not having a college degree seen as a negative thing

[BOP]

He probably still smokes... I don't. My brain cells have been replenished.

I think you may be over-optimistic, kid.

 

[BOP]

I think Obama has shown he knows a great deal about constitutional law. If he didn't we would be seeing his actions overturned by SCOTUS. The closest we got was the penalty/tax case. While that should have gone the over way there haven't even been many real challenges to his administrations actions.
Right or wrong and how that plays with the constitution is obviously debatable but he seems to know what can be gotten away with.

You're conflating knowledge of constitutional law with the willingness to circumvent the Constitution. It's an easy enough mistake; you lefties do it all the time.

 

[Midnightrider]

You're conflating knowledge of constitutional law with the willingness to circumvent the Constitution. It's an easy enough mistake; you lefties do it all the time.

I'm not conflating anything. Obama's administration apparently knows the line pretty well and they are walking it pretty close. You can disagree with how constitutional it is, but they are mostly operating within the limits of current constitutional law.

 

[Hijinx]

I'm not conflating anything. Obama's administration apparently knows the line pretty well and they are walking it pretty close. You can disagree with how constitutional it is, but they are mostly operating within the limits of current constitutional law.

Don't give Obama so much credit. The first thing he does before coming out with another of his Memo's is to check with the lawyers on staff at the WH.
The shysters who know all the tricks around the laws., He may sign the Memo but it 's legality is checked out with real lawyers.

 

[Midnightrider]

Don't give Obama so much credit. The first thing he does before coming out with another of his Memo's is to check with the lawyers on staff at the WH.
The shysters who know all the tricks around the laws., He may sign the Memo but it 's legality is checked out with real lawyers.

RIF :sad:
Did you notice the use of 'Obama's administration' and 'they'?

 

[Pete]

If you ever suffer from hepatic encephalopathy, you believe that white elephants with pink stripes are coming after you.

And someone with hepatic encephalopathy would be OK to participate in a hearing let alone vote on legislation?

 

[itsbob]

I'm not conflating anything. Obama's administration apparently knows the line pretty well and they are walking it pretty close. You can disagree with how constitutional it is, but they are mostly operating within the limits of current constitutional law.

A judge just ruled against his immigration plan, Obama says he's going to ignore the court and continue to move forward (not the first time).. how does that work again?

 

[LibertyBeacon]

A judge just ruled against his immigration plan, Obama says he's going to ignore the court and continue to move forward (not the first time).. how does that work again?

This was a ruling against procedural implementation under the Administrative Procedures Act. It wasn't a constitutional question. And it's not a final decision. Did you bother to read the judge's finding on this?

 

[Midnightrider]

A judge just ruled against his immigration plan, Obama says he's going to ignore the court and continue to move forward (not the first time).. how does that work again?

There is a process, the SCOTUS gets to ultimately decide what is constitutional. That's how it works.

 

[itsbob]

There is a process, the SCOTUS gets to ultimately decide what is constitutional. That's how it works.

Not really true. You can pass or sign an executive order that is unconstitutional, and always will be.. there has to be a reason for the SCOTUS to hear arguments to determine constitutionality.. if I remember correctly constitutional or not, if you don't have standing or are being harmed by the new law, the court can't hear it.. it's possible to pass unconstitutional legislation, and no ody have standing to be able to argue it in front of SCOTUS.
"In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality"

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Not really true. You can pass or sign an executive order that is unconstitutional, and always will be.. there has to be a reason for the SCOTUS to hear arguments to determine constitutionality.. if I remember correctly constitutional or not, if you don't have standing or are being harmed by the new law, the court can't hear it.. it's possible to pass unconstitutional legislation, and no ody have standing to be able to argue it in front of SCOTUS.
"In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality"

You didn't read the judge's finding, did you?

 

[Midnightrider]

Not really true. You can pass or sign an executive order that is unconstitutional, and always will be.. there has to be a reason for the SCOTUS to hear arguments to determine constitutionality.. if I remember correctly constitutional or not, if you don't have standing or are being harmed by the new law, the court can't hear it.. it's possible to pass unconstitutional legislation, and no ody have standing to be able to argue it in front of SCOTUS.
"In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality"

You want to give an example of an EO that would violate the constitution yet would leave no one with standing to challenge it?

 

[Larry Gude]

You want to give an example of an EO that would violate the constitution yet would leave no one with standing to challenge it?

So, would you say the Constitution changed or Candidate Obama's view of EO's has 'evolved' since taking office?

In your personal view, do you think the Presidents's use of EO's, in general or if you have specifics in mind, have comported with your view of the Constitution and our check and balance system of governance?

And, are you comfortable with the Presidents EO's, his justifications and what this expressly paves the way for in terms of future Presidents?

