Obama Impeachment

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

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

 

Well I don't know about the destroyed fabric of society or the thousand years of darkness but I do have little positive to say about his Presidency. As you know my two biggest concerns as far as the federal government goes are fiscal responsibility (little argument he has done poorly there) and personal liberty (in other words adhering to the Constitution) and he has taken the worst transgressions of the Bush Administration and doubled down on them. I, for one, can't wait for 2017 so we can see the back of him for good and all.. My only hope is the Dems lose both houses of Congress this year so he will be safely neutralized for the rest of his term. 

 

Now I know I post a lot of things with tongue firmly in cheek but the truth is I have nothing against the man personally but he does not value freedom and liberty as I do and his vision of what the US should be is not mine.  

[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

 

Well I don't know about the destroyed fabric of society or the thousand years of darkness but I do have little positive to say about his Presidency. As you know my two biggest concerns as far as the federal government goes are fiscal responsibility (little argument he has done poorly there) and personal liberty (in other words adhering to the Constitution) and he has taken the worst transgressions of the Bush Administration and doubled down on them. I, for one, can't wait for 2017 so we can see the back of him for good and all.. My only hope is the Dems lose both houses of Congress this year so he will be safely neutralized for the rest of his term. 

 

Now I know I post a lot of things with tongue firmly in cheek but the truth is I have nothing against the man personally but he does not value freedom and liberty as I do and his vision of what the US should be is not mine.  

 

 

Thats a reasonable perspective GB and you always take the time to explain your dislike of Obama which even though I may not agree with I do respect your view

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I voted for Obama so we could get 1000 years of darkness. I'm disappointed.

[Azdeus]

I voted for Obama so we could get 1000 years of darkness. I'm disappointed.

 

That's the most racist thing I've ever heard!

[BruceVC]

I voted for Obama so we could get 1000 years of darkness. I'm disappointed.

 

 

You remember that Chuck Norris video..

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/chuck-norris-obama-reelection-1000-years-of-darkness-mitt-romney_n_1854309.html

Edited March 19, 2014 by BruceVC

[Meshugger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIMnIh10po0

 

You go girl!

Edited March 19, 2014 by Meshugger

[Calax]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIMnIh10po0

 

You go girl!

It's really easy to hate somebody when you're willing to see things from a perspective that's created to make you dislike them. Especially a second term president (in these media-run days).

 

And before anyone jumps on my for my track record of disliking bush. I disliked him since I was in High School (IE he was elected the first time), and even if I don't really follow some of Obama's decisions I think McCain would have made a worse president.

 

Also, it should be pointed out that while we may be disappointed in Obama, it's not like things would have overall gone in a significantly different direction if one of his two competitors was in charge. Maybe Gay Marriage wouldn't have been protected by the government (Romney's church was what pushed through the Prop 8 in California), and maybe Don't Ask Don't Tell wouldn't have been repealed (McCain came out against it), but ultimately a lot of the same stuff would have happened.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Calax

[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.

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?

 

First these laws are not Federal, second things like hanging for rustling have probably already been ruled unconstitutional. It's true laws can become obsolete if the prosecutors don't charge anybody for a long enough time, because then defendant can claim selective prosecution. But you still can't legally announce you'll simply ignore the law. And the laws Obama is ignoring are quite current and relevant, and he's simply overruling them for his own ideological and political reasons. And yes, a ruler who's not bound by law is a tyrant, that's pretty much the definition.

 

 

I mean right now Congress is blocking more laws being enforced than the president is.

Huh? How can they block a law?

 

 

 

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.

 

Sure, let's just accept it. Why do we need to be a nation of laws anyway? Edited March 20, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

You go girl!

Would bang, probably wouldn't call back.

[BruceVC]

 

 

You go girl!

Would bang, probably wouldn't call back.

 

 

 

She is hot but I found it painful watching with her utter lack of understanding of politics or her perception of all the terrible things Obama has done.

