PDA

View Full Version : In All Fairness, Do Republicans Support the President's Delay of the ACA?



AJBIGJ
11-15-2013, 12:31 PM
It would appear Tea Party Republicans are getting precisely what they asked for (at least the second time) in late September:

President Delays Implementation of Obamacare:
http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/obama-obamacare-fixes-democrats/2013/11/14/id/536622

Do you support the President's decision and the methodology in which it was implemented?

Absinthe Anecdote
11-15-2013, 12:59 PM
It would appear Tea Party Republicans are getting precisely what they asked for (at least the second time) in late September:

President Delays Implementation of Obamacare:
http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/obama-obamacare-fixes-democrats/2013/11/14/id/536622

Do you support the President's decision and the methodology in which it was implemented?

No, I do not because it sounds like a knee jerk reaction and it is only for a year.

Especially, when the insurance industry is saying things like this:

America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, said on Thursday that the president's fix for canceled health plans could "destabilize" the insurance market and lead to higher costs for consumers.

"Changing the rules after health plans have already met the requirements of the (Obamacare) law could destabilize the market and result in higher premiums," AHIP President Karen Ignagni said in a statement.

"Additional steps must be taken to stabilize the marketplace and mitigate the adverse impact on consumers," she said.

How are insurance companies supposed to plan and manage cost outlays when the law is constantly being tinkered with?

Does anyone know who wrote the ACA and when it was written?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
11-15-2013, 01:40 PM
This move was purely political, as elections will be over before the one year is over. If DEMS gave a shit about the people, then at the very least the bill would have actually been read before it was rammed down our throats.

Monkey
11-15-2013, 02:14 PM
(Independent/Centrist) I support this action over taking no action. It's just a shame that he waited until the damage started to happen.

20+Years
11-15-2013, 02:20 PM
While I think the delay is good, although it has not much worth overall, it irks me the total cost companies have had to spend developing policies and sending out cancellation notice to millions of insured. You know all this cost is getting passed on to the consumer.

Someone just stick a fork in it. Rosanne Barr is singing.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-15-2013, 02:51 PM
It would appear Tea Party Republicans are getting precisely what they asked for (at least the second time) in late September:

President Delays Implementation of Obamacare:
http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/obama-obamacare-fixes-democrats/2013/11/14/id/536622

Do you support the President's decision and the methodology in which it was implemented?

No, because he doesnt have the right to make the decission unilateraly and only gave a year (past the midterm elections) pass, which means it will just happen again next year. Congress needs to pass this law. And Obama only did it on the eve of the GOP passing the law today to try and say he spearheaded the decission and can rewrite history.

efmbman
11-15-2013, 03:12 PM
I have always felt that Obama attached his ego and potential legacy to the ACA. It was rushed and not fully understood prior to implementation. The administration felt the pressure to "DO SOMETHING!" and this is the result. I do not blame Obama completely - I know he was not involved in the programming of the website, etc. However, he is responsible. He appointed the people that hired the people to make this happen.

It is an imperfect world, shit happens. I'm sure we have all experienced the over-eager LT that wants to make his mark despite fully understanding the implications and effects. We can smile and nod at the LT when the lesson is learned. For a President... I expect more.

This was simply the wrong execution of the right idea. Unfortunately, real people are feeling the effects.

AJBIGJ
11-15-2013, 03:47 PM
Anyone have any thoughts about the Extra-Constitutionality of the method in which he went about it?

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-15-2013, 04:40 PM
I have always felt that Obama attached his ego and potential legacy to the ACA. It was rushed and not fully understood prior to implementation. The administration felt the pressure to "DO SOMETHING!" and this is the result. I do not blame Obama completely - I know he was not involved in the programming of the website, etc. However, he is responsible. He appointed the people that hired the people to make this happen.

It is an imperfect world, shit happens. I'm sure we have all experienced the over-eager LT that wants to make his mark despite fully understanding the implications and effects. We can smile and nod at the LT when the lesson is learned. For a President... I expect more.

This was simply the wrong execution of the right idea. Unfortunately, real people are feeling the effects.

