Enforce The Law Act - Another Attack on Obama

Just have Congress go to Court and see if the orders holding up implementation of the ACA can be blocked as an Unconstitutional abuse of power.

 

1. It's no trick, every political difference of opinion is not a "trick." 2. No, all laws most certainly do not "have vagueness and ambiguity."

 

Wilson, way before Reagan, and agree that the expansion of executive power in the 20th century has been illicit. Here's a list of federal agencies, I encourage everyone, especially those here who think we need "more govt, more regulations" to look at it carefully. I encourage all small govt types to broadcast it far and wide because I don't think people really understand the enormity of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America/List_of_federal_agencies

 

You can re-read the OP again. The President does not have to enforce a law passed by Congress.

 

The racists in our midst, don't know what to do with themselves.

 

We are not talking about a veto or a law Obama disagreed or a law that is unconstitutional according SCOTUS, we are talking about a law the he championed and is not enforcing for political reasons.

 

Well, that's YOUR opinion. Certainly that has not been legally concluded.

And in a political arena where uttering untruths is an accepted tactic, I'm not surprised that many people would make similar claims.

 

It certainly isn't opinion. Obama was fully behind the law and signed it. It went to court and SCOTUS deemed it Constitutional. That much is fact. His duty is to uphold the law of the land and him deciding not to uphold the law is the problem. It is obvious it is a disaster for Democrats this coming election and his decision not to enforce it is the issue. Why put off enforcing provisions, provisions with specific dates, until after the elections?

 

No what he is saying the president is a hypocrite two faced lier.

 

The ACA was not vetoed, once he signed it into law, his oath required him to enforce it. Has nothing to do with veto, pardon, or executive order.

 

Surely it is.

 

So, you are saying that Obama was not for Obamacare?

You are saying that he did not sign it into law?

You are claiming that SCOTUS did not find it Constitutional?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/u...s-to-fears-of-democrats.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0

 

I'm saying that he's not blatantly breaking laws, as so many anti-Obama folk continue to claim.

 

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Enforcement of law is at the core of the President’s constitutional duty to “take Care” that the laws are faithfully executed, and it is a primary mechanism for effecting national regulatory policy.

The law is Constitutional so his abuse not enforcing it is an abuse of the Constitution as proscribed by law and his oath.

 

He hasn't abused the U.S. Constitution.

Now to some who think THEIR interpretation is THE only one that is to be regarded... who knows that they'll ever be satisfied with ANY President's carrying out of the Oath of Office.

Oh well.

 

The point is that he is not carrying out his oath of office.

 

Again, that's your opinion.

If they had something (legally), the President would already have been impeached.

 

LOL, that is not my opinion, just a fact, and impeachment is very political.

 

Reagan, in fact, adhered to a far more proper, correct and respectful view of Executive power, in petitioning Congress for Line Item Veto, so he could choose to excise any part of a bill with which he disagreed. Because he was denied that privilege, he didn't grab power in the way that Obama has.

Had Reagan simply done what Obama has done with his at-will suspension on enforcement of select parts of a bill which passed and was made law, Liberals would literally have NO leg to stand upon about which to complain about Reagan, because Reagan wanted Line-Item Veto precisely to cut out the massive pork-barreling that Congress added to the bills which contained his policies.

What Obama has done is flat unConstitutional. The OP circumvents this by intentionally omitting the fact that Obama clearly picked and chose which parts of a bill to enforce, and which to ignore.

That is the role of a tyrant.

 

Okay, I stand corrected. One can see vagueness in any law.

"All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent to the fourth generation inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited" seems pretty clear to me.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" seems vague. Is a "militia" any group of people with guns, or is it a formal, government-controlled group? Are "arms" the same as "firearms"? Are "arms" the same as "nuclear weapons"? Is "people" the same as "all people", and if so, were slaves intended to own "firearms"? What makes a state "secure"? What is a "State"? What is "bearing" arms, and does it have to involve carrying? What is "infringement" and does it still allow for regulation?

The constitution itself is vague, so why not start at the top and have it reviewed?

 

Silly distraction. The law, Obamacare, has been specific with specific dates that Obama has ignored enforcing. Hardly ambiguous.

 

All irrelevant. In caselaw, there is the actual "ruling" and then there is justification or even just talk about the ruling, sometimes called "obiter dicta." Similar principles apply to statutory law and the 2d Amendment is very, very clear unless you can come up with some alternate interpretation for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Supreme Court has agreed. ACA is largely a procedural, not a rights granting or curtailing law, there is a huge difference. Moreover, constitutions are vague on some things on purpose, and are then interpreted by enabled statute, regulation and caselaw, so the Constitution, which has been brought in a couple times now, is a lousy comparative example... a child would see this, yet we have adults here rushing straight to compare the Constitution to a statute at large. The Constitution is a... constitution, a different kind of statute than a statute at large such as ACA. The level of civics and even the most basic legal knowledge in the U.S. is an embarrassment. But you are welcome to your opinion that the ACA is not vague, I say it is.

 

While never proving any lies.

 

This is actually a very unfair(but quite common) Liberal attack, so let's break down all of the falsehoods in your statements. Firstly, the quotation above which surrounded marriage. It was at a time where the country was predominately European-English and thought from a racial-political standpoint. We no longer think(or supposedly, Liberals think anyone who disagree with them are racists) from a racial-political viewpoint and the American Founders gave us expressed permission through the Constitutional Amendments(and in the Declaration of Independence) to change the Constitution as necessary.

Funny thing is: We only have so many Amendments(17). So in spite of Liberal babble about how evil the Founders were, they created a document that needed very little changes.

And that second phrase isn't vague at all, in fact it's very clear-cut. This again, is for Liberals who don't understand history. The ratification of the Federal Government was a huge event and debate, among which was: What could the States do in case of excessive fiat power?(Like we have now). The State's weren't naive enough to think the government wouldn't use raw military power to supress the people(and the Founders didn't envision that for a government either).

And so the State Militias were created(rather than the independent and rogue militias that existed such as Shay's rebellion). And of course 'arms' are the same as firearms. Guns were very prevalent in the late 17-18th century. Albeit, not with the capacity that we have now with silent revolvers among many other things. But even in spite of that, the Founders would STILL write this amendment exactly as it is.

In our country today, "people" certainly refers to any person who qualifies under the law(IE: No felons/mentally disabled people). And the reason is this: The will of the people is stronger than anything. Individual will trumps anything in a society that doesn't believe government is the end-all, be-all.

The Constitution's only "vague" in that it does not give the Liberal the executive power they desire.