Nearly 50 Percent Of Democrats Support An ‘Imperial Prez'

[Hijinx]

Ah ha! ^^---a purely rhetorical question.

The only check that will work with Obama is impeachment and any attempt at that will be stopped by the same Democrat cabal that stopped Clinton's impeachment.
People such as Robert Byrd who admitted Clinton was guilty but voted party.

 

[CleanTheSlateInSMC]

This ought to disturb even our board libprogs. It won't, but it should.

http://chicksontheright.com/blog/it...t-of-democrats-support-an-imperial-presidency

A survey by Rasmussen Reports reveals disturbing new details about the liberal psyche. In fact, a whopping 43 percent of Democrats believe that the president can completely ignore a court ruling against them if he thinks it’s “important for the country.”

...and of course Rasmussen Reports is fair and balanced, just like FoxNews.

 

[This_person]

how? exactly how has obama nullified the constitutional checks and balances?

The first time a federal judge deemed the ACA unconstitutional, the president ignored the court instead of waiting for a final decision. That's contrary to the concept of checks and balances.

When he unilaterally modifies execution of the laws passed by Congress which have been signed into law by the president, whether it's the ACA or immigration law, instead of getting the law modified, he is ignoring the concept of checks and balances.

When the president refuses to defend the law of the land - even if it is wrong like DOMA - he is violating the concept of checks and balances.

As Vrai suggested, he is not the first president to do that nor is the Democrat party unique in doing this. But, he's done it quite a bit.

 

[This_person]

...and of course Rasmussen Reports is fair and balanced, just like FoxNews.

What about their methodology specifically do you find biased?

 

[Rommey]

bipartisanship is different than 'checks and balances'. The president has no authority or ability to eliminate checks and balances.

Executive Orders eliminate certain checks and balances. Administrative rule changes bypass checks and balances. Of course Congress in complicit in ceding some their authority to check and balance the Executive branch.

 

[Midnightrider]

Executive Orders eliminate certain checks and balances. Administrative rule changes bypass checks and balances. Of course Congress in complicit in ceding some their authority to check and balance the Executive branch.

Which checks and balances are eliminated by EOs?

 

[Midnightrider]

The first time a federal judge deemed the ACA unconstitutional, the president ignored the court instead of waiting for a final decision. That's contrary to the concept of checks and balances.

When he unilaterally modifies execution of the laws passed by Congress which have been signed into law by the president, whether it's the ACA or immigration law, instead of getting the law modified, he is ignoring the concept of checks and balances.

When the president refuses to defend the law of the land - even if it is wrong like DOMA - he is violating the concept of checks and balances.

As Vrai suggested, he is not the first president to do that nor is the Democrat party unique in doing this. But, he's done it quite a bit.

The aca was found constitutional. Check

It is the president and the executive branch's job to execute the laws. That is a CHECK provided to the president over the legislative. Check

The same is true with the president prioritizing enforcement. Check

 

[Rommey]

Which checks and balances are eliminated by EOs?

How about EO 9066 as an example?

 

[This_person]

The aca was found constitutional. Check

Eventually. Not initially. Uncheck.

It is the president and the executive branch's job to execute the laws. That is a CHECK provided to the president over the legislative. Check

Exactly, but he hasn't been executing the laws. That's the point/problem. He's been specifically modifying aspects of the laws that are not in compliance with the law. Uncheck.

The same is true with the president prioritizing enforcement. Check

Enforcement means to enforce. Defending means that when the law is challenged, the government defends or modifies the law. Even if the administration does not agree with the law - it's their job. He's intentionally chosen to not do that. Uncheck.

 

[Midnightrider]

How about EO 9066 as an example?

I see how that was unconstitutional, but I don't see how it eliminated any checks or balances.

Eventually. Not initially. Uncheck.Exactly, but he hasn't been executing the laws. That's the point/problem. He's been specifically modifying aspects of the laws that are not in compliance with the law. Uncheck.Enforcement means to enforce. Defending means that when the law is challenged, the government defends or modifies the law. Even if the administration does not agree with the law - it's their job. He's intentionally chosen to not do that. Uncheck.

You not liking the result does not mean that checks and balances are not there. If the congress doesn't think the president is doing his job properly they have a check they can use.

 

[vraiblonde]

I see how that was unconstitutional, but I don't see how it eliminated any checks or balances.

Because if we agree that it was unconstitutional, it should have been checked and balanced. That's what those people are there for. If the President is just going to run amok, we might as well just have a King and be done with it.

You not liking the result does not mean that checks and balances are not there. If the congress doesn't think the president is doing his job properly they have a check they can use.

OMG what of this are you not comprehending??? This is plain and simple English. I'ma type slow so you read every word, ya hear?

If the branches of government do not choose to check and balance each other, that would mean (now pay attention) that we do not have a true mechanism in place with which to check a power mad president (let's just say) from doing whatever the hell he wants - whether it's unconstitutional, a freaking criminal act, whatever.

Now did you read that last sentence?

I don't believe you. Go back and read it.

This not about Obama, so get off of that line of thought. <--- Read that again. Stop talking about Obama. They ALL do it. All of them. All of our branches of government are political and partisan, whether the majority is Republican or Democrat. So pick your wedgie and stop defending that guy in the White House that you're so in love with.