I disagree. I guess you will call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever, but to say Obama had no clue what was in this bill because it was "rushed" through congress I feel is a fraud. This legislation has been in works for years if not decades. To say Obama had no clue what the consequences were going to be is like saying Bush had no idea Afghanistan and Iraq would have had so many casualties. No 2,000 page piece of legislation is produced and passed on a whim. Hell, it took my layer a week to draw up divorce papers when most of it was cut a pasted. Leagal terms and loopholes are scrutinized and made sure there was little chance someone can get away with not being affected by this law.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-15-2013, 04:43 PM
Anyone have any thoughts about the Extra-Constitutionality of the method in which he went about it?

Yeah, he has no authority to change "the law of the land" passed by congress unilateraly

CORNELIUSSEON
11-15-2013, 05:02 PM
It would appear Tea Party Republicans are getting precisely what they asked for (at least the second time) in late September:

President Delays Implementation of Obamacare:
http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/obama-obamacare-fixes-democrats/2013/11/14/id/536622

Do you support the President's decision and the methodology in which it was implemented?


It is the President’s plan, so I support whatever choice he makes to get this program implimented. On the other hand, it appears that the Tea Party doesn’t feel that they are getting what they want – they want the entire plan scrapped – so they are still crying in their beer over what they view as a piecemeal attempt. I am totally against the scrapping of the ACA plan.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-15-2013, 05:20 PM
It is the President’s plan, so I support whatever choice he makes to get this program implimented. On the other hand, it appears that the Tea Party doesn’t feel that they are getting what they want – they want the entire plan scrapped – so they are still crying in their beer over what they view as a piecemeal attempt. I am totally against the scrapping of the ACA plan.

Why are you against it? What are the good qualities that out weigh the already seen bad qualities?

Measure Man
11-15-2013, 05:26 PM
It would appear Tea Party Republicans are getting precisely what they asked for (at least the second time) in late September:

President Delays Implementation of Obamacare:
http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/obama-obamacare-fixes-democrats/2013/11/14/id/536622

Do you support the President's decision and the methodology in which it was implemented?

C'mon now,

On pretty much any subject, you need go no farther than "Tea Party Republicans, do you support the President's..."

and the answer, invariably will be 'no'

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-15-2013, 05:27 PM
C'mon now,

On pretty much any subject, you need go no farther than "Tea Party Republicans, do you support the President's..."

and the answer, invariably will be 'no'

Yep, I agree. Just like when they started, they didnt agree with Bush and TARP.

RetC141BFCC
11-15-2013, 05:39 PM
I have one question to those of you on this board that are a lot smarter than me. Can he do it without congress support? Isn’t it against the constitution for the President to ignore a law? I thought this was the law of the land and had to be done. Can a President just say we are waiting for a year? If so then we basically have either a dictator or a King.

Measure Man
11-15-2013, 05:47 PM
I have one question to those of you on this board that are a lot smarter than me. Can he do it without congress support? Isn’t it against the constitution for the President to ignore a law? I thought this was the law of the land and had to be done. Can a President just say we are waiting for a year? If so then we basically have either a dictator or a King.

It depends.

I haven't read the law...but, my guess is there are certain administrative powers in there for implementation purposes, perhaps given to the President or a department that allow them to give "waivers" or delays...much like the law bars certain people from entering the US...people who previously overstayed a visa, people with certain criminal records, people with certain health issues, etc....but, the law also provides for waiver procedures.

So...no, either way, he is still an elected President and neither a dictator nor King.

RetC141BFCC
11-15-2013, 05:52 PM
It depends.

I haven't read the law...but, my guess is there are certain administrative powers in there for implementation purposes, perhaps given to the President or a department that allow them to give "waivers" or delays...much like the law bars certain people from entering the US...people who previously overstayed a visa, people with certain criminal records, people with certain health issues, etc....but, the law also provides for waiver procedures.

So...no, either way, he is still an elected President and neither a dictator nor King.

Thank you for a good honest answer without Poltics

efmbman
11-15-2013, 06:34 PM
I have one question to those of you on this board that are a lot smarter than me. Can he do it without congress support? Isn’t it against the constitution for the President to ignore a law? I thought this was the law of the land and had to be done. Can a President just say we are waiting for a year? If so then we basically have either a dictator or a King.