[Valsuelm]

 

She is hot but I found it painful watching with her utter lack of understanding of politics or her perception of all the terrible things Obama has done.

 

 

How do you watch such a video and come away thinking she has an 'utter lack of understanding'? What exactly does she say that you think indicates she doesn't understand, and what is it she doesn't understand? Enlighten me, as I'm finding it hard to not think most of what she said and presented flew right over your head.

 

That girl is no sage by any means, but she's a helluva lot more with it than most. More awake than most of the folks in this forum, Obama likers or dislikers both. You, and most of the people here could learn a lot from her.

 

Edit: Congrats on watching a video! I'm glad you did. It's a start!

Edited March 20, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Bryy]

Why do we need to be a nation of laws anyway?

 

Well, hello, Mr. Straw Man.

 

Let me introduce you to fire.

[BruceVC]

 

 

She is hot but I found it painful watching with her utter lack of understanding of politics or her perception of all the terrible things Obama has done.

 

 

How do you watch such a video and come away thinking she has an 'utter lack of understanding'? What exactly does she say that you think indicates she doesn't understand, and what is it she doesn't understand? Enlighten me, as I'm finding it hard to not think most of what she said and presented flew right over your head.

 

That girl is no sage by any means, but she's a helluva lot more with it than most. More awake than most of the folks in this forum, Obama likers or dislikers both. You, and most of the people here could learn a lot from her.

 

Edit: Congrats on watching a video! I'm glad you did. It's a start!

 

 

I do watch some video's but not around serious political discussion because of the lack of valid information and information you can confirm...but  lets see why she has no clue what she is talking about. I'll just focus on some of what she said

 

• she says "Obama shouldn't have bailed out the banks". Despite the fact that the USA banking institutions have recovered from 2008 and almost all economic experts agree that intervention from the federal government was necessary to prevent a global depression
• She is convinced of the failure of Obamacare, yet we still need to see the result
• She says Obama expanded Bush's wars, yet the USA is out of Iraq and has a deadline in Afghanistan. Obama has done a lot to reduce the military investment in various conflicts around the world  and has avoided starting other wars, like in Syria and Iran
• She thinks killing known Al-Qaeda operatives is wrong
• She thinks people like Snowden are heroes, despite the fact he comprised and still does the security of the USA
• She thinks that Obama personally doesn't want to close Guantanamo Bay
• Where in the USA have protests been criminalized ?
• She says that Obama and his fellow politicians spread hate and she would rather spread love and not restrict people from achieving there potential. What does this even mean, where is the substance in what she is saying

 

So yes in summary she has no clue what she is talking about and this video is just an uninformed attempt to get attention and its an epic fail

Edited March 20, 2014 by BruceVC

[Calax]

 

 

First these laws are not Federal, second things like hanging for rustling have probably already been ruled unconstitutional. It's true laws can become obsolete if the prosecutors don't charge anybody for a long enough time, because then defendant can claim selective prosecution. But you still can't legally announce you'll simply ignore the law. And the laws Obama is ignoring are quite current and relevant, and he's simply overruling them for his own ideological and political reasons. And yes, a ruler who's not bound by law is a tyrant, that's pretty much the definition.

 

 

I mean right now Congress is blocking more laws being enforced than the president is.

Huh? How can they block a law?

 

Appointments for the organizations that would carry out the laws. The Consumer Protection Bureau was set up in the aftermath of 2008's collapse but most of it's provisions were neutered or not implemented as congress systematically defunded it and refused to allow appointment of it's director, thus they aren't allowing the law to be enforced. Hell the entire schtick about Obamacare is a perfect example, IT IS LAW, and has been declared constitutional, and yet there have been constant fights by the congress and governors to ignore or circumvent the law in the same way Obama has decided to go around a congress that (almost literally) does nothing. 

