AustinBat
2500+ posts
04/10/12 10:51 PM
|
|
The Link In reply to:
In unilaterally making appointments to the CFPB and NLRB while the Senate was holding pro-forma sessions, President Obama has nonetheless attempted to fabricate a constructive, inferred, or imputed recess. Not only are President Obama’s January 4, 2012 appointments unconstitutional, but the justification for those actions does great violence to the Constitution’s separation of powers and system of checks and balances.
I know it irks him to have to even think about pesky things like the Constitution and the concept of Separation of Powers.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
Post Extras:
|
Crockett
1000+ posts
04/11/12 04:55 AM
|
|
The Senate was in recess but was creating a [censored] pro-forma session simply for the purposes of denying a President power for recess appointment that every president save Bush and Obama have used. Bush thought about it but didn't challenge the Senate. Obama did challenge the Senate's efforts to expand its Constitutional power beyond what the founders envisioned and it cost him some political capital.
Comparing that to say Jackson's expulsion of Native Americans to Indian Territory or the expansion of Presidential power under FDR is like comparing a fistfight between two drunks to the Battle of Gettysburg.
Post Extras:
|
rickysrun
2500+ posts
04/11/12 05:49 AM
|
|
I'd be upset too if the most conservative person my party was willing to nominate was Mitt Romney-especially after all the promise the Tea Party showed in D.C, I thought America would have Tea Party fever and nominate a real ball buster. Instead they choose the guy who makes John Kerry look like a pillar of strength and principles.
Post Extras:
|
BuffaloBayouBevo
250+ posts
04/11/12 07:42 AM
|
|
I35 -- You are just screwing with people, right?
If not, you can find plenty to read about the "imperial presidency" which, while hardly tyranny, loosely descsribes the continued aggregation of powers in the executive branch since FDR (or perhaps even TR). This president is neither an exception nor an outlier.
In any event, I suggest spending a month only watching or reading about sports to cleanse your brain.
Post Extras:
|
dheiman
500+ posts
04/11/12 08:14 AM
|
|
I've agreed with a couple things so far
In reply to:
Normally it's the media that calls out someone that abuses his power, but our mainstream media is his protector.
In reply to:
Obama's failure is that he's accomplished so little
Life's certainties: Death, Taxes and OU sucks.
Get your gear at choke-lahoma.com
Post Extras:
|
I35
2500+ posts
04/11/12 09:12 AM
|
|
In reply to:
I'd be upset too if the most conservative person my party was willing to nominate was Mitt Romney-especially after all the promise the Tea Party showed in D.C, I thought America would have Tea Party fever and nominate a real ball buster. Instead they choose the guy who makes John Kerry look like a pillar of strength and principles.
Wow, We have a Presidential nominee that has a ton of business experience when our economy is in the dumps going the same direction as Greece and you state the above when our current President was just a community Organizer? Let's get real. I think Romney is not the rock star that Obama is and that's a good thing. I want a guy that wants to roll up his sleeves and gets to work getting America back on track instead of a guy that is either playing golf, showing up to speaking engagments like the rock star he is, or him challenging our constitution over and over. He just wants to make a perception of how he is doing everything right by pandering to the stupid. What he's doing is anything but fixing America.
He is currently on TV again and he just stated the "There is no reason that the rich not pay more taxes for money they don't need" WTF? Who the hell does he think he is telling anybody what they don't need? He confirmed that again saying Buffett doesn't need that money. It's not his call to tell Americans they can't have too much money. This is not what America was built on.
Back to this topic. This is about his regard toward the constitution. It is obvious he feels he's above the constitution as he makes decisions that shits on it. He's doing this and has no consquences for his actions. I do remember G Ford as President but I started understanding how things worked When Jimmy Carter was in office. As bad of a President as he was, I never felt like he tried to step on the constitution. I didn't feel that way with Reagan, GHB, Clinton, and GWB. Someone mentioned my paranoia. You damn right I am paranoid about this power hungry President and for good reason. I've never been worried about a President abusing his power to now. I have my reasons for feeling this way and it doesn't make me a sorry excuse for an American citizen because I do. If anything it shows I love this country and I don't want what made it great tampered with.