There is a precedence for this sort of decree. Are you familiar with "prosecutorial discretion" and the use of same within the Department of Homeland Security?

AJBIGJ
11-15-2013, 07:04 PM
C'mon now,

On pretty much any subject, you need go no farther than "Tea Party Republicans, do you support the President's..."

and the answer, invariably will be 'no'

True, but I can respect such a response as long as they can articulate to why, with addressing the issue and not just to slam the President.

AJBIGJ
11-15-2013, 07:08 PM
It depends.

I haven't read the law...but, my guess is there are certain administrative powers in there for implementation purposes, perhaps given to the President or a department that allow them to give "waivers" or delays...much like the law bars certain people from entering the US...people who previously overstayed a visa, people with certain criminal records, people with certain health issues, etc....but, the law also provides for waiver procedures.

So...no, either way, he is still an elected President and neither a dictator nor King.

That's why I prefer the term "Extra-Constitutional" when referring to this. I personally feel that the problem lies in the law giving the Executive those authorities, which is an issue of principle and not in the Executive using those authorities once they're written into the law. It goes against the premise of the "Law of the Land" by shifting towards an autocracy, but we've been doing this thing for decades now so it's hardly an extraordinary abuse.

Measure Man
11-15-2013, 07:12 PM
That's why I prefer the term "Extra-Constitutional" when referring to this. I personally feel that the problem lies in the law giving the Executive those authorities, which is an issue of principle and not in the Executive using those authorities once they're written into the law. It goes against the premise of the "Law of the Land" by shifting towards an autocracy, but we've been doing this thing for decades now so it's hardly an extraordinary abuse.

...I think just about any program needs to have flexibility builty in for administering and implementing it.

AJBIGJ
11-15-2013, 07:23 PM
...I think just about any program needs to have flexibility builty in for administering and implementing it.

Maybe so, but which entities are appropriate to hold those authorities is certainly put to question. It's a bit ironic people blustered when Congress tried to push a delay several times, yet the Executive goes and does the very same thing and, well I guess we're just supposed to be cool with that.

He is the "Executive" but the way that was originally intended was to "Execute the Law as written and where confusion exists to make minor executive decisions to help execute the law as written."

Now here we've effectively written into the law a means to effectively nullify the law, over a period of time, which is Constitutionally a function of the people through their elected representatives in Congress.

Since that authority is written into the law he's not utilizing any powers he hasn't already been granted to faithfully execute the law, but in giving him that authority in the law, the law is going against the principles laid out in the Law of the Land. A murky gray area that we've kind of, as a culture, become somewhat numb to. It's essentially become the status quo.

Measure Man
11-15-2013, 07:41 PM
Maybe so, but which entities are appropriate to hold those authorities is certainly put to question. It's a bit ironic people blustered when Congress tried to push a delay several times, yet the Executive goes and does the very same thing and, well I guess we're just supposed to be cool with that.

He is the "Executive" but the way that was originally intended was to "Execute the Law as written and where confusion exists to make minor executive decisions to help execute the law as written."

Now here we've effectively written into the law a means to effectively nullify the law, over a period of time, which is Constitutionally a function of the people through their elected representatives in Congress.

Since that authority is written into the law he's not utilizing any powers he hasn't already been granted to faithfully execute the law, but in giving him that authority in the law, the law is going against the principles laid out in the Law of the Land. A murky gray area that we've kind of, as a culture, become somewhat numb to. It's essentially become the status quo.

Just to be clear...I don't know what powers he has been given in the law, I am merely speculating.

AJBIGJ
11-15-2013, 08:05 PM
Just to be clear...I don't know what powers he has been given in the law, I am merely speculating.

I think you're speculating correctly though. I have heard similar things from elsewhere, when "Tea Party" types admit the President's not doing anything untowards you can generally believe that to be true!

garhkal
11-15-2013, 10:14 PM
No, because he doesnt have the right to make the decission unilateraly and only gave a year (past the midterm elections) pass, which means it will just happen again next year. Congress needs to pass this law. And Obama only did it on the eve of the GOP passing the law today to try and say he spearheaded the decission and can rewrite history.