[Valsuelm]

 

I do watch some video's but not around serious political discussion because of the lack of valid information and information you can confirm...but  lets see why she has no clue what she is talking about. I'll just focus on some of what she said

 

• she says "Obama shouldn't have bailed out the banks". Despite the fact that the USA banking institutions have recovered from 2008 and almost all economic experts agree that intervention from the federal government was necessary to prevent a global depression
• She is convinced of the failure of Obamacare, yet we still need to see the result
• She says Obama expanded Bush's wars, yet the USA is out of Iraq and has a deadline in Afghanistan. Obama has done a lot to reduce the military investment in various conflicts around the world  and has avoided starting other wars, like in Syria and Iran
• She thinks killing known Al-Qaeda operatives is wrong
• She thinks people like Snowden are heroes, despite the fact he comprised and still does the security of the USA
• She thinks that Obama personally doesn't want to close Guantanamo Bay
• Where in the USA have protests been criminalized ?
• She says that Obama and his fellow politicians spread hate and she would rather spread love and not restrict people from achieving there potential. What does this even mean, where is the substance in what she is saying

 

So yes in summary she has no clue what she is talking about and this video is just an uninformed attempt to get attention and its an epic fail

 

 

Ooof.

 

I feel like a physics professor that got something from a student that says F= Emc2 / a2 + b2 and 2 + 2 = 7. You know some things, but they're quite jumbled and more than a bit off.

 

As far as physics goes: E=mc2, F=MA, a2 + b2 = c2, and 2 + 2 = 4. As far as what you wrote above goes, that will take quiet a bit more.

 

All but the last two of your bullet points could easily have a much longer post than this response fully disputing what you think many times over. The last two, easily could have long posts explaining to you in detail what's what about them. I don't have time for that, but I'll see what I can do in brief in the next day or two. In the meantime, do us all a favor and go read the U.S. Constitution in it's entirety, the Federalist papers, Anti-Federalist papers, and somehow become more familiar with U.S. history than you are, in particular what lead up to the American Revolution, why what's in the Constitution is there, and why it's important. Doing that should shed some light on some of what you're wrong about above, and why and under what circumstances Obama could and should be impeached, tried, and convicted. Because like him or not, he has purposefully broken a number of laws, Constitutional laws, and big ones. Thinking or saying otherwise is either naivety, ignorance, or delusion.

 

In very short though, the girl is mostly right about what you think she's wrong about. She, an American, has a bit better understanding of what's gone on in her nation that you do. Not to say plenty of Americans also don't have a clue what goes on, many don't, and some foreigners have more than a good idea of what goes on here, you're just not one of them. Anon. I'll follow up later.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Calax]

Vals, you confuse me. Nothing Obama has actually done is cause for impeachment. He may be captain "blow you up with automated killers" but he still hasn't flat out widened any war. If he had we'd be in Pakistan right now trying to figure out how we're going to get out.

 

Bruce is entirely correct about the banks. Although that was Bush who established the bailing them out. The follow up was to mired in politics to actually do what was necessary.

 

The girl in the video is a bit delusional, but part of that is because media coverage during the run for 2012 was that everything in 2008 (the election year, not the year Obama actually had any presidential power) was slowly but surely shifted to Obama's presidency. 

 

And, to be fair, you haven't actually refuted anything that Bruce mentioned, Just said that he's not american and should totally read these documents that are related to the foundation of America. If you're gonna say that there's something "fundamentally wrong" with what he's saying POINT IT OUT AND PROVE IT! Don't just sit in the land of generalities and nationalistic superiority, because South Africas constitution is FAR more open and protects things far better than our own by virtue of having been written within the last Century.

[licketysplit]

 

 

You go girl!

Would bang, probably wouldn't call back.

 

 

Wait till another plane crashes into a building, and all the NSA is taking over 'Murica bullsh*t vanishes in a flash. So far it's terrorists - 1000. NSA destroying 'Merica - 0. The truth is, terrorism is what's had an impact, despite what this mole Snowden wants us to think. 

