Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Dec 3, 2013.
Yes he can.....read the link I posted.
I think you need to go back and re-read the linky because the president does not have free reign in choosing anything he will not enforce. If this was the case we would not have a congress.
Nana, if the President told the Justice department not to investigate or prosecute cases of interstate child kidnap pings, you would be ok with that? Of course you wouldn't.
My point being, once you start with selective enforcement of laws, you have started down the slippery slope and it is hard to stop.
From what I gathered from the link I posted, this sort of thing has been done by presidents for decades, if not a 100 or more years.
Not even close
I agree it is murky, but in this case he is simply changing the dates of the law that was already passed by congress and signed. He isn't not enforcing it or delaying it, he's essentially "line-iteming" it.
his role is to administer the law as written, not choose to implement the law the way he wants to.
big case in process. the law clearly states that the subsidies will only be issued through state run exchanges. it is codified into law very clearly that only purchases made through state run exchanges are eligible for subsidies....period
The link also includes USSC cases over the last 100+ years interpreting the "take care" clause.
From what I posted upthread, he has a lot of wiggle room or discretion....he can decided how and when he'll execute a law and even has discretion to interpret the law. It sounds like he can "line-item" it if he so desires.
so you will be fine if a pub does the same?
the overreach of executive power is at record levels with 0 but because you agree with him you have no objection. sounds eerily similiar to the early days of Hitler.
Come on, you can do better than that.
It's not whether or not I'm fine with it.....Republican presidents have done the same. It's a tool like signing statements.
Whether it's overreaching or not is basically seen through partisan lenses.....just like Pub support for Bush's signing statements. The Hitler reference is not necessary.
Has nothing to do with partisan politics for me, as I despise both parties relatively evenly. My posting record here will clearly back that up. It had much more to do with looking beyond partisan lines, to the big picture, and seeing how the constitution was drawn up to separate the powers of each branch to prevent just such a thing. Because it may have been done by other presidents, as you claim, doesn't make it right. The USSC ruled against FDR in the only example I know of.
The WH has provided a legal rationale for its actions, that you can take or leave. If it is indeed an "abuse of power" then the burden is on those making the accusation to make a case legally.
We've been hearing these complaints from conservatives since Day 1 of the Obama administration. My God, he's signed an executive order! He made a recess appointment!! He appointed a czar!!! No president has ever done THAT before!!
No, it's not an unprecedented takeover of power. No, you're not going to violently overthrow the government of the United States.
Just put this in the Sore Loser file, along with the thousands of other examples.
Source? I haven't seen the WH justification.
Yeah, like specific dates. Those are always murky and hard to figure out.
Listening to the Bush fans whine about government overreach is hilarious.
never to this extent. having the EPA call carbon dioxide a health hazard so they could regulate it's discharge is a joke.
Here is a link for your link.