Especially when its common knowledge he has flat out said anything coming from the house in regards to this will get vetoed..


I have one question to those of you on this board that are a lot smarter than me. Can he do it without congress support? Isn’t it against the constitution for the President to ignore a law? I thought this was the law of the land and had to be done. Can a President just say we are waiting for a year? If so then we basically have either a dictator or a King.

AS mentioned on CNN he has already made fiats in regards to telling the DOJ to ignore immagration laws in regards to those who the 'dream act' would have helped (had it passed), and in regards to punishing people arrested for MJ. So he is already ignoring laws.

CORNELIUSSEON
11-16-2013, 02:59 AM
Especially when its common knowledge he has flat out said anything coming from the house in regards to this will get vetoed..



AS mentioned on CNN he has already made fiats in regards to telling the DOJ to ignore immagration laws in regards to those who the 'dream act' would have helped (had it passed), and in regards to punishing people arrested for MJ. So he is already ignoring laws.

Congress only has the authority to establish the laws. The authority to enforce or not enforce a specific law is strictly in the hands of the President through his Department heads. Congress can lament as to how he is implementing or not implementing a specific law, but there is very little that they can do to him as far as actually enforcing or refraining from enforcing a specific law. The proof of this is the fact that the US Constitution does NOT specify how he may enforce or not enforce a law, but leaves it up to his discretion as to when to enforce a specific law or to refrain from doing so. Likewise, the Constitution leaves the power to pardon or reprieve anyone for any specific act in the hands of the President alone, which lends further proof of his power to enforce or not enforce as he sees fit.

Stalwart
11-16-2013, 11:07 AM
The authority to enforce or not enforce a specific law is strictly in the hands of the President through his Department heads.

The actual verbiage of the Constitution (Article 2) is "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' -- the President does exercise a large amount of discretion but many would argue that phrase does not really mean the President should outright ignore laws.

Both sides are essentially guilty of providing emphasis to the laws that support their policy. It is interesting that on one hand, the argument against people who want to change or repeal the Affordable Care Act is that it is now "the law of the land and should be enforced as such", but at the same time people are willing to argue that some laws should also not be enforced.

RetC141BFCC
11-16-2013, 01:28 PM
Especially when its common knowledge he has flat out said anything coming from the house in regards to this will get vetoed..



AS mentioned on CNN he has already made fiats in regards to telling the DOJ to ignore immagration laws in regards to those who the 'dream act' would have helped (had it passed), and in regards to punishing people arrested for MJ. So he is already ignoring laws.

This is the question I have always wondered about. Remember I only have a CCAF education. How can a President decide what law to enforce? Does that not give him the powers of a King? I was always taught that that was the something that was specifically written into the constitution. So the President could not ignore laws passed by Congress. That was something that the King of England did at that time ignored laws passed by parliament that he did not agree with. I am not trying to start a Political Flame war just trying to educate myself. I have been given serious consideration to running for statewide office here in VA when I retire in two years. Thanks to anybody who can answer the question.

CORNELIUSSEON
11-16-2013, 04:16 PM
The actual verbiage of the Constitution (Article 2) is "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' -- the President does exercise a large amount of discretion but many would argue that phrase does not really mean the President should outright ignore laws.

Both sides are essentially guilty of providing emphasis to the laws that support their policy. It is interesting that on one hand, the argument against people who want to change or repeal the Affordable Care Act is that it is now "the law of the land and should be enforced as such", but at the same time people are willing to argue that some laws should also not be enforced.

And yet it was George Washington who set the example for what you complain of today. The Whiskey Rebellion was the first incident which Washington had to deal with in that regard, and he took the language literally by mounting his horse and personally leading the Pennsylvania National Guard and a contingent of US Marshals to put the rebellion down and make the rebellious whiskey makers pay their taxes. Alcohol, BTW, was the largest revenue producer for the US Government until Prohibition upset that apple cart.

Abraham Lincoln took the laws in the opposite direction by being the President who pardoned the largest number of condemned criminals pardoned by any President. It seems that Lincoln just couldn't bring himself to execute soldiers that deserted from the battlefield during the Civil War. So, you can say that it was Lincoln who started the fight against Capital Punishment.