[BruceVC]

 

 

I do watch some video's but not around serious political discussion because of the lack of valid information and information you can confirm...but  lets see why she has no clue what she is talking about. I'll just focus on some of what she said

 

• she says "Obama shouldn't have bailed out the banks". Despite the fact that the USA banking institutions have recovered from 2008 and almost all economic experts agree that intervention from the federal government was necessary to prevent a global depression
• She is convinced of the failure of Obamacare, yet we still need to see the result
• She says Obama expanded Bush's wars, yet the USA is out of Iraq and has a deadline in Afghanistan. Obama has done a lot to reduce the military investment in various conflicts around the world  and has avoided starting other wars, like in Syria and Iran
• She thinks killing known Al-Qaeda operatives is wrong
• She thinks people like Snowden are heroes, despite the fact he comprised and still does the security of the USA
• She thinks that Obama personally doesn't want to close Guantanamo Bay
• Where in the USA have protests been criminalized ?
• She says that Obama and his fellow politicians spread hate and she would rather spread love and not restrict people from achieving there potential. What does this even mean, where is the substance in what she is saying

 

So yes in summary she has no clue what she is talking about and this video is just an uninformed attempt to get attention and its an epic fail

 

 

Ooof.

 

I feel like a physics professor that got something from a student that says F= Emc2 / a2 + b2 and 2 + 2 = 7. You know some things, but they're quite jumbled and more than a bit off.

 

As far as physics goes: E=mc2, F=MA, a2 + b2 = c2, and 2 + 2 = 4. As far as what you wrote above goes, that will take quiet a bit more.

 

All but the last two of your bullet points could easily have a much longer post than this response fully disputing what you think many times over. The last two, easily could have long posts explaining to you in detail what's what about them. I don't have time for that, but I'll see what I can do in brief in the next day or two. In the meantime, do us all a favor and go read the U.S. Constitution in it's entirety, the Federalist papers, Anti-Federalist papers, and somehow become more familiar with U.S. history than you are, in particular what lead up to the American Revolution, why what's in the Constitution is there, and why it's important. Doing that should shed some light on some of what you're wrong about above, and why and under what circumstances Obama could and should be impeached, tried, and convicted. Because like him or not, he has purposefully broken a number of laws, Constitutional laws, and big ones. Thinking or saying otherwise is either naivety, ignorance, or delusion.

 

In very short though, the girl is mostly right about what you think she's wrong about. She, an American, has a bit better understanding of what's gone on in her nation that you do. Not to say plenty of Americans also don't have a clue what goes on, many don't, and some foreigners have more than a good idea of what goes on here, you're just not one of them. Anon. I'll follow up later.

 

 

So because I'm not an American I automatically don't know anything about the strengths and weaknesses of the Obama presidency, thats a new low even for you. But irrelevant to what I said. Her diatribe about why Obama has been the worst president in the history of the USA consists of a few truths, subjective opinions and factual untruths.

 

You now need to go through each of my points and explain why I am so misinformed and why I need to read the American constitution in order to make what I posted relevant . Good luck with trying to redefine the truth in your book

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

She is hot but I found it painful watching with her utter lack of understanding of politics or her perception of all the terrible things Obama has done.

 

 

How do you watch such a video and come away thinking she has an 'utter lack of understanding'? What exactly does she say that you think indicates she doesn't understand, and what is it she doesn't understand? Enlighten me, as I'm finding it hard to not think most of what she said and presented flew right over your head.

 

That girl is no sage by any means, but she's a helluva lot more with it than most. More awake than most of the folks in this forum, Obama likers or dislikers both. You, and most of the people here could learn a lot from her.

 

Edit: Congrats on watching a video! I'm glad you did. It's a start!

