I'm beginning to like this guy

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:13 pm

EPIC - Trey Gowdy gets a standing ovation on Hous…:

spot on.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Aug 09, 2014 7:32 pm

His argument is good, unfortunately the bigger problem is that the house does not make law anymore. Special interest groups, corporations, and lobbyists make laws. These assholes just sell their votes for or against them to the highest bidder.

Congress and the house of representatives are not respected because they don't deserve any respect. If they want the president to not pick and choose which laws are enforced, perhaps writing better and honestly respectable laws would be a good start. The excrement they have written in the last few decades is only useful to the flies regardless of if it is enforced properly or not.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Aug 09, 2014 8:08 pm

so I guess that what "hate" sounds like...what "racism" sounds like...

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Aug 09, 2014 8:31 pm

But he is correct, the President does not have the authority to pick and choose what laws or what parts of laws he can enforce.
Edit: or to write law

And special interests have been influencing law for about 238 years

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Aug 09, 2014 11:55 pm

are you talking common law or specialized law?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 6:22 am

For each elected representative the interests of their constituency should be paramount.

There shouldn't be any other interested party capable of giving those representatives a path to elected office that allows him/her to operate counter to the interests of the constituency or without great need for the support of a majority of them.

We have allowed wealthy organizations and political entities/parties to put representatives in office with token concern for the constituency. The keys to the office have been misplaced by foolish stewardship on the part of the constituency.

Add to it the media's increased participation in shaping 'news' or selectively omitting reporting in order to steer election results and you end up where we are.

The punishments Gowdy mentioned don't have much weight behind them when the offending representative knows he doesn't depend on the people at large for his power.
He wil serve his new masters first and feign servitude to his constituency.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 6:51 am

Clause 5: Caring for the faithful execution of the law

The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."[19] This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to take due care while executing laws and is called the ,[20] also known as the [21] or .[22] This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the President,[20] even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law.[23] By virtue of his executive power, the President may execute the law and control the law execution of others. Under the Take Care Clause, however, the President must exercise his law-execution power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."[21] Addressing the North Carolina ratifying convention, William Maclaine declared that the Faithful Execution Clause was "one of the [Constitution's] best provisions."[21] If the President "takes care to see the laws faithfully executed, it will be more than is done in any government on the continent; for I will venture to say that our government, and those of the other states, are, with respect to the execution of the laws, in many respects mere ciphers."[21] President George Washington interpreted this clause as imposing on him a unique duty to ensure the execution of federal law. Discussing a tax rebellion, Washington observed, "it is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to" that duty.[21]

According to former United States Assistant Attorney General Walter E. Dellinger III the Supreme Court and the Attorneys General have long interpreted the Take Care Clause as standing for the proposition that the President has no inherent constitutional authority to suspend the enforcement of the laws, particularly of statutes.[24] Quite the contrary: The Take Care Clause demands that the President obey the law, the Supreme Court said inHumphrey's Executor v. United States, and repudiates any notion that he may dispense with the law's execution.[25] In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898(1997), the Supreme Court explained how the President executes the law: "The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" who with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2."

The President possesses wide discretion in deciding how and even when to enforce laws. He also has a range of interpretive discretion in deciding the meaning of laws he must execute. When an appropriation provides discretion, the President can gauge when and how appropriated moneys can be spent most efficiently. However, the President may not prevent a member of the executive branch from performing a ministerial duty lawfully imposed upon him by Congress. (See Marbury v. Madison (1803); and Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes (1838)). Nor may the President take an action not authorized either by the Constitution or by a lawful statute. (See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer(1952)). Finally, the President may not refuse to enforce a constitutional law, or "cancel" certain appropriations, for that would amount to an extra-constitutional veto or suspension power.[21]

Some Presidents have claimed the authority under this clause to impound money appropriated by Congress. President Jefferson, for example, delayed the expenditure of money appropriated for the purchase of gunboats for over a year. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his successors sometimes refused outright to expend appropriated money.[21] The Supreme Court, however, has held that impoundments without Congressional authorization are unconstitutional.[26]

It has been asserted that the President's responsibility in the "faithful" execution of the laws entitles him to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus[citation needed]. Article One provides that the privilege may not be suspended save during times of rebellion or invasion, but it does not specify who may suspend the privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress may suspend the privilege if it deems it necessary. During the American Civil War, PresidentAbraham Lincoln suspended the privilege, but, owing to the vehement opposition he faced, obtained congressional authorization for the same.[citation needed]Since then, the privilege of the writ has only been suspended upon the express authorization of Congress.

In Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1867), the Supreme Court ruled that the judiciary may not restrain the President in the execution of laws. In that case the Supreme Court refused to entertain a request for an injunction preventing President Andrew Johnson from executing the Reconstruction Acts, which were claimed to be unconstitutional. The Court found that "[t]he Congress is the legislative department of the government; the President is the executive department. Neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department; though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its cognizance."[27] Thus, the courts cannot bar the passage of a law by Congress, though it may strike down such a law as unconstitutional. A similar construction applies to the executive branch.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 9:38 am

Will Robinson wrote:For each elected representative the interests of their constituency should be paramount.

Yea, but the problem is…the term “constituency” has become “the ones who voted for me”.

People are elected to represent ALL of the people in the US or their respective districts…not just the people who voted them in.

Not saying the rest of your points aren’t valid, just if you ask people these days what a constituency is, they will break it down in terms of party or race, common belief or some such.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 10:44 am

Spidey wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:For each elected representative the interests of their constituency should be paramount.
Yea, but the problem is…the term “constituency” has become “the ones who voted for me”.

People are elected to represent ALL of the people in the US or their respective districts…not just the people who voted them in.

Not saying the rest of your points aren’t valid, just if you ask people these days what a constituency is, they will break it down in terms of party or race, common belief or some such.

thats a good point. When talking about influences other than the 'whole constituency' I'm more concerned with the lobbyists and national/state parties that can fund a candidate, or 'bribe' an incumbent, with all the funds and support he needs to win making his concern for any constituent less of a factor.

As to the polarizing the electorate along the lines of what you pointed to I'd like to see the electoral college votes split up to make a presidential candidate deal with the voters on a county by county basis instead of just win Philly and Pittsburgh and you take Pennsylvania kind of approach. I think if the national Parties had to make that adjustment it would effect how they support Senators and Congressmen too, having to keep an eye on the whole states reaction to their machinations instead of just win the urban concentrations.
My theory is it would cause both parties to broaden their base.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 11:49 am

Well see, that’s the problem…as long as the average person has no clue as to exactly how the system is supposed to work, we will continue to have the “belief” that we have majority rule, while in fact we have minority rule.

In fact the belief we have majority rule is part of the root problem, we actually don’t have majority rule in this country, that’s only the way we elect our representatives, after that they are supposed to govern based on the needs of the country, not the wants of the majority.

Most voters in this country believe the people vote for president, when in fact it’s the states that elect the president. Even if nobody showed up at the polls, each state would give their “votes” to one candidate or another and a president would be elected.

I don’t really want to hijack this thread, so my point is simple…as long as the people don’t understand the way our system was supposed to work, we will get screwed.

As to the OP, yea we need people who will stand up and tell it like it is…but a lot more needs to be said, not just ego talking.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:21 pm

CUDA wrote:But he is correct, the President does not have the authority to pick and choose what laws or what parts of laws he can enforce.
Edit: or to write law

The President possesses wide discretion in deciding how and even when to enforce laws. He also has a range of interpretive discretion in deciding the meaning of laws he must execute. When an appropriation provides discretion, the President can gauge when and how appropriated moneys can be spent most efficiently

huh. would you look at that.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:38 pm

You probably shoud try reading that again

And this time read the whole paragraph

According to former United States Assistant Attorney General Walter E. Dellinger III the Supreme Court and the Attorneys General have long interpreted the Take Care Clause as standing for the proposition that the President has no inherent constitutional authority to suspend the enforcement of the laws, particularly of statutes.

Dellinger FYI is a Democrat who served in the Clinton administration

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 8:12 pm

Oh I read the whole thing. Just thought I'd show you the part where it contradicts your subsequent arguments.

I also caught that you quoted wikipedia aswell, without providing the link.

But knowing how you argue here, I'm willing to bet you'll dance around the point and make the rest of us laugh.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 9:31 pm

Did I need to spell out that it was wiki????
Couldnt have been too tough to see, hell even you figured it out

you really shouldn't choose just one sentence in a whole paragraph to base an argument on FYI

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Aug 10, 2014 10:10 pm

CUDA wrote: you really shouldn't choose just one sentence in a whole paragraph to base an argument on FYI

... because the rest of it was obvious and didn't need quoting?