Edited by I35 (04/11/12 09:14 AM)
Post Extras:
|
huisache
2500+ posts
04/11/12 09:16 AM
|
|
Tyranny is more like when the president is running a burglary ring from the white house basement or violating his own arms embargo to try, unsuccessfully, to trade arms for hostages and then using the illegally earned funds to finance a war that is illegal and in violation of a law he personally signed and then having his vice president succeed him and pardon all his cabinet officials who got convicted of lying under oath to congress. Ring any bells?
I have never and will never vote for Obama but the paranoia on the right about the guy comes close to surpassing their illness over Kennedy, whom they also called a commie and accused of treason.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 09:19 AM
|
|
Sanctorum was spouting some "tyranny" idiocy a week or so ago, about how the health care bill was tyranny and the end of freedom.
Just stupid.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
I35
2500+ posts
04/11/12 09:25 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Tyranny is more like when the president is running a burglary ring from the white house basement or violating his own arms embargo to try, unsuccessfully, to trade arms for hostages and then using the illegally earned funds to finance a war that is illegal and in violation of a law he personally signed and then having his vice president succeed him and pardon all his cabinet officials who got convicted of lying under oath to congress. Ring any bells?
The examples you gave would be someone being sneaky or doing something illegal to get something done but faces consquences if caught. Tyranny is someone that doesn't have consquences and does whatever they want.
Nixon got busted and faced the consequences. Maybe the part your talking about Reagan is just the left's version of paranoia.
Post Extras:
|
I35
2500+ posts
04/11/12 09:28 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Sanctorum was spouting some "tyranny" idiocy a week or so ago, about how the health care bill was tyranny and the end of freedom.
Tyranny is a strong word and I stated that somewhere earlier. I think the bottom line is Obamacare is not constitutional and that is not stupid.
Post Extras:
|
BuffaloBayouBevo
250+ posts
04/11/12 09:29 AM
|
|
In reply to:
I have my reasons for feeling this way and it doesn't make me a sorry excuse for an American citizen because I do. If anything it shows I love this country and I don't want what made it great tampered with.
You are right about that, but it does make you someone who reacts more on your "feelings" than on logic, history, or facts.
Post Extras:
|
I35
2500+ posts
04/11/12 09:37 AM
|
|
In reply to:
You are right about that, but it does make you someone who reacts more on your "feelings" than on logic, history, or facts
.
My feelings came from logic, history, and facts. I just didn't wake up yesterday morning and say I don't like this guy even though he abides by our constitution so I think he's power hungry. It's his friggin actions that makes me question this.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 09:39 AM
|
|
Tyranny is a strong word and I stated that somewhere earlier. I think the bottom line is Obamacare is not constitutional and that is not stupid.
Wrt to healthcare, tyranny isn't just strong, it's downright idiotic. Germany, Canada, Great Britain... and other developed nations are under the yoke of tyranny b/c of their national health systems? Give me a break.
And America has become a nation where "feelings" now take precedence over reasoned and informed decision making. It doesn't matter if you don't know your highschool civics anymore, just that you have sincere feelings. Again, give me a break.
Who knows if OC (ObamaCare) is constitutional? I think it is, using the ICC. But I don't get to decide that. As an aside, I was very much not impressed with the whole broccoli argument that some members of the court made.
I think the answer is to go to a national single-payor system which effectively makes the entire population the risk pool.
Also, the "individual mandate" was offered by a conservative think-tank as an option. They called it the "no free-rider" clause. Funny, isn't it. What was termed before as not letting freeloaders get a benefit (which would seem to be rather high on the GOP agenda) is now "tyranny".
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
I35
2500+ posts
04/11/12 09:51 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Wrt to healthcare, tyranny isn't just strong, it's downright idiotic. Germany, Canada, Great Britain... and other developed nations are under the yoke of tyranny b/c of their national health systems? Give me a break.