The point is that today's Presidents didn't invent the concept of using their discretion when choosing which laws to enforce.

Stalwart
11-16-2013, 04:21 PM
Not saying I am complaining about the President exercising discretion in accordance with the Constitution.

I don't see how either of your examples are precedent for ignoring laws though.

CORNELIUSSEON
11-16-2013, 04:48 PM
Not saying I am complaining about the President exercising discretion in accordance with the Constitution.

I don't see how either of your examples are precedent for ignoring laws though.

George took it upon himself to personally lead the investigation of the rebellious Whiskey Manufacturers - when he had previously created the US Marshals to perform that task (among others). He was the first and last President to act as Judge, Jury and Executioner - he had the Pennsylvania National Guard round them up, and the Marshals guard them, while he made them pay up. Today, that would be called a Kangaroo Court. In addition, this incident marks the one time when the US President personally led troops while in office.

As for Lincoln, His free use of the Pardon had no precedent nor any subsequent use. Since then, the most such a convicted criminal could hope for is a commutation of the sentence to Life in Prison. Lincoln pardoned them, and sent them home free men.

AJBIGJ
11-16-2013, 06:19 PM
George took it upon himself to personally lead the investigation of the rebellious Whiskey Manufacturers - when he had previously created the US Marshals to perform that task (among others). He was the first and last President to act as Judge, Jury and Executioner - he had the Pennsylvania National Guard round them up, and the Marshals guard them, while he made them pay up. Today, that would be called a Kangaroo Court. In addition, this incident marks the one time when the US President personally led troops while in office.

As for Lincoln, His free use of the Pardon had no precedent nor any subsequent use. Since then, the most such a convicted criminal could hope for is a commutation of the sentence to Life in Prison. Lincoln pardoned them, and sent them home free men.

I'm guessing you haven't looked Anwar Al-Awlaki up in Wikipedia yet, I would state quite confidently that Washington was absolutely not the last President to execute citizens absent a trial by jury.

CORNELIUSSEON
11-16-2013, 06:54 PM
I'm guessing you haven't looked Anwar Al-Awlaki up in Wikipedia yet, I would state quite confidently that Washington was absolutely not the last President to execute citizens absent a trial by jury.

And, I'm taking it that YOU have forgotten your lessons on the Whiskey Rebellion from Junior High School Social Studies. When I used the phrase "Judge, Jury and Executioner", I wasn't being LITERAL, only FIGURATIVE.

The Execution I was referring to was to have them pay their due Alcohol Taxes, on the spot. Once that was accomplished, they did a little Jail Time, and then were released to get back to work. No one was shot - as far as was reported after-the-fact.

garhkal
11-16-2013, 09:52 PM
The actual verbiage of the Constitution (Article 2) is "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' -- the President does exercise a large amount of discretion but many would argue that phrase does not really mean the President should outright ignore laws.

Both sides are essentially guilty of providing emphasis to the laws that support their policy. It is interesting that on one hand, the argument against people who want to change or repeal the Affordable Care Act is that it is now "the law of the land and should be enforced as such", but at the same time people are willing to argue that some laws should also not be enforced.

Exactly.. I would rather it be that neither side (congress/pres) gets to ignore the laws, but the likelyhood of that happening is as likely as a single guy in this day and age taking the presidential race next time.

AJBIGJ
11-17-2013, 02:38 AM
And, I'm taking it that YOU have forgotten your lessons on the Whiskey Rebellion from Junior High School Social Studies. When I used the phrase "Judge, Jury and Executioner", I wasn't being LITERAL, only FIGURATIVE.

The Execution I was referring to was to have them pay their due Alcohol Taxes, on the spot. Once that was accomplished, they did a little Jail Time, and then were released to get back to work. No one was shot - as far as was reported after-the-fact.

While I would be lying if I stated I had perfect memory of every detail of every subject taught to me over a few decades past, the way you're stating this makes even less sense than before. You're saying they were made to pay taxes, as equating to an execution? Boy, you sure never see people pay taxes in America, do you?

