So! proud to have lived during two Barack Obama administrations

Perhaps there are smarter and better legal minds than mine, but yours is clearly not one of them:

a) Historical restraint has been the hallmark of ethical presidents, and that limits his/her authority, as too many such disputes are deemed political questions and outside judicial review. Outright violations of law and oaths of office should be checked by impeachment, but again, the Dems would rather sacrifice the republic for power. At least be honest about the price you are willing to pay.

b) Contempt of court, ignoring clear law, and violating spending restraints are not grey areas. I have defended Obama's ability to elect not to enforce exiting law (though some are violations of his oath), affirmative acts in violation of law is (again) another thing entirely. Though these later violations do not always amount to treason (most do not), the ones I originally listed do.

c) I have no doubt as to Obama's treasonous intent. For instance, one can make a moral argument for allowing Syrian refugees, but a security argument is nonsense and evidences his intent to facilitate a foreign invasion. This is further evidenced by his contempt of court by continuing to provide benefits to illegals contrary to a court's injunction. (You referenced judicial remedies, yet the President ignores.)

d) Also consider that ever since the War Powers Act was passed, all presidents have adhered to the law, but stating that they didn't have to. (The law may very well be unconstitutional.) With Libya, Obama ignored this history and expressly rejected those limitations. If that would have been a Republican, the Dem would have been rightly screaming bloody murder, but with Obama, they defended his actions.

Again, losing the republic is a rather high price to pay for what exactly?

 

a) Of course the Repubs would be championing. The Dems don't have a monopoly on foolish hypocrisy; I'm simply pointing out why the market is high now and the Left's duplicity at the moment, which you didn't refute.

b) The first Sec of Energy for Obama expressly stated his policy of increasing gas prices to encourage growth in alternatives. The price of gas fell notwithstanding these efforts due to fracking and the Saudi supply policy to hurt both Iran and Russia. Please consider that one of the Left's primary arguments for drilling in ANWR is that it would take ~10 years for the oil to hit the market and affect prices. Assuming this is true, who was in office ~10 years ago so we can give proper credit for the current energy situation?

Have anything else?

 

So you teach your kids to act like bigots to stop bigotry.

Interesting approach.

 

Congrats dip(*)(*)(*)(*), both liberals and conservatives blame one another when something goes bad and then takes credit for something when it goes good. Seriously you are just playing into the political divide in this country. Great job.

 

I don't even know where to start.

A) 'Historical restraint' is the hallmark of cautious, and tentative personalities in positions of power. What you deem 'ethics' has nothing to do with it, but it is a cute try.

B) what is or is not legal 'contempt' can indeed be a grey area, as is what is or is not 'clear' law

C) your lack of 'doubt' in his intent, is not remotely relevant. You haven't a clue what his mental state or motive might be. There are ways to be heard on those questions as a witness on a treason charge. Those people who a court calls either by the people or the defense to testify on that question, may be presumed to know something relevant. You are not one. Certainly labeling one of his arguments on a question of foreign policy as evidence of intent, tells me more about your bias, than his intent to commit a criminal act. Referring to allowing these Syrian refugees to immigrate here, a 'foreign invasion' tells me that right wing hyperbole has replaced your reason. Normally foreign invaders come with armies and/or a navy to force access and either claim territory, loot local populations, or take slaves. These Refugees have forgotten their cannons, rifles and swords.

D) Thank God a president has finally forced a challenge to the war powers act. Why on earth anyone wants to live in the shadow of ambiguity decade after decade, due to undecided constitutional questions on this , is beyond me. Lets get this tested and find out what is or is not constitutional about the WPA. You just proved my point on the value of a President acting assertively rather than tentatively. Finally a President with the cojones to move this case from the backburner to the frontburner.

 

I'm afraid it has everything to do with it, similar to "judicial restraint". Of course that's alien to the Left as well, so it comes as no surprise that it escapes you. Consider how the Left yelled and screamed about Bush's "illegal war", when he had clear congressional authority to act. Also consider how Obama has acted unilaterally when Congress has expressly rejected the related legislation (environmental, etc.).

Consider the recent judicial findings to the contrary (not to mention Holder being held in contempt of Congress and Hillary's troubles), I'm afraid your grey is quite black and white.

A foreign invasion need not be with guns, etc. Thirty years ago there was no cyber act of war, today there is. Perhaps a broader perspective would be of assistance to your understanding. Also, if we can determine whether a religious belief is "sincerely held", then certainly we can determine Obama's state of mind by his actions, which I have illustrated. We determine criminal intent all day, every day in this country, we can do so here. Perhaps Arnold only wanted to show the Brits how he decorated West Point?

Ahh, but the Dems refuse to protect the powers of Congress by testing in court. Would they be so hesitant if a Repub were in office? Also consider how Reagan was close to impeachment over Iran Contra for acting contrary to congressional restrictions. He never claimed he had authority to take these actions notwithstanding the conflicting law. This president does so openly with Iran, Cuba, and elsewhere and says what the F you gonna do about it. From the Dems.... crickets.

There was a famous exchange in the Frost - Nixon interview where Nixon claimed that whatever the President did was legal. The nation, Left and Right, was shocked that such a person had held such high office. Today you and others champion such a view. There's no real mystery why the country is in decline.