 

 

I do watch some video's but not around serious political discussion because of the lack of valid information and information you can confirm...but  lets see why she has no clue what she is talking about. I'll just focus on some of what she said

 

• she says "Obama shouldn't have bailed out the banks". Despite the fact that the USA banking institutions have recovered from 2008 and almost all economic experts agree that intervention from the federal government was necessary to prevent a global depression
• She is convinced of the failure of Obamacare, yet we still need to see the result
• She says Obama expanded Bush's wars, yet the USA is out of Iraq and has a deadline in Afghanistan. Obama has done a lot to reduce the military investment in various conflicts around the world  and has avoided starting other wars, like in Syria and Iran
• She thinks killing known Al-Qaeda operatives is wrong
• She thinks people like Snowden are heroes, despite the fact he comprised and still does the security of the USA
• She thinks that Obama personally doesn't want to close Guantanamo Bay
• Where in the USA have protests been criminalized ?
• She says that Obama and his fellow politicians spread hate and she would rather spread love and not restrict people from achieving there potential. What does this even mean, where is the substance in what she is saying

 

So yes in summary she has no clue what she is talking about and this video is just an uninformed attempt to get attention and its an epic fail

 

 

Allow me to retort, point by point:

 

- Her point was about his revolving door policy in government on people that caused the collapse in the first place. Also, what message does that send to the youth? That justice does not apply to everyone? That it is ok to gamble with the biggest assets because you are too big to fail? Sounds like a partnership between the state and the capital to me, like corporatism, kinda like....fascism.

 

- She said the the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry benefitted from Obamacare, not the avarage american citizen. Sounds like a partnership between the state and the capital to me, like corporatism, kinda like....fascism.

 

- She meant that the wars changed, but the policy did not. People didn't vote in Obama because of him being pro-war (War against terrorism). Continuing the war-machine? Sounds kinda like....fascism.

 

- The said killed american without due process. The pictures in the video showed an american and his son, who died from a drone strike, which in turn was approved by Obama. Not interested in due process? Sounds kinda like...fascism.

 

- She pointed out that Obama opposed going after whistleblowers before getting elected and then doing 180 turn once in office. Silencing whistleblowers that point out that the government effectively spies on its citizens? Sounds kinda like....fascism.

 

- Moot point in politics. No cares what you personally believe if you do not do anything about. Also, this implies that Obama is politically incompetent

 

- That was a hyperbole, since it has not been tried in court yet as far as i know. It probably refers to http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/restricted.asp

 

- "Spreading the hate" refers to the same old policy and rhetoric used in previous administration.

 

 

Why do you agree with such fascist tendencies Bruce? Why do you want to limit free speech? Why can't you be more like the guy in the link below?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9buEI8SgwU

Edited March 20, 2014 by Meshugger

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Why do you want to limit free speech

 ..you funny Meshugger

[Meshugger]

I'm not funny. I'm me.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

 

First these laws are not Federal, second things like hanging for rustling have probably already been ruled unconstitutional. It's true laws can become obsolete if the prosecutors don't charge anybody for a long enough time, because then defendant can claim selective prosecution. But you still can't legally announce you'll simply ignore the law. And the laws Obama is ignoring are quite current and relevant, and he's simply overruling them for his own ideological and political reasons. And yes, a ruler who's not bound by law is a tyrant, that's pretty much the definition.

 

 

I mean right now Congress is blocking more laws being enforced than the president is.

Huh? How can they block a law?

 

Appointments for the organizations that would carry out the laws. The Consumer Protection Bureau was set up in the aftermath of 2008's collapse but most of it's provisions were neutered or not implemented as congress systematically defunded it and refused to allow appointment of it's director, thus they aren't allowing the law to be enforced. Hell the entire schtick about Obamacare is a perfect example, IT IS LAW, and has been declared constitutional, and yet there have been constant fights by the congress and governors to ignore or circumvent the law in the same way Obama has decided to go around a congress that (almost literally) does nothing.

