Obama threatens to veto bill that would require administration to enforce laws

Are you operating under the delusion that I support Obama or Obamacare?

Really was that that hard to figure out?

 

They wouldn't so try another example.

 

What about one outlawing all "Assault Weapons"? Would you want the President to enforce that law?

 

They already are outlawed and can ONLY be bought with a special permit for special situations.

 

The "I" made all the difference and made your sentence understandable. And yes, I do believe you love Obama and Obamacare.

 

I required no permit to buy my AR-15. Notice how I put "assault weapons" in quote marks? I was referring to the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) NY/CA/MA definition of the term. Would you want the President to enforce a law banning "assault weapons"?

 

Then you have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue what you are talking about, because I don't.

 

If it is on the books then yes. If he/she truly doesn't like it, he/she can make a case to have it repealed or it's Constitutionality challenged. THAT'S how it is supposed to work.

 

you are correct, it isn't in the "oath of office". The "oath" simply has the POTUS swear to uphold the Constitution. It is there where the details of carrying out laws is written

oath of office

"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."

the part in bold and underline is where i believe Obama is justified. He has shown that it isn't within his ability to uphold the Constitution so he in essence is doing "the best of his ability"

Yes, it akin to "that all depends on what your definition of is is" but it's enough room for him to be king vs POTUS and the media will support him.

 

And during the months that would take, you would be cool with the President sending police or military forces door to door confiscating "assault weapons"?

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why the Constitution needs to be rewritten to remove these loopholes and clarify terms to remove the ability to "interpret" meaning.

 

that is why we have checks and balances the one check the president has on a bill he feels is wrong and or unjust is called a veto

and if it is a law that has already past in a previous administration he can take it to a federal court and have the law suspended pending judicial review and decision

It is unconstitutional for the president to decide on his own if a law is unjust and or unconstitutional there for not enforcing it. that power is reserved for the judicial branch

What you want is a president with the powers of both the congress and the courts. so why have congress or the courts? why don't you go ahead and ask to have an absolute dictator because that is what you are referring to

I find it very telling with liberals when the opposite side is in power it is all about the constitution and the law and needs to be followed to the T when it comes to executive powers, but when they are in power they wipe their ass with that very document

 

And Congress can override that veto. Would you then want him to enforce that law and start arresting Tea Partiers, or would you want him to refuse to enforce it?

 

Sounds like horrifically poor idea, in my opinion.

The legislative branch having the ability to in some ways subvert the Constitution and hold accountable through a tort process those whom are part of the executive branch sounds like a system rife for partisan abuse, whether it be either party who has the congressional majority.

 

he can take it to a federal court and have the law suspended pending judicial review and decision

It is unconstitutional for the president to decide on his own if a law is unjust and or unconstitutional there for not enforcing it. that power is reserved for the judicial branch

What you want is a president with the powers of both the congress and the courts. so why have congress or the courts? why don't you go ahead and ask to have an absolute dictator because that is what you are referring to

I find it very telling with liberals when the opposite side is in power it is all about the constitution and the law and needs to be followed to the T when it comes to executive powers, but when they are in power they wipe their ass with that very document

 

First you say this.......

Then when it's pointed out that it does say that he has to execute the laws. You say.......

Then you fall back to semantics....Then it's shown with dictionary definitions they mean essentially the same thing.

Then when it's shown with dictionary definitions they mean essentially the same thing, your argument retreats even further with actual definitions in the Constitution. Your argument is all done.

 

What I want is for Congress to not try and dictate how the Executive Branch operates. If they want to change the powers of the President or enforce something like this bill, they need to amend the Constitution and get that amendment approved.

Would you support the President suing members of Congress to try and change voting rules in the House?

 

they are not subverting the constitution they are enacting a process to bind the president to the constitution and the decision is left up to the judicial branch to decide if the president is acting unconstitutionally for not enforcing a law

 

Semantics is exactly the point. The Constitution doesn't define it own terms. That means that all interpretations are equally valid from a Constitutional standpoint. I at least recognize the problem exist and want it fixed.

 

What the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you talking about? I don't think you know how things work in the Fed government.

 

they are not dictating crap they are passing a process that will hold the president accountable for not doing is constructional duty of executing the laws passed by congress and part of that process is getting the courts to decide if the president is not doing his duty

just come out and admit it you want an absolute dictator that is not bond to or answer to anyone because that is what you are referring too

 

Where is their Constitutional authority to create this process? There already is a process in the Constitution to hold the President accountable: impeachment. They either need to use that process or they need to pass a Constitutional amendment to create this new system.

I want the government to be Constitutionally limited and I want a Constitution that severely limits what the government can do in clear terms that are not subject to interpretation.

 

I disagree.

[The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Now there is already a process to remove those folks.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

If they do not do their jobs, then impeach them. However, to have Congress file lawsuits in order to dictate the minutia of their jobs reeks of an end around on the Constitution.

 

The problem only exists in the context of those who want to redefine the Constitution to say what they want it to say. That's why we have a Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution. Of course when that interpretation goes counter to what Liberals want it to mean, they always call for a re-write. The District of Columbia v. Heller is one fine example. Liberals wanted to diminish gun rights by tying the Second Amendment to the "organized Militia". Heller determined differently. If they want to re-define the Constitution they can just open up their wallets and finance a challenge all the way to the Supreme Court. The Constitution was written to prevent wholesale tampering with rights as a tyrant would.

 

wrong impeachment can only be enacted if the president is suspected of high crimes or misdemeanors

- - - Updated - - -

not doing your job isn't a high Crime or Misdemeanor

 

So you would say that not enforcing the law is not a crime?

And if it isn't a crime, then what grounds does Congress have to try and create this new process that has zero Constitutional backing?

- - - Updated - - -

So you are cool with how the Supreme Court has interpreted "regulate interstate commerce" to mean that the government can get involved in the economy and regulate the actions of individual producers and consumers?

You wouldn't rather have that amended to remove the ability for it to be interpreted?