Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#30710 Jun 28, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>Yet it showed who the Teapublicans bow down to by blocking any legal recourse that is for the working class people by gridlocking the NLRB for years. They cry about national security. There are 48 nominations for oversea ambassador's that have an average wait of 262 days in hot spots such as Africa and no one sitting on the ASEAN where tensions are soaring over China's territorial claims. The Federal Court system is hugely backlogged because of refusal to appoint judges who are more than qualified that are being blocked over partisanship. Those do nothing, pass nothing and approve nothing idiots is the game they play, and then as always, point the blame the other way.
Let's rehash.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30711 Jun 28, 2014
ino wrote:
<quoted text>Show me
Read it yourself.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30712 Jun 28, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if they were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Nope.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30713 Jun 28, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, DumBama didn't create any gun law because there was too much opposition. But Smoking Joe's statement goes to show you where this administrations mind-set is.
So you are all upset about things you think he wants to do but hasn't done. Yeah, that's about right for you guys.
ino

Waverly, OH

#30714 Jun 28, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
Read it yourself.
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

PRESERVE PROTECT AND DEFEND
NOT CHANGE OR MAKE NEW LAWS !!!!
ino

Waverly, OH

#30715 Jun 28, 2014
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#30716 Jun 28, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>The POTUS has a duty NOT to enforce unconstitutional laws.
This is where it gets pretty tricky. The President swears to uphold the Constitution, but typically defers the questions of "is it Constitutional?" to the Supreme Court. George W. changed the rules a bit, and started adding "signing statements" to legislation, sometimes saying that he would not enforce the law as Congress intended, because he thought it was unconstitutional.

Of course, some of our friends here seem to have forgotten about this fairly recent Presidential behavior, and are now shocked that Obama has used the same tools.

"Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements led to fierce controversy. He frequently used them to declare that provisions in the bills he was signing were unconstitutional constraints on executive power, and that the laws did not need to be enforced or obeyed as written. The laws he challenged included a ban on torture and requirements that Congress be given detailed reports about how the Justice Department was using the counterterrorism powers in the USA Patriot Act.

Since the 19th century, presidents have occasionally signed a bill while declaring that one or more provisions were unconstitutional. The practice became more frequent with the Reagan administration, but it initially drew little attention.

That changed under Mr. Bush, who broke all records, using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University in Ohio."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics... ;
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#30717 Jun 28, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Yep. A President does not have the authority to judge what is constitutional and what is not. That's the job of the Supreme Court. Example: Dumbo thought he had constitutional rights to grant recess appointments without the consent of Congress. Wrong, and even the most liberal of judges stated so. Therefore, DumBama can no longer make these appointments no matter what he thinks is constitutional or not.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#30718 Jun 28, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, then do tell, what could DumBama do about gun control other than making laws? Ask people nicely to give up their firearms?
Presidents in the past have always learned to work with the other side; reluctantly, but worked with the other side.
This "My way or the highway" attitude of this President is why he's in the position of being helpless with the Republican Congress. We may have different opinions about DumBama, but that's what courts are for: to decide who is right and who is wrong, and I don't think Boehner would be so aggressive for court action (especially before an election) if he didn't think your President was out of line.
As Commander -in-Chief there may be a lot that he can do about ammo availability. I shudder to think of the possibilities. Look what he has done with EO's.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30719 Jun 28, 2014
ino wrote:
<quoted text>Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
PRESERVE PROTECT AND DEFEND
NOT CHANGE OR MAKE NEW LAWS !!!!
Defend what?
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30720 Jun 28, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. A President does not have the authority to judge what is constitutional and what is not. That's the job of the Supreme Court. Example: Dumbo thought he had constitutional rights to grant recess appointments without the consent of Congress. Wrong, and even the most liberal of judges stated so. Therefore, DumBama can no longer make these appointments no matter what he thinks is constitutional or not.
They both have authority to determine what they believe to be constitutional or not. The SCOTUS right is superior.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30721 Jun 28, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>As Commander -in-Chief there may be a lot that he can do about ammo availability. I shudder to think of the possibilities. Look what he has done with EO's.
Stop it with the shuddering already.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30722 Jun 28, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. A President does not have the authority to judge what is constitutional and what is not. That's the job of the Supreme Court. Example: Dumbo thought he had constitutional rights to grant recess appointments without the consent of Congress. Wrong, and even the most liberal of judges stated so. Therefore, DumBama can no longer make these appointments no matter what he thinks is constitutional or not.
And the discussion was about acts of omission not affirmative ones.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#30723 Jun 28, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>Stop it with the shuddering already.
Can you predict what Obama may or may not do next about anything at all? Just asking sir.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#30724 Jun 28, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Dumbo thought he had constitutional rights to grant recess appointments without the consent of Congress.
I wonder where he got that idea?