But it still begs the question: what was the point of the video anyways? what is it addressing?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:29 am

Oh I dont know. You got a pen? Write down this number and call me.

and by the way!!!
I quoted the whole article, without comment.
your the one that chose to start quoting snippets.

oh and JFTR the section you quoted does not give the president authority to delay implementation of a law as the scotus has stated, say something like the heathcare law. but to have discretion on who as an individual it should apply, hence the presidential pardon.

further down the same paragraph that you plucked your misapplied quote from it says
"The president may not refuse to enforce a law"
which he has done with certain provisions of the health care law that had start dates on them.
because the constitution requires him to
"take care that the laws be faithfully executed"

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 9:05 am

Obama does all kinds of underhanded stuff to get around the laws. He orders all the staffs in ICE, Border Patrol and the courts involved in the status hearings to stop settling cases and instead go dig through the backlogs to see who that is waiting trial can be given sanctuary under his twisted interetation of the 'trafficking law'. Then he complains about the backlogs taking too much time....and at the same time they are not even keeping all the reciepts of court dates they have assigned these 'children' so if they don't show up how will he know?!?

Purposeful chaos implemented from the top down to interfere with justice....ordered by...the justice Department...
Yay team Obama!

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:37 pm

CUDA wrote:Oh I dont know. You got a pen? Write down this number and call me.

and by the way!!!
I quoted the whole article, without comment.
your the one that chose to start quoting snippets.

oh and JFTR the section you quoted does not give the president authority to delay implementation of a law as the scotus has stated, say something like the heathcare law. but to have discretion on who as an individual it should apply, hence the presidential pardon.

further down the same paragraph that you plucked your misapplied quote from it says
"The president may not refuse to enforce a law"
which he has done with certain provisions of the health care law that had start dates on them.
because the constitution requires him to
"take care that the laws be faithfully executed"

1) do you have a law degree or at least a first-year law education? If you don't, your opinion means nothing. sorry.

2) it's clear that you don't understand what you quoted, so I think we're done here.

3) thank you for not answering my question but instead chose to dance around it. Looks like you had some fun.
4) read what you quoted from Wikipedia again, but slow enough to actually absorb it.

you know what I think cuda? I think you just want people to outright agree with you, instead of having a conversation with you. I think all you want to hear is "you're right! the president really DOES suck!"

It's easy to destablize you and show that you have a weak case, when all one has to do is say "i disagree".

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 9:52 pm

See ya,
you weren't contributing to the discussion anyways. Like usual

Must suck to be you. To not be able to debate your point past a 1 sentence post, when your position isnt even supported by the entire paragraph you pulled it from.

oh and are you a lawyer???? Then I guess your talking out your (_!_) huh?

as for answering your question. I did. Sorry you weren't sharp enough to get the nuance, here let me make it so easy even you can understand.

The president said he has a pen and a phone and implied that he could and would write legislation

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Aug 11, 2014 11:05 pm

CUDA wrote:See ya,
you weren't contributing to the discussion anyways. Like usual

Must suck to be you. To not be able to debate your point past a 1 sentence post, when your position isnt even supported by the entire paragraph you pulled it from.

oh and are you a lawyer???? Then I guess your talking out your (_!_) huh?

as for answering your question. I did. Sorry you weren't sharp enough to get the nuance, here let me make it so easy even you can understand.

The president said he has a pen and a phone and implied that he could and would write legislation

First, I'm not going to let you try and turn this around on me. But you told me what I suspected; that you have almost no knowledge of law whatsoever. Moving on...

Second, insults aside, thank you for answering the question. We can now move forward. Now, you say "implied". What did he say that made you think that?

Third, the part in paragraph that I did not quote (seeing as this is another bug with you), it states quite clearly "may not prevent a member of the executive branch from performing a ministerial duty". It's redundant because it deals with the same branch, and that a 'ministerial duty' is no different than an order.

Fourth,

The president may not refuse to enforce a law

No, it does not say that in the wiki article you pulled. Not at all. The president is not in charge of enforcement. That is the State's job. His job is to sign a bill into law.

This all stems back to Benghazi, doesn't it.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:39 am

What does benghazi have to do with the president threatening to write legislation.?

If you wish to HONESTLY debate this issue, I'm all for it.
but when your very first response is a snarky comment, it tells me thats probably not the case.

do you wish to honestly and civilly debate this topic?
Just let me know

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:56 am

CUDA wrote:What does benghazi have to do with the president threatening to write legislation.?

I've been away at a billfish tournament(socializing, not competing), but it WAS on this planet. Can you fill me in on what legislation the President plans to write or enact?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 8:53 am

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:What does benghazi have to do with the president threatening to write legislation.?
I've been away at a billfish tournament(socializing, not competing), but it WAS on this planet. Can you fill me in on what legislation the President plans to write or enact?

You will have to pass it before we can let you see whats in it.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 11:30 am

as I suspected, more lies and fabrications. Thanks for clarifying.....I just hope CUDA has more to offer.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:12 pm

callmeslick wrote:as I suspected, more lies and fabrications. Thanks for clarifying.....I just hope CUDA has more to offer