 

Congress has that power though, the law said it wouldn't be in effect until Congress confirms someone, so they simply refused to confirm, which is their Constitutional power, and the Constitution trumps any other law. Same with funding, they are never under obligation to fund anything that hasn't already been funded, another Constitutional power. It's perfectly legitimate to fight a law by any legal means, but not if you're the one charged with enforcing it. The governors have not ignored Obamacare, they acted strictly legally with discretion given to them by the law and the courts, so either you're not well informed here or purposely misleading. Obama does not have the right to go around Congress, only Congress has the power to change or repeal laws.

[Calax]

 

 

 

 

First these laws are not Federal, second things like hanging for rustling have probably already been ruled unconstitutional. It's true laws can become obsolete if the prosecutors don't charge anybody for a long enough time, because then defendant can claim selective prosecution. But you still can't legally announce you'll simply ignore the law. And the laws Obama is ignoring are quite current and relevant, and he's simply overruling them for his own ideological and political reasons. And yes, a ruler who's not bound by law is a tyrant, that's pretty much the definition.

 

 

I mean right now Congress is blocking more laws being enforced than the president is.

Huh? How can they block a law?

 

Appointments for the organizations that would carry out the laws. The Consumer Protection Bureau was set up in the aftermath of 2008's collapse but most of it's provisions were neutered or not implemented as congress systematically defunded it and refused to allow appointment of it's director, thus they aren't allowing the law to be enforced. Hell the entire schtick about Obamacare is a perfect example, IT IS LAW, and has been declared constitutional, and yet there have been constant fights by the congress and governors to ignore or circumvent the law in the same way Obama has decided to go around a congress that (almost literally) does nothing.

 

Congress has that power though, the law said it wouldn't be in effect until Congress confirms someone, so they simply refused to confirm, which is their Constitutional power, and the Constitution trumps any other law. Same with funding, they are never under obligation to fund anything that hasn't already been funded, another Constitutional power. It's perfectly legitimate to fight a law by any legal means, but not if you're the one charged with enforcing it. The governors have not ignored Obamacare, they acted strictly legally with discretion given to them by the law and the courts, so either you're not well informed here or purposely misleading. Obama does not have the right to go around Congress, only Congress has the power to change or repeal laws.

 

Executive Orders are constitutional

 

To Blatantly steal from Wikipedia:

 

 

There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders. The term "executive power" Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, refers to the title of President as the executive. He is instructed therein by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5, else he faces impeachment. 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,^[2] the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. 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.^[3]

An executive order of the President must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the President specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the President. ^[4]

Other types of orders issued by "the Executive" are generally classified simply as administrative orders rather than Executive Orders.^[5] These are typically the following:

• Presidential determination
• Presidential memorandum
• Presidential notice

Presidential directives are considered a form of executive order issued by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of a major agency or department found within the Executive branch of government.^[6] Some types of Directives are the following:

• National Security Directives
• Homeland Security Presidential Directives (presidential decision directives)

If he feels his use of executive power to go around the Congress is in "taking care of the law", then it's up to a judiciary to overturn it, and you better just buckle in for the ride, because he's using the legal powers that are given to him to ensure that America (a nation that hasn't had a budget for quite a while because of the idiocy of congress) continues to progress rather than stay stagnant.

 

Or would you prefer to be Japan Circa 1869?

 

Oh and I like this bit from later on in that article 

 

 

Congress was able to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it during the period of 1939 to 1983 until the Supreme Court ruled inImmigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha that Congress may not promulgate a statute granting to itself a legislative veto over actions of the executive branch inconsistent with the bicameralism principle and Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution

 

So yeah, Executive Orders are totally legal, and Congress can't veto them, only the court system can.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Calax

[obyknven]

[Bryy]

Judging by what Fox News has been saying about him, yup.

 

When you are saying on national TV that Putin is a better leader than Obama because he wants to kill everyone and Obama doesn't...