CORNELIUSSEON
11-17-2013, 02:43 PM
While I would be lying if I stated I had perfect memory of every detail of every subject taught to me over a few decades past, the way you're stating this makes even less sense than before. You're saying they were made to pay taxes, as equating to an execution? Boy, you sure never see people pay taxes in America, do you?

The Whisky Rebellion almost became a true shooting war because the Manufacturers absolutely refused to pay the tax, and they carried firearms to avoid the tax. The Federal Alcohol Tax was in the same position that the Federal Income Tax has today because it was the largest revenue producer for the Federal Government. It was paid at every step of the production, sale, and consumption of Alcoholic Beverages, by the oldest Regulatory Agency of the US Government, which today is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. I'm sure you have heard the name the Alcohol Manufacturers of Pennsylvania and Appalachia gave to the Tax Collectors: "Revenuers", and the ATF is STILL involved with getting today's "Moonshiners" to pay the tax.

CORNELIUSSEON
11-17-2013, 02:50 PM
Exactly.. I would rather it be that neither side (congress/pres) gets to ignore the laws, but the likelyhood of that happening is as likely as a single guy in this day and age taking the presidential race next time.

For those who know, you would never get a bet. Buchanan was the ONLY President who was elected and fulfilled his term as a single person. Grover Cleveland was single when he won the office, but married while in office. Chester Arthur's wife passed away while he was in office.

Juggs
11-17-2013, 04:12 PM
The Whisky Rebellion almost became a true shooting war because the Manufacturers absolutely refused to pay the tax, and they carried firearms to avoid the tax. The Federal Alcohol Tax was in the same position that the Federal Income Tax has today because it was the largest revenue producer for the Federal Government. It was paid at every step of the production, sale, and consumption of Alcoholic Beverages, by the oldest Regulatory Agency of the US Government, which today is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. I'm sure you have heard the name the Alcohol Manufacturers of Pennsylvania and Appalachia gave to the Tax Collectors: "Revenuers", and the ATF is STILL involved with getting today's "Moonshiners" to pay the tax.

Almost. Now anwar, as despicable as he was, was killed (executed) without trial. Unlike the whiskey rebellion.

TJMAC77SP
11-17-2013, 07:38 PM
Hey............did you know that you can access a random Wiki page using this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random)?

Rusty Jones
11-18-2013, 04:09 AM
For those who know, you would never get a bet. Buchanan was the ONLY President who was elected and fulfilled his term as a single person.

He was also gay. He was known to have been in a relationship with William King, the VP of Franklin Pierce.

garhkal
11-18-2013, 05:58 AM
Still. It's a shame imo that single folk seem to get the short end of the stick in many facets of society..

AJBIGJ
11-18-2013, 11:49 AM
The Whisky Rebellion almost became a true shooting war because the Manufacturers absolutely refused to pay the tax, and they carried firearms to avoid the tax. The Federal Alcohol Tax was in the same position that the Federal Income Tax has today because it was the largest revenue producer for the Federal Government. It was paid at every step of the production, sale, and consumption of Alcoholic Beverages, by the oldest Regulatory Agency of the US Government, which today is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. I'm sure you have heard the name the Alcohol Manufacturers of Pennsylvania and Appalachia gave to the Tax Collectors: "Revenuers", and the ATF is STILL involved with getting today's "Moonshiners" to pay the tax.

That is a fantastic distraction, but does little to prove the point that our first president was the LAST figurative judge, jury, and executioner; while there is an example of the sitting president being a quite literal judge, jury, and executioner.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-18-2013, 12:27 PM
Congress only has the authority to establish the laws. The authority to enforce or not enforce a specific law is strictly in the hands of the President through his Department heads. Congress can lament as to how he is implementing or not implementing a specific law, but there is very little that they can do to him as far as actually enforcing or refraining from enforcing a specific law. The proof of this is the fact that the US Constitution does NOT specify how he may enforce or not enforce a law, but leaves it up to his discretion as to when to enforce a specific law or to refrain from doing so. Likewise, the Constitution leaves the power to pardon or reprieve anyone for any specific act in the hands of the President alone, which lends further proof of his power to enforce or not enforce as he sees fit.