I'm sorry but I stiopped reading here. This is just dumb you said this. We have a constitution that has made our country great. WTH does what happens in the other countries have anything to do with us? Our country doesn't force the American citizens to purchase health care. That's not constitutional. And because it's not constitutional our leader doesn't have the right to force it and then question the authority of our USSC in dec iding if it is or isn't. He doesn't know his place. 78% of America does not like Obamacare and more than half feel it's unconstitutional and the USSC decision which I believe will rule that has the backing of the people
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 10:02 AM
|
|
In reply to:
We have a constitution that has made our country great.
Wrong. It is our great country that made our great constitution. You've got your causation backwards.
In reply to:
Our country doesn't force the American citizens to purchase health care.
One, everyone has "access" to healthcare, even if only in an ER setting. This is expensive and wasteful. Having everyone buy private insurance is a way to be more efficient. Also, you seem to not know that the individual mandate thing would be ok if it were part of a single-payor govt program (the constit issues are about having to buy private insurance, not just buy insurance.
And as far as your statement goes, let's see if you can think this through. Is Mcare healthcare? How about Mcaid? Care given at the VA? How is that paid for? Are you really suggesting that those entities are entirely funded through voluntary contributions?
I respectfully decline to take your ruminations about con law seriously.
The biggest plus for finding OC constitutional is with the ICC. Yet you don't have any concerns about the "tyranny" of the ICC. Why is that?
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
majorwhiteapples
5000+ posts
04/11/12 10:10 AM
|
|
I have never heard a President including Clinton, lie and use so much hidden meaning and deceit in his words as the current President. He does is it like it is an art form, when it is written for him. He sounds like an idiot when he does it off cuff.
History tells us many things:
Great Presdients of the last 100 years:
Truman
Kennedy
Reagan
Horrible:
Wilson
Carter
Johnson
Average or Solid:
Eisenhower
Ford
Bush 41
Clinton-May still be too early to tell, but he has been rising since leaving office
Questionable or very controversal:
Harding
Coolidge
Hoover
Roosevelt
Nixon
The opinion on Bush 43 and Obama are too early to tell but Obama's economic growth rate is abysimal in compared to most of the presidents in the past 100 years.
Post Extras:
|
I35
2500+ posts
04/11/12 10:20 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Wrong. It is our great country that made our great constitution. You've got your causation backwards
.
Either way, we have great people that wrote the constitution and great people that followed it. Now we have an idiot trying to dismiss it and idiots that argue it's okay if he does or denies him doing it. Either way you're wrong.
Post Extras:
|
Perham1
5000+ posts
04/11/12 10:25 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Now we have an idiot trying to dismiss it and idiots that argue it's okay if he does or denies him doing it. Either way you're wrong.
I wish you'd stop using the word "idiot" so much in your posts. If I were you, I would want that word far, far away from what you write. Why draw unnecessary attention?
But I see that you have again neglected to address the ICC issue of constitutionality, choosing merely to regurgitate the word "idiot".
Can you actually give a substantive reason for your feelings? Should we wait for a different time of the month? Would that help for you to pen a rational response?
If you summarily dismiss OC as unconstitutional, then how do you explain the ICC being constitutional? Maybe you have a great reason. I'd love to hear it.
I am Nucky Thompson and I approve this message.
Post Extras:
|
Mr. Deez
500+ posts
04/11/12 02:58 PM
|
|
In reply to:
TYRANNY: 1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. 2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler. Only our do nothing congress (Libs words) is preventing him from this. But everyday he is doing things to by pass what our founding fathers put in place to prevent this from happening. This definition is starting to creep in more and more as BHO rules our land. A Tyranny is a man who can rule without any consquences. Normally it's the media that calls out someone that abuses his power, but our mainstream media is his protector.
I35,
The problems with posts like these are two fold. First, your post is hyperbolic. No single ruler is seeking absolute power. Don't give me Obamacare. I disagree with the bill specifically and with the concept of creating a national healthcare system generally. However, it doesn't create an absolute ruler or dictatorship or even come close to it, and neither does any bill promoted by the Administration.
If you want to see an example of an agenda that actually did create an absolute ruler, read the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act of 1933. Together, those two acts actually created what you're suggesting Obama is trying to create.