Jeebus.

 

[vraiblonde]

Which checks and balances are eliminated by EOs?

There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for executive orders, so by its very nature EO is unconstitutional and violates the concept of checks and balances.

 

[This_person]

You not liking the result does not mean that checks and balances are not there. If the congress doesn't think the president is doing his job properly they have a check they can use.

I never talked about my opinion. You asked what the president did. Yes, Congress also could do things, but that wasn't the question.

The President is constrained by the court but refused. The President is constrained by the laws he is tasked to execute but refused. The President's job is to defend even the laws with which he disagrees, but he refused.

You can deflect to discuss your guess of my opinion of the court decision he refused to follow, or discuss the failure of Congress to exercise their responsibility to take even the most basic of actions to restrain him, but the fact is he refused to be recognize the authority of the courts, the Congress, and the Constitution. I answered your question and all of your deflections won't change the facts.

 

[Midnightrider]

Because if we agree that it was unconstitutional, it should have been checked and balanced. That's what those people are there for. If the President is just going to run amok, we might as well just have a King and be done with it.



OMG what of this are you not comprehending??? This is plain and simple English. I'ma type slow so you read every word, ya hear?

If the branches of government do not choose to check and balance each other, that would mean (now pay attention) that we do not have a true mechanism in place with which to check a power mad president (let's just say) from doing whatever the hell he wants - whether it's unconstitutional, a freaking criminal act, whatever.

Now did you read that last sentence?

I don't believe you. Go back and read it.

This not about Obama, so get off of that line of thought. <--- Read that again. Stop talking about Obama. They ALL do it. All of them. All of our branches of government are political and partisan, whether the majority is Republican or Democrat. So pick your wedgie and stop defending that guy in the White House that you're so in love with.

Jeebus.

Choosing not to use it is different than not having a mechanism.
The mechanism is there. The representatives we elect have the choice and can check if they see fit.
Choosing not to shoot someone does not mean you don't have a gun.....

 

[Hijinx]

Who checks and balances REGULATIONS.

Laws are bad enough, but regulations do not go through Congress.
Some a-hole sitting at a desk for the EPA, the FCC, the TSA, the IRS comes up with a regul;ation and it becomes the rule of the land. Not a law but legally binding. A regulation the President hasn't signed and Congess never voted on.

Yet they are taking over our waterways, regulating the skies, telling farmers when they can use fertilise, and oh so many other things.

Thing that go unchecked arbitrarily decided on by an agency head, and there is little to be done about it.

Didn't Michelle Obama submit a regulation on how our kids eat at school. Who TF is she to be making regulations.

 

[Midnightrider]

I never talked about my opinion. You asked what the president did. Yes, Congress also could do things, but that wasn't the question.

The President is constrained by the court but refused. The President is constrained by the laws he is tasked to execute but refused. The President's job is to defend even the laws with which he disagrees, but he refused.

You can deflect to discuss your guess of my opinion of the court decision he refused to follow, or discuss the failure of Congress to exercise their responsibility to take even the most basic of actions to restrain him, but the fact is he refused to be recognize the authority of the courts, the Congress, and the Constitution. I answered your question and all of your deflections won't change the facts.

You do understand that the federal court ruling was appealed and failed under the higher court, right? You also understand that this is part of the process, right?

I'm not deflecting anything. Your opinion of matters isn't 'fact'.

 

[mamatutu]

You do understand that the federal court ruling was appealed and failed under the higher court, right? You also understand that this is part of the process, right?

I'm not deflecting anything. Your opinion of matters isn't 'fact'.

I don't think you will win an argument with This_Person. He knows his stuff. But, go for it, MR.

 

[This_person]

You do understand that the federal court ruling was appealed and failed under the higher court, right? You also understand that this is part of the process, right?

I'm not deflecting anything. Your opinion of matters isn't 'fact'.

Again, I never expressed my opinion for the very reason that opinion doesn't matter.

Equally, what happened in later court rulings doesn't matter any more than previous court rulings. Once the court ruled, the executive branch was bound by the decision until a higher court intervened to the contrary. That's how it works IF the government is acting within the bounds of checks and balances.

 

[Midnightrider]

Again, I never expressed my opinion for the very reason that opinion doesn't matter.

Equally, what happened in later court rulings doesn't matter any more than previous court rulings. Once the court ruled, the executive branch was bound by the decision until a higher court intervened to the contrary. That's how it works IF the government is acting within the bounds of checks and balances.

All you have done is offer an opinion, like all of the bolded above :shrug:
but thats not 'how it works'. There are lots of times were a case is decided, an appeal is filed, and nothing changes until the higher court takes it up or refuses to.
The checks and balances were not nullified, they were exercised.

 

[This_person]

All you have done is offer an opinion, like all of the bolded above :shrug:
but thats not 'how it works'. There are lots of times were a case is decided, an appeal is filed, and nothing changes until the higher court takes it up or refuses to.
The checks and balances were not nullified, they were exercised.

They existed in the form of the court decision. They were violated by the president ignoring the judicial branch.