 

[Hijinx]

Not really true. You can pass or sign an executive order that is unconstitutional, and always will be.. there has to be a reason for the SCOTUS to hear arguments to determine constitutionality.. if I remember correctly constitutional or not, if you don't have standing or are being harmed by the new law, the court can't hear it.. it's possible to pass unconstitutional legislation, and no ody have standing to be able to argue it in front of SCOTUS.
"In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality"

We know all about standing. The Supreme Court uses it to avoid having to listen to controversial cases. They used it repeatedly whenever anyone challenged Obama. His Birth certificate, his standing as a Natural Born Citizen, his records he kept hidden. The Supremes used the hell out of it to avoid having to listen to challenges to Obama's Presidency.

 

[Midnightrider]

So, would you say the Constitution changed or Candidate Obama's view of EO's has 'evolved' since taking office?

In your personal view, do you think the Presidents's use of EO's, in general or if you have specifics in mind, have comported with your view of the Constitution and our check and balance system of governance?

And, are you comfortable with the Presidents EO's, his justifications and what this expressly paves the way for in terms of future Presidents?

I would say neither. I am comfortable that Obama's use of EOs is in line with the precedence set by previous administrations and that IF any of those violate the constitution that the system of checks and balances could be used.

I'll ask you since no one answered before: which of the presidents EOs do you think violated the constitution AND leaves no one with standing to challenge it?

 

[Hijinx]

I would say neither. I am comfortable that Obama's use of EOs is in line with the precedence set by previous administrations and that IF any of those violate the constitution that the system of checks and balances could be used.

I'll ask you since no one answered before: which of the presidents EOs do you think violated the constitution AND leaves no one with standing to challenge it?

Obama has signed 204 EO's not that many really, but he got sneaky and started using Executive Memo's which are actually about the same thing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...idential-memoranda-executive-orders/20191805/

He is near the top when they are added together

 

[Larry Gude]

...and that IF any of those violate the constitution that the system of checks and balances could be used.

'Could' be. That is my beef, my fear. That the opposition party, MY party has not, is not and will not perform their duties in any meaningful way. I certainly don't blame President Obama for not opposing himself and for not holding himself accountable. That's what the other two branches are for.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'll ask you since no one answered before: which of the presidents EOs do you think violated the constitution AND leaves no one with standing to challenge it?

It seems he has sent some dough to the insurance companies to help grease them into the ACA. That one smells to me. His extensive exemptions to compliance to the ACA, likewise, to me, stink and violate equal protection, which also means equal application, plainly. The drone judge, jury, executioner thing bothers me deeply. And his moves on immigration seem to be, plainly, so subvert the congress, not to tie up any loose ends or make good law work better.

This man is has been stunningly divisive from day one, has been quite clear in his challenge "Stop me is you have the backbone and the principles" and, again, my real beef is with the inert, supine GOP. Holder is right; we are a nation of cowards, a lot of us, but it isn't about race. It's about the very simple role of winning an election to go oppose someone and refusing to do it. The citizens responded. The people sent have simply abdicated. And, again, everything Obama has done, that it has not been challenged, stands as precedent for the next potus. And THAT is even more worrisome.

 

[PsyOps]

It seems he has sent some dough to the insurance companies to help grease them into the ACA. That one smells to me. His extensive exemptions to compliance to the ACA, likewise, to me, stink and violate equal protection, which also means equal application, plainly. The drone judge, jury, executioner thing bothers me deeply. And his moves on immigration seem to be, plainly, so subvert the congress, not to tie up any loose ends or make good law work better.

This man is has been stunningly divisive from day one, has been quite clear in his challenge "Stop me is you have the backbone and the principles" and, again, my real beef is with the inert, supine GOP. Holder is right; we are a nation of cowards, a lot of us, but it isn't about race. It's about the very simple role of winning an election to go oppose someone and refusing to do it. The citizens responded. The people sent have simply abdicated. And, again, everything Obama has done, that it has not been challenged, stands as precedent for the next potus. And THAT is even more worrisome.

Well, I get how you’re using the ‘cowards’ quote, but that’s not the context Holder meant it. But more to the point… being uncomfortable with what Obama is doing and those things being unconstitutional are really quite different things. I believe, at a minimum, Obama’s changes to Obamacare and immigrations are violations of the constitution. But the other part of Midnight’s question was they these EOs “leave no one with standing to challenge it.” Of course it doesn’t. Everything can be challenged. But as you pointed out, we have a GOP that are spineless cowards.

And getting back the point of the OP, most of these people are ‘educated’. It really shows the value of higher education. NOTHING!

 

[Larry Gude]

Well, I get how you’re using the ‘cowards’ quote, but that’s not the context Holder meant it. But more to the point… being uncomfortable with what Obama is doing and those things being unconstitutional are really quite different things. I believe, at a minimum, Obama’s changes to Obamacare and immigrations are violations of the constitution. But the other part of Midnight’s question was they these EOs “leave no one with standing to challenge it.” Of course it doesn’t. Everything can be challenged. But as you pointed out, we have a GOP that are spineless cowards.

And getting back the point of the OP, most of these people are ‘educated’. It really shows the value of higher education. NOTHING!

I know what he meant and the GOP aren't really cowards. They have bosses to satisfy, careers to tend to and it probably takes a fair bit of courage to get elected to go do something, specifically, and then not do it AND ask for more work. So, I guess, more accurately, them's some brave SOB's.