Second, the implication of your post is that Obama started the rise of an excessively powerful federal government, when in reality, it has been going on for centuries and with at a minimum the acquiescence of both parties.
If you really care “how we got here from there,” I would argue that it started with the creation of a centralized national bank as advocated by the Federalists and specifically, Alexander Hamilton. No, I'm not talking about the Federal Reserve. I'm talking about its great granddaddy, the First Bank of the United States created in 1791 and signed into law by Washington. It got more powerful when the Supreme Court ruled in 1819 that states could not tax the Second National Bank. (See McCulloch v. Maryland.)
The federal government got even more powerful after the Civil War with the enactment of the 14th Amendment. With its very broad language, it gave the federal government (especially the federal courts) jurisdiction to review and invalidate any state law it doesn’t like.
The next big expansion of federal power was the 16th Amendment, which authorized the federal income tax, which the states (including Texas) strongly favored, because they knew they could use the seniority system and pork barrel spending to funnel money to the states. That was followed by the 17th Amendment that removed the states’ only check on federal power (the state legislature’s election of US Senators) and greatly empowered special interest groups.
Of course, the next big expansion of federal power was the New Deal. That created a permanent entitlement class that continues to this day, and with the automatic COLAs, it is expanding on auto-pilot. With FDR’s administration, you also saw the appointment of true judicial activists to the federal bench for the first time and the almost complete elimination of conservative jurisprudence. From 1932 until 1972, not a single conservative justice was appointed to the Supreme Court. Democratic appointees ranged from moderate (Byron White) to insane (William O. Douglas) with an oddball thrown in (Hugo Black, whom my Constitutional Law professor called a “liberal strict constructionist”). Republican appointees ranged from moderate (John Harlan) to almost insane (William Brennan). These guys decided that they were going to set the social policies of the United States – whether dealing with race, morality, ethics, election law, etc. To do it, they butchered the 10th Amendment and disregarded virtually all constitutional limitations on federal power.
A few years after the New Deal was implemented, Congress decided never to return to a true peacetime economy. That basically made a huge national defense budget a permanent fixture.
In the ‘60s, LBJ legislatively expanded federal power trough the Great Society, used federal money to intrude into public education policy, and pushed through various civil rights initiatives that at any other time in history would have been constitutionally highly questionable.
In the early ‘70s, the government expanded its regulatory state with the EPA, OSHA, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. You also saw the creation of the Departments of Education and Energy.
Things slowed down under Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton, but they still got bigger. Of course, Bush II dramatically expanded federal power with the Department of Homeland Security, the Medicare prescription drug program, No Child Left Behind, and initiated the bailout culture.
So where does Obama fit into it? Well, he created a new federal health care program and expanded the Bush-era bailout machine. All bad stuff, but there’s nothing really novel about his activities. They’re just a continuation of the expansion of federal power that has been happening literally since the Washington Administration. However, back in the day, you had guys like Thomas Jefferson who stopped and even reversed expansionist policy when they gained power. Even when those guys weren’t in political control, the expansionists were tempered by senators who accounted to their state legislatures and by a judiciary that cared about enforcing constitutional limits on federal power. That dynamic simply doesn’t exist anymore. The GOP exploits small government rhetoric but does nothing about it and in recent years it has celebrated big government. Of course, the structural limitations that used to keep the expansionists under control (legislatively elected senators and the courts) no longer fill that role.
Post Extras:
|
I35
2500+ posts
04/11/12 03:08 PM
|
|
Deez, I know that America will never have a Tyranny and I've stated that Obama is not a Tyrant. I admitted that word is too strong but I will not back away from him questioning the authority of our USSC just because he's not getting his way on an issue(s). He does seem to read the constitution different than all others to justify him acting without Congress too often.
You are one of the guys here that I do respect the opinion of so I'm not going to go into detail of everything you typed and just know you disagree with any or everything I've typed on this subject to this point.
Post Extras:
|
Shop the Co-op |
Email A Friend |
Contact Us
Become a HornFans Sponsor
Pages in this thread: 
Rate thread
Print Thread
