Obama gets more and more dangerous..

[AVGWarhawk]

I used to be a left winger but now im a NON-winger

I'm in the south 40 wing.

You must mean the inadequate jobs bill the Repugs have been holding off and threatening to fillibuster.

The new bill raises taxes. Does not cut enough government spending. Repubs said they do not want to raise taxes. They are standing to that statement.

It may not be a good bill, but it is way more than the repugs have tried...

Not true, repubs made a bill. No one showed up to read it apparently.

I am not an Obama fan, but at least he is trying...

So is everyone else. However, it would seem both parties have no respect for the man.

What has your right wing owned house done..Besides fillibuster in order to make Obama a one term president?

The same crap his own left wing buddies did the first two years.

So why is Mitch repeatedly elected?

Same reason Reid and Pelosi are re-elected

People are knee jerk morons...Thats why

People have selective memory.

[yubba]

I would like too know what kind of society these nutters in DC think is going to rise from the ruins of this great country, I shutter at the thought, that they have to destroy something to make it beautiful in their eyes, it's sorta like dying then maybe you go to heaven too them that's a bet I'm not willing to take yet, if you think what you see the ows doing is something, wait till those welfare checks run out, peoples retirements dissappear, food stamps are worthless and the unemployment checks quit come-ing, 40 plus million hungry people going out of their minds, 15 million illegal aleins thinking they want a piece of the pie, and god only knows what is going on south of the border, do the elites think they are going to be immune to the madness, well if they are dumb enough to leave a light on at night they will be found out, funny how light attracts things. I'm to old for this crap .

[vienna]

Why are you all surprised about Obama issuing executive orders? Almost all the Presidents in the last 100 or so years have done so. Reagan was a big proponent of executive orders and let's not forget the mini-storm of executive orders Bush II promulgated in the final year of his term and for the benefit of fat cat interests. Like the Who song says, "Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss..."...

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I'm in the south 40 wing.




The new bill raises taxes. Does not cut enough government spending. Repubs said they do not want to raise taxes. They are standing to that statement.



Not true, repubs made a bill. No one showed up to read it apparently.



So is everyone else. However, it would seem both parties have no respect for the man.



The same crap his own left wing buddies did the first two years.



Same reason Reid and Pelosi are re-elected



People have selective memory.

I really like you alot Mr. Warhawk, your one of the few who sees this as it is.

Obammy had 2 years, but was cursed by DINOs crossing partisan lines to "stick it to the rookie"

But once Boner took over.... No blaming dems then...
The man refuses to compromise..Thats good? Thats really good to you, a hardliner?

We got downgraded because of his shenanigans. Not like it matters... Moodys, Fitch, etc don't have an army or 300 million citizens.

Anything to make the Caucas-african a one term wonder right?

[Dan D]

From what I have read:

US President: can make executive orders, fast but weak.

US Congress: makes laws, is slower, but more powerful than El Presidente; can tolerate executive orders by the President by doing nothing but can kill it by responding with making laws.

US Supreme Court: even slower, but can pull out the nuke. Can nuke executive orders and defines the legal frames for making laws by the Congress on the base of the US Constitutional law, so no reintroducing black slavery in the US e.g.

It that it the hierarchy in the US then I think, you can't say El Presidente is "bypassing" the Congress, you could better say, the Congess is "weak" or "slow" or something like that if that is what you feel like it is.

Can you sue the US President for violating your constitutional rights by making executive orders that affect your status as a US citizen or your status as a member of the US Congress?

[1480]

Originally Posted by Dan D

From what I have read:

US President: can make executive orders, fast but weak.

US Congress: makes laws, is slower, but more powerful than El Presidente; can tolerate executive orders by the President by doing nothing but can kill it by responding with making laws.

US Supreme Court: even slower, but can pull out the nuke. Can nuke executive orders and defines the legal frames for making laws by the Congress on the base of the US Constitutional law, so no reintroducing black slavery in the US e.g.

It that it the hierarchy in the US then I think, you can't say El Presidente is "bypassing" the Congress, you could better say, the Congess is "weak" or "slow" or something like that if that is what you feel like it is.

Can you sue the US President for violating your constitutional rights by making executive orders that affect your status as a US citizen or your status as a member of the US Congress?

Trying to answer your last question: NIXON v. FITZGERALD =

Yes (The President has absolute immunity). The Court held that the President "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." This sweeping immunity, argued Justice Powell, was a function of the "President's unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of separation of powers and supported by our history."

parenthesis added by me because of the context

BUT: CLINTON v. JONES =

No. In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances. After noting the great respect and dignity owed to the Executive office, the Court held that neither separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an unqualified Presidential immunity from judicial process. While the independence of our government's branches must be protected under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Constitution does not prohibit these branches from exercising any control over one another. This, the Court added, is true despite the procedural burdens which Article III jurisdiction may impose on the time, attention, and resources of the Chief Executive.

So the answer is YES and NO.

An example of an executive order: #9066, the historians #1 president FDR (besides Lincoln), lead to Japanese Americans to be locked up in interment camps during the war.

As you stated before, Congress can block it by passing legislation OR the even easier way: to not fund it at all.

Though I take issue with your opinion about the president being the one who is innocent in all of this: he did in fact bypass the legislative process that was set forth by the constitution by issuing the executive order in the first place.

Dog crap is still dog crap, whether served on a paper plate or fine china.