage is done. Thus in many cases the only remedy for a lawless President is impeachment, which is usually not practical.

HA! No.

 

After all, we have laws on the books that technically an unmarried couple cannot check into a hotel as married for a 1 bed situation, and that you can be hanged for stealing cows, and that if you're found between double beds with a member of the opposite sex, you're liable to be tossed in prison.

 

And you're telling me that if a president doesn't enforce these laws he's automatically a tyrant? I mean right now Congress is blocking more laws being enforced than the president is.

[Hurlshort]

Once a President blatantly refuses to follow or enforce the law, he's no longer a President, he's a dictator and a tyrant.

 

 

With that type of criteria, good luck finding any Presidents that don't meet your definition of a tyrant.

[teknoman2]

 

Once a President blatantly refuses to follow or enforce the law, he's no longer a President, he's a dictator and a tyrant.

 

 

With that type of criteria, good luck finding any Presidents that don't meet your definition of a tyrant.

 

Democracy is a very missunderstood political system, mostly because people are afraid of responsibility. to make an analogy using a ship, in democracy, the people of the country are the captain, and the president is the navigator. the captain says "set a course for that place" and the navigator has to find the optimal route. however the way the system works, and the very wrong habit of calling the president "leader" (when he is just an easily replaceable manager) , make it that he gets to be the captain and the people become passengers of a country that becomes his personal ship, that he takes wherever he likes. there is another system, much older, that works the same way: monarchy.

so in short, the modern definition of democracy is "choose your king for the next 4 years and obey him"

Edited March 18, 2014 by teknoman2

[rjshae]

Reads the OP. *Must be a Fux News wet dream.* Snickers. Leaves.

[Bryy]

And you're telling me that if a president doesn't enforce these laws he's automatically a tyrant?

... n.... no?

 

Where did I ever say that? I... I said the exact opposite of that.

 

Is Obama rounding citizens up and having them executed in concentration camps? Is he locking foreign tourists up because he suspects them of being gay? Is he refusing food, water, and basic quality of life materials to his citizens? Is he personally overseeing every horrendous crime in America?

[Bartimaeus]

 

And you're telling me that if a president doesn't enforce these laws he's automatically a tyrant?

... n.... no?

 

Where did I ever say that? I... I said the exact opposite of that.

 

Is Obama rounding citizens up and having them executed in concentration camps? Is he locking foreign tourists up because he suspects them of being gay? Is he refusing food, water, and basic quality of life materials to his citizens? Is he personally overseeing every horrendous crime in America?

 

 

You're responding to Calax as if their post had been directed towards you.

[BruceVC]

 

 

And you're telling me that if a president doesn't enforce these laws he's automatically a tyrant?

... n.... no?

 

Where did I ever say that? I... I said the exact opposite of that.

 

Is Obama rounding citizens up and having them executed in concentration camps? Is he locking foreign tourists up because he suspects them of being gay? Is he refusing food, water, and basic quality of life materials to his citizens? Is he personally overseeing every horrendous crime in America?

 

 

You're responding to Calax as if their post had been directed towards you.

 

 

Sure, but it does get a little frustrating when we keep hearing what a terrible president Obama is and how he has destroyed the fabric of American society and how " there is a thousand years of darkness coming " when he was re-elected

 

I'm not saying Calax is saying this at all , its just the general sentiment from some people on these forums