Obama says "Screw you Senate, screw you separation of powers"

[vraiblonde]

King Barry says, "I do what I want :zsnap:"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/29/obama-will-bypass-senate-ratify-paris-climate-acco/

The White House on Monday defended President Obama’s decision to enter into the Paris climate accord without Senate ratification but stopped short of confirming a Chinese report that he will do so this week during his trip to China.

Still, it would surprise no one if Mr. Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping were to announce the ratification of the sweeping climate change agreement before the Sunday opening of the Group of 20 summit in Hangzhou, Zhejiang.

 

[Gilligan]

Fortunately, what Barry is doing is an empty meaningless gesture that will affect little of nothing.

 

[GURPS]

Fortunately, what Barry is doing is an empty meaningless gesture that will affect little of nothing.

King Putt has already used the EPA to decimate the Coal Industry

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Now you care about the Constitution?

...That aside, I think he's impractical and immature with regard to what he considers "privacy" and "civil liberties". I'm totally okay with the government monitoring terrorism suspects, and I absolutely want them looking into these people. If it means some spook accidentally hears your phone conversation with your Aunt Hilda or your girlfriend, oh well. Will a few eggs get broken in the making of this omelet? Of course. But the bigger picture is we can't just let these people run around our country bombing buildings and killing people freely.
...

 

[Gilligan]

King Putt has already used the EPA to decimate the Coal Industry

The EPA has been used by Emperor Bogey to cause a lot of industries financial pain.

 

[vraiblonde]

Now you care about the Constitution?

At least I know what the Constitution says. You might want a refresher course, though.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

At least I know what the Constitution says. You might want a refresher course, though.

I must have skimmed over the parts we can give up in order for perceived safety. The "eggs", as you put it.

My bad.

 

[Gilligan]

I must have skimmed over the parts we can give up in order for perceived safety. The "eggs", as you put it.

My bad.

I missed those parts altogether apparently.

 

[vraiblonde]

I must have skimmed over the parts we can give up in order for perceived safety. The "eggs", as you put it.

My bad.

Then let me help. The following is the text of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Note the bolded parts. What they mean is that there is indeed a mechanism in place in our Constitution for searches and seizures. That's what "probable cause" means. As far as "unreasonable", well, that would be a matter of opinion. You might think that the search and seizure of a terrorist organization that has not yet killed people is unreasonable; I do not. I consider it probable cause.

You're welcome.

 

[b23hqb]

Unfortunately, the topic of this post is not news - the great "unconstitutional scholar and professor" has been doing this all along for the last 7.5 years. He never met a portion of the constitution he would not ignore or bypass. Remember, he has a pen, and he has an obamaphone.....

Nothing new to see here - move along.

 

[Hijinx]

The White House on Monday defended President Obama’s decision to enter into the Paris climate accord without Senate ratification but stopped short of confirming a Chinese report that he will do so this week during his trip to China.[/I]

The WH defended Obama's decision? Does this mean the building is speaking now or is this just Obama defending his own actions.
The WH defending Obama?////////WTF else can it do? --------------------Does this mean his lying assed press secretary?
Who at the WH defends this POS.?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Then let me help. The following is the text of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Note the bolded parts. What they mean is that there is indeed a mechanism in place in our Constitution for searches and seizures. That's what "probable cause" means. As far as "unreasonable", well, that would be a matter of opinion. You might think that the search and seizure of a terrorist organization that has not yet killed people is unreasonable; I do not. I consider it probable cause.

You're welcome.

You're completely naïve if you believe the NSA is only listening to terrorism suspects. And again, it hasn't helped, has it?

Many people believe it's "unreasonable" to collect communication data from essentially every American and store it in the Utah desert. Many people believe carte blanche data collection isn't "probable cause".

The fact that you put "privacy" and "civil liberties" in quotes, as if they are some made-up term by Johnson, just shows you really don't give a damn about the constitution and its protections for ALL Americans. You'd rather tremble in fear and let the same terrorists you want to be protected from, win.

 

[vraiblonde]

just Obama defending his own actions.

This ^^

Isn't it hilarious how they word it, though? "Obama defended his actions..." just doesn't have the same authoritative ring. But when *wow* THE WHITE HOUSE!! defends him...

 

[vraiblonde]

Many people believe it's "unreasonable" to collect communication data from essentially every American and store it in the Utah desert. Many people believe carte blanche data collection isn't "probable cause".

Many people also believe people like you are paranoid nuts. Many people believe dope smoking dingbats should stay out of serious conversations. AND! Many people believe it sucks when terrorists kill Americans, especially civilians, and especially especially when it could have been prevented.

Why do you want the terrorists to kill American civilians?

Oh, and:

The fact that you put "privacy" and "civil liberties" in quotes, as if they are some made-up term by Johnson,

Many people believe you should learn to read for comprehension so you don't just make up meanings as you go.

 

[philibusters]

Then let me help. The following is the text of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Note the bolded parts. What they mean is that there is indeed a mechanism in place in our Constitution for searches and seizures. That's what "probable cause" means. As far as "unreasonable", well, that would be a matter of opinion. You might think that the search and seizure of a terrorist organization that has not yet killed people is unreasonable; I do not. I consider it probable cause.

You're welcome.

There is no way you can even argue soe of the actions of the NSA falls under the fourth amendment. If they gathered evidence against a terrorist, then took their evidence to a judge to get a warrant to collect their data and tap their phone conversations, that would be constitutional. When they datamine, gather large amounts of data (and are not even aware of whose data they are gathering looking for suspicious trends), that is not probable cause (they don't even know whose information they are gathering) and they don't have a warrant. Datamining does not describe the person to be searched or the things to be seized, it gathers up a lot of information and then math formulas try to narrow in on suspicious activity. It may help the safety of the country but its hard to argue its conforms to the fourth amendment.

 

[GURPS]

Many people believe it sucks when terrorists kill Americans, especially civilians, and especially especially when it could have been prevented.

lots of deaths can be 'prevented' never leave your bed and use bubble wrap for blankets ..... what freedoms are you willing to give up to be safe

 

[vraiblonde]

lots of deaths can be 'prevented' never leave your bed and use bubble wrap for blankets ..... what freedoms are you willing to give up to be safe

What "freedom" is being taken away from you? What are you no longer free to do?