So a congress can pass a law and the POTUS, even after its signed, can choose not to follow the rule of law just because he is the POTUS? I dont think so, this would negate the need for congress. Now the POTUS can appoint the people to lead the departments, but thats not saying he can ignore the law altogether. He isnt a king or dictator as much as he wants to be.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-18-2013, 12:39 PM
That is a fantastic distraction, but does little to prove the point that a sitting president was the LAST figurative judge, jury, and executioner; while there is an example of the sitting president being a quite literal judge, jury, and executioner.

And how was it that GW ignored a law? Lincoln didnt either, he used his power given to him to pass a pardon, fully falling with in the law.

AJBIGJ
11-18-2013, 01:33 PM
And how was it that GW ignored a law? Lincoln didnt either, he used his power given to him to pass a pardon, fully falling with in the law.

I think you lost me here, I was referring to the current president and his apparent authority to engage in the discretionary killing of US Citizens abroad because they happen to be on a kill list.

Edit: To be fair, the post you quoted from me wasn't very coherent either, I typed it a bit too fast this morning, edited for clarity.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-18-2013, 02:39 PM
I think you lost me here, I was referring to the current president and his apparent authority to engage in the discretionary killing of US Citizens abroad because they happen to be on a kill list.

Edit: To be fair, the post you quoted from me wasn't very coherent either, I typed it a bit too fast this morning, edited for clarity.

It was to piggy back on yours. Corny gave 2 examples of what he claims is the POTUS ignoring a law, but I am unsure what law was being ignored.

AJBIGJ
11-18-2013, 03:36 PM
It was to piggy back on yours. Corny gave 2 examples of what he claims is the POTUS ignoring a law, but I am unsure what law was being ignored.

That makes some more sense in itself, the way your reply was written was definitely not very clear as such.

CORNELIUSSEON
11-18-2013, 04:06 PM
That is a fantastic distraction, but does little to prove the point that our first president was the LAST figurative judge, jury, and executioner; while there is an example of the sitting president being a quite literal judge, jury, and executioner.

Sorry, not true. Washington jumped on his horse and personaly led the force that ended the Whisky Rebellion, while Obama is acting through this Department Heads. Those actions are two different things since the Department Heads are there to perform the direct action, and NOT the President.

CORNELIUSSEON
11-18-2013, 04:11 PM
So a congress can pass a law and the POTUS, even after its signed, can choose not to follow the rule of law just because he is the POTUS? I dont think so, this would negate the need for congress. Now the POTUS can appoint the people to lead the departments, but thats not saying he can ignore the law altogether. He isnt a king or dictator as much as he wants to be.

No President has always followed a specific law the way it was written all of the time. They have used their authority as Chief Executive to write specific Exceptions To Policy to fix problems that weren't addressed by the law, and not one of them have been bothered by either the House or Senate.

imported_WILDJOKER5
11-18-2013, 04:23 PM
No President has always followed a specific law the way it was written all of the time. They have used their authority as Chief Executive to write specific Exceptions To Policy to fix problems that weren't addressed by the law, and not one of them have been bothered by either the House or Senate.

Example please.

AJBIGJ
11-18-2013, 06:56 PM
Sorry, not true. Washington jumped on his horse and personaly led the force that ended the Whisky Rebellion, while Obama is acting through this Department Heads. Those actions are two different things since the Department Heads are there to perform the direct action, and NOT the President.

Sure, I'll give you that assertion as you caveat it.

garhkal
11-18-2013, 08:24 PM
So a congress can pass a law and the POTUS, even after its signed, can choose not to follow the rule of law just because he is the POTUS? I dont think so, this would negate the need for congress. Now the POTUS can appoint the people to lead the departments, but thats not saying he can ignore the law altogether. He isnt a king or dictator as much as he wants to be.

Exactly. Why is there a congress to make laws if the POTUS is given the latitude to ignore them when/if he wants?

Its like with Ms Pelosi. Going on about obama care saying "well we can't ignore it since its the law of the land now." Well so too is deporting illegal immagrants caught, but you were one of those pushing the INS to not deport kids of illegals.. If one is the law of the land and can be ignored, why not the other? And if they can be ignored at will, why are they even the law?!!?!?