They say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Since we know this we put in processes and we decentralize power to avoid (or at least defer) such a fate. I'm afraid your good intentions (giving the benefit of the doubt) will lead us as predicted. Again, what greater good justifies such a heavy price?

 

I find it hard to take someone seriously who doesn't know how to use paragraphs.

 

Iran Contra wasn't about the War Powers Act or its constitutionality. There was specific statutory language ( the Boland amendment) passed by a voe of 410 yeahs and no descentions, byCongress attached to a defense appropriations bill, forbidding funding of the contras. The Reagan Administration did not claim that the language was remotely ambiguous, because that was the sole reason for that language to be inserted and it named the contras in Nicaragua as its target. The reasons that Reagan was 'nearly impeached were broader than just ignoring the will of Congress.

This is from wiki
Indictments[edit]
Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, was indicted on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice on June 16, 1992.[69] Weinberger received a pardon from George H. W. Bush on December 24, 1992, before he was tried.[70]
Robert C. McFarlane, National Security Adviser, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only two years of probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.[71]
Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only two years probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.[72]
Alan D. Fiers, Chief of the CIA's Central American Task Force, convicted of withholding evidence and sentenced to one year probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.
Clair George, Chief of Covert Ops-CIA, convicted on two charges of perjury, but pardoned by President George H. W. Bush before sentencing.[73]
Oliver North, member of the National Security Council convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity, obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents, but the ruling was overturned since he had been granted immunity.[74]
Fawn Hall, Oliver North's secretary, was given immunity from prosecution on charges of conspiracy and destroying documents in exchange for her testimony.[75]
Jonathan Scott Royster, Liaison to Oliver North, was given immunity from prosecution on charges of conspiracy and destroying documents in exchange for his testimony.[76]
National Security Advisor John Poindexter was convicted of five counts of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence. A panel of the D.C. Circuit overturned the convictions on November 15, 1991 by a vote of 2 to 1[77][78] and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.[79]
Duane Clarridge. An ex-CIA senior official, he was indicted in November 1991 on seven counts of perjury and false statements relating to a November 1985 shipment to Iran. Pardoned before trial by President George H. W. Bush.[80][81]
Richard V. Secord. Former Air Force major general, who was involved in arms transfers to Iran and diversion of funds to Contras, he pleaded guilty in November 1989 to making false statements to Congress and was sentenced to two years of probation. As part of his plea bargain, Secord agreed to provide further truthful testimony in exchange for the dismissal of remaining criminal charges against him.[82][83]
Albert Hakim. A businessman, he pleaded guilty in November 1989 to supplementing the salary of North by buying a $13,800 fence for North with money from "the Enterprise," which was a set of foreign companies Hakim used in Iran-Contra. In addition, Swiss company Lake Resources Inc., used for storing money from arms sales to Iran to give to the Contras, plead guilty to stealing government property.[84] Hakim was given two years of probation and a $5,000 fine, while Lake Resources Inc. was ordered to dissolve.[82][85]

Oliver North and John Poindexter were indicted on multiple charges on March 16, 1988.[86] North, indicted on 16 counts, was found guilty by a jury of three felony counts. The convictions were vacated on appeal on the grounds that North's Fifth Amendment rights may have been violated by the indirect use of his testimony to Congress, which had been given under a grant of immunity. In 1990, Poindexter was convicted on several felony counts of conspiracy, lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, and altering and destroying documents pertinent to the investigation. His convictions were also overturned on appeal on similar grounds. Arthur L. Liman served as chief counsel for the Senate during the Iran–Contra Scandal.[87]

The proposed impeachment ( did not happen) did not involve making wrong calls about high questions of executive legislative or judicial powers. It was about pervasive and corrosive criminal conduct throughout the highest levels of adminstration

 

Nonsense. Are you really denying the concept of "judicial restrain" and that the Left constantly asserted that Bush started an "illegal war"? I'm afraid these fall into the category of judicial notice, such as day is light and night is dark.

Granted, courts can be wrong (e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson) and decisions subject to appeal, yet when I disagree with a decision (e.g. Roe), I give my reasoning. I'm afraid that your generic response doesn't cut it in general nor in the specific case referenced.

More nonsense. The very act of illegal entry is an act of aggression and a flaunting of power, authority and property. If someone broke into your home and just sat there watching TV, would you consider that a violation and invasion of your authority and property? Moreover, these are not refugees, as same would stop fleeing once they reached a place of relative safety. Here they continued on and demanded a specific place of refuge. Also, the demographics don't match traditional refugees. Moreover, some are making demands and even claiming foreign sovereignty or law. Again, your looking at the current situation rather narrowly that doesn't fit modern challenges and threats. As for the rest, it is simply nonsensical that we (for the purpose of this forum or any normal discussion) would have to wait for some judicial determination (after exhausting all appeals) to express a firm opinion on this or most any matter.

As for Iran/Contra, I recently read the Wiki some months ago and am familiar:

Reagan initially denied the assertions, but when it became clear that they were true, he denied direct knowledge or involvement. As far as I'm aware, at no time did Reagan claim he had inherent power to do as alleged pursuit to his office however, this is exactly what Obama is doing. The congressional restrictions in the War Powers Act are not unique, and that wasn't necessarily the law at issue. Congress has current restrictions on trade and relations with Iran and Cuba outside of the WPA, and those are the ones that Obama is currently ignoring (absent some discretion buried in the various statutes). Again, we elect executives to exercise discretion (prosecutorial or otherwise), but that is inaction. Obama is taking affirmative steps in direct conflict with existing law, and that makes all the difference.

Moreover, I also see parallels with the dormant commerce clause doctrine. Congress has recently considered certain regulatory and other actions and decided to not take the proposed action. By doing these things anyway, Obama is usurping the exclusive legislative authority of Congress on these matters. Frankly, as Congress can only delegate, not transfer, its constitutional powers to the President, I can't see how the later can veto any legislation limiting or eliminating previously delegated legislative authority, as such effectively makes an enabling statute a transfer absent a veto override.

You've now asserted that my personal stances on matters determine whether something is grey, etc. This is nonsense as I defend the President's authority to take actions, even when I consider such decisions rather foolish. I consider his actions in Iraq within his powers but foolish. I consider his obsession with climate change similarly. His actions described earlier, however, are objectively treasonous. Not everything can be chalked up to a difference of opinion.

 

This has to be the funniest post of the day! Thanks, Angry!

 

- the withrdawal from Iraq - botched - thanks for ISIS
- Libya - botched
- Syria - botched
- Iran deal - botched, will have nukes in 10-15 years
- Debt - skyrocketing
- The gap between the rich an the rest - growing exponentially
- The median income - collapsing
- American middle class jobs - moving to China and Mexico, replaced with Walmart jobs
- Obamacare - botched
- Foes - utter disrespect for Obama's threats, warnings, red lines
- Allies - utter disrespect for Obama's pleas and requests
- Russia - laughs in Obama's face and steals land
- China - laughs in Obama's face and steals land


Well, Obama will always be ranked above Carter... because he is black, not because he's done an iota better.

 

History will judge President Obama as a mediocre president, at best. He continuously lied to the American people on a number of issues, including "his" signature legislation the ACA. But he didn't even read it much less come up with anything in it. Cost skyrocketing and millions lost their insurance and pushed into a crappy system that didn't even work. Remember that, the Obama administration couldn't even the websites to work.

Let's not forget thanks to this administration the government has the power to force citizens to buy a product just because they are alive. When the President Trump forces every citizen to buy a miniature wall to help pay for the real one, just remember liberals you don't have a problem with the government sticking a gun to your head to buy a product.

The Obama administration increased the governments spying on the American people. He got the peace prize, officially turning it into a joke.

His petulant attitude when things don't go his way and sometimes when they do. I could keep going but what's the point, it will take many years for those emotional attacked to Obama to ever admit he did any wrong. But like I said history will not be kind to the man child.

 

If this is true then shouldnt you be TheHappyLiberal? I mean I could be wrong but when Im happy I dont throw feces around nor artebd violent protests.

 

When will you be getting out of the Looney bin?

 

Without a doubt the OP is one of the most ignorant I've ever read on this board.

And that's saying a lot.

 

I see the Usual Republican suspects are going looney toons over someone who disagrees with the usual Obama hate threads they continually start on this board. If Barack Obama had done EXACTLY! the same things GW Bush had done during his disasterous 8 years in office, YOU guys would have been demanding his Head on platter, but because Bushy was a White Republican Man, you sing his praises. Your Hate and Bigotry are so obvious it's sicking and you should be ashamed of yourselves for being so blinded by your Hate for the first Black man as President.

 

You're still kind of new here, aren't you?

 

Not at all, I just enjoy exposing Republicans for the Hypocrites they are. President Obama hadn't been in office for a day before Republican leaders in Washington began plotting how to make him a ONE TERM President and their solution was to slow down the economic recovery of America as much as they could and work against him. I think that's quite a price to make Americans who are suffering from the GW Bush administrations decisions and play politics. I can't stand Hillary Clinton, but I can't stand the Republican Party even more and I have to at least respect Donald Trump for stating the obvious of how corrupt they are.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/inside-obamas-presidency/

 

At the end of the day, many white progressives are still getting thrills up their leg about having a non-white President.

 

You should start your own religion of Obama worship. A bronze statue of your deity, Obama, or his son Trayvon, should be placed on an alter in your home.

 

Domain Name: PLEASECUTTHECRAP.COM

Registry Registrant ID: Not Available From Registry
Registrant Name: Registration Private
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com

http://www.whois.com/whois/pleasecutthecrap.com

Another shovel full of dung off the heap of anonymous kook blogs.

 

I can say the same thing about you guys who support GOP politicians, kneeling before them as if they can do no wrong begging for Buttermilk.

 

I don't worship any of them anywhere near to the same extent as you do Obama. Let me guess that you are a Black Supremacist, just like Barak.

 

I agree with him totally and will lay money I'm older than you, maybe you need to show some respect to your elders

We could put it right next to the Trump Temple most of you cons are erecting