"According to the Congressional Research Service, President Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments, President George H. W. Bush made 77 recess appointments, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of January 5, 2012, President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointme...

The real question was do very brief, pro forma sessions, where no business is conducted constitute being "in session"? The Supreme Court said "yes".

"The practical impact of the ruling over time “remains to be seen,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in a concurrence. Many experts say that if either house of Congress is controlled by the party opposed to the president, lawmakers can effectively block recess appointments by requiring pro forma sessions every three days. The Constitution says that each house must get the approval of the other chamber to adjourn for more than three days.

But Justice Scalia was skeptical, noting that the president had the constitutional power to set adjournments when the chambers disagreed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-...
Mike Lane

Newark, OH

#30725 Jun 28, 2014
Can't we get a good old guy like

Ted Kasick or John Strickland

Any one of the 2 has my vote. And they are good honest solid trustworthy ain't pullin the wool over your eyes kind of men!

A MANS MAN THAT HAS MY VOTE! and Judge Judy can't be Mayor....

UNLESS SHE RUNS WITH JUDGE WHOPPNER! And seein how he kicked the bucket some 20 years ago

I support fair legislation, free hot dog Sundays at the Zoo, free medical care for all shelter pets and an extra can of water in your 1 can soup.

Let's get these kasicks and Strickland's in or I'm watching Ludlow on Channel 6.

Oh crap!
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#30726 Jun 28, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder where he got that idea?
"According to the Congressional Research Service, President Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments, President George H. W. Bush made 77 recess appointments, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of January 5, 2012, President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointme...
The real question was do very brief, pro forma sessions, where no business is conducted constitute being "in session"? The Supreme Court said "yes".
"The practical impact of the ruling over time “remains to be seen,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in a concurrence. Many experts say that if either house of Congress is controlled by the party opposed to the president, lawmakers can effectively block recess appointments by requiring pro forma sessions every three days. The Constitution says that each house must get the approval of the other chamber to adjourn for more than three days.
But Justice Scalia was skeptical, noting that the president had the constitutional power to set adjournments when the chambers disagreed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-...
Exectutive appointments are often legal but your links do not determine if any of these in or out of appointments are legal. I am curious about that
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#30727 Jun 28, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Exectutive appointments are often legal but your links do not determine if any of these in or out of appointments are legal. I am curious about that
Pops, the recess appointments are legal, and have been used since Washington's Presidency to fill important offices that became vacant when Congress was not in session. In recent years, Presidential recess appointments have been blocked by holding brief "pro forma" sessions (where no business is conducted) when Congress is otherwise in recess. Harry Reid did it to George Bush, blocking some of his recess appointments. Obama's Justice Department argued that these brief, no work sessions did not constitute being "in session". The Supreme Court said this week that that interpretation is wrong. So, the opposition party can legally block recess appointments, by making sure that Congress is never officially recessed.
figured out

United States

#30728 Jun 29, 2014
We want Ted back
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#30729 Jun 29, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>They both have authority to determine what they believe to be constitutional or not. The SCOTUS right is superior.
And therefore what DumBama thinks is constitutional is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what he thinks.

A President can do unconstitutional things, but he is not the judge as to whether it's constitutional or not. Judges decide if he is within the constraints of the Constitution.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

North-Georgetown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bikers pour into Salem 8 hr Bikers sux 2
Crazy Lady that owns? Ezio's Fri Amber 1
News East Grant shooting suspects appear in court Aug 13 George Foreman nu... 2
what happened to gina (Sep '14) Aug 7 Brittany 2
History of this village? Jul '15 Wyclef 1
Hotties in town?? Jul '15 Haha 5
everbody's doin it Jul '15 YouWish 6
More from around the web

Personal Finance

North-Georgetown Mortgages