Interview with Bill Daley.

[1480]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67043.html


“On the domestic side, both Democrats and Republicans have really made it very difficult for the president to be anything like a chief executive,” Daley says. “This has led to a kind of frustration.”
The president’s solution? “Let’s figure out what we can do [without Congress] and push the envelope on some of these things,” Daley says.


Pretty interesting read from the POTUS chief of staff.

[nikimcbee]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67043.html


“On the domestic side, both Democrats and Republicans have really made it very difficult for the president to be anything like a chief executive,” Daley says. “This has led to a kind of frustration.”
The president’s solution? “Let’s figure out what we can do [without Congress] and push the envelope on some of these things,” Daley says.


Pretty interesting read from the POTUS chief of staff.

I think that's the idea of how our gubmint is supposed to work.

[1480]

I hope to God that he is not just realizing this.

[nikimcbee]

The thing that frightens me the most is that a lot supporters have no problem with him doing this.:o

Coz you know if Bush did this, people would be screaming for impeachment.:dead:

I'm more affraid of his die-hard supporters.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm more affraid of his die-hard supporters.
That's the problem I've always had - the supporters. Any supporters. The ones who support their own guy no matter what. "He may be just as much of a jerk as the last guy, but we hated that guy because he was their total jerk, and we'll defend our guy because he's our total jerk!"

Clinton's supporters during the Monica thing, especially the feminists. Bush's supporters for the Patriot Act. We had people here who thought that was a great idea, but during the previous administration had bumper stickers saying "I love my country, but I don't trust the government".

[1480]

I will admit up front that I lean way right. My problem with our current Commander in Chief is: he appears to not know a thing about the US constitution. Bill Clinton at least understood that. Last I checked, he was the last two term President from the Democratic party. He understood the meaning of moderation. Obama either does not or he does not seem to care about it.

[Sailor Steve]

I will admit up front that I lean way right. My problem with our current Commander in Chief is: he appears to not know a thing about the US constitution.
Which is odd because he spent twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching Constitutional Law.

Bill Clinton at least understood that. Last I checked, he was the last two term President from the Democratic party.
Then again he was the last president from the Democratic party period.

He understood the meaning of moderation. Obama either does not or he does not seem to care about it.
I'm not sure what Obama does or doesn't understand. In fact I'm not sure what he's doing at any given moment, and I'm not sure he does either. If he doesn't, we may be in trouble. If he does, we may be in even more trouble.

[1480]

Which is odd because he spent twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching Constitutional Law.
He is of the camp that the Constitution is a living document. The same U of C that employs a professor/domestic terrorist W. Ayers.

Then again he was the last president from the Democratic party period.
True, but Carter was the one before him. How did that work out....

I'm not sure what Obama does or doesn't understand. In fact I'm not sure what he's doing at any given moment, and I'm not sure he does either. If he doesn't, we may be in trouble. If he does, we may be in even more trouble.This is where we agree. Either way, the man could be potentially dangerous to all who enjoy the liberties set forth by said document.

[nikimcbee]

I will admit up front that I lean way right. My problem with our current Commander in Chief is: he appears to not know a thing about the US constitution. Bill Clinton at least understood that. Last I checked, he was the last two term President from the Democratic party. He understood the meaning of moderation. Obama either does not or he does not seem to care about it.

I've heard the other statement; He's either totally incompetent at leading/managing, or he knows exactly what he's doing and it's all by design.:o

I don't trust him because he comes out of the corrupt Chicago democrat political cesspool. Not so much that he's a democrat, but a Chicago democrat. Those guys are rotten to the core.

[Sailor Steve]

He is of the camp that the Constitution is a living document.
So was Jefferson. I love Jefferson, but he did have some "interesting" ideas.

The same U of C that employs a professor/domestic terrorist W. Ayers.
Fascinating. When Obama first proposed some of his changes, my first thought was "Wait. This guy's a professor of history? Constitutional history?

This is where we agree. Either way, the man could be potentially dangerous to all who enjoy the liberties set forth by said document.
True, but then I feel that way about most people in power. I don't trust any of them.

[1480]

So was Jefferson. I love Jefferson, but he did have some "interesting" ideas.


Fascinating. When Obama first proposed some of his changes, my first thought was "Wait. This guy's a professor of history? Constitutional history?


True, but then I feel that way about most people in power. I don't trust any of them.

I give Jefferson a bit of a break because the constitution was pretty new when he was around. Obama does not have that luxury.


And if you want to look up some of my posts during the election, you will see my number 1 reason for not wanting him in office was the fact he was from Chicago.

[1480]

Google Annaberg challenge Chicago......:salute:

[Sailor Steve]

I give Jefferson a bit of a break because the constitution was pretty new when he was around. Obama does not have that luxury.
Jefferson said that he thought that every generation should throw it out and write a new one every 19 years. You can't get much more 'living' than that. :D
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html

[1480]

You are absolutely correct. Could not find that statement. :salute:

[Platapus]

I will admit up front that I lean way right. My problem with our current Commander in Chief is: he appears to not know a thing about the US constitution. Bill Clinton at least understood that. Last I checked, he was the last two term President from the Democratic party. He understood the meaning of moderation. Obama either does not or he does not seem to care about it.

Can you cite an example of something that Obama did that was in violation of the constitution?

Not something you didn't like or something that goes against your interpretation of the constitution.

But something that he did that violated the constitution. If he is as bad as you think, this should be an easy question.

I am sure the Clerk of the Supreme Court would be interested in learning about this.

[1480]

Can you cite an example of something that Obama did that was in violation of the constitution?

Not something you didn't like or something that goes against your interpretation of the constitution.

But something that he did that violated the constitution. If he is as bad as you think, this should be an easy question.

I am sure the Clerk of the Supreme Court would be interested in learning about this.

Glad you asked:

ATLANTA — A federal appeals panel struck down the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care overhaul Friday, moving the argument over whether Americans can be required to buy health insurance a step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded Congress overstepped its authority when lawmakers passed the so-called individual mandate, the first such decision by a federal appeals court. It's a stinging blow to Obama's signature legislative achievement, as most experts agree the requirement that Americans carry health insurance – or face tax penalties – is the foundation for other parts of the law.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/12/health-care-law-individual-mandate-ruling_n_925507.html



Since a bill needs to be signed by the president into law, he has a direct impact of violating the constitution. Until the SCOTUS looks into the matter, it is unconstitutional.



Anwar al-Awlaki, while I agree that he needed to take a dirt nap, violating his 5th amendment right to due process was a bit of an over-reach. If I remember correctly, it was Obama who signed that order.

[Platapus]

Good point. It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court decides on this. I think there are viable arguments on both sides on this.

This will be one case I will be following with great interest as it may set a precedent that will have wide implications (good and bad).

I hope the SCOTUS takes their time on this one.

[1480]

Good point. It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court decides on this. I think there are viable arguments on both sides on this.

This will be one case I will be following with great interest as it may set a precedent that will have wide implications (good and bad).

I hope the SCOTUS takes their time on this one.

It's effing scarey brother. Just to get something straight, there are quite a few things that I agree with that are written into it. I also did not like how it was ramrodded down our throats, but that is an opinion not based in fact.:)

That being said, people are being FORCED to buy a service from a private company by decree of the government. Before I get ripped to shreds by my fellow brothers and sisters, let me clarify the word forced: You must do x otherwise y will happen to you. That is force, whether it's physical, financial, or emotional.

What blows my lid to high heaven is using the commerce clause as the justification.:damn:

And it was on 02NOV2011 at 1721hrs, Platapus and myself agreed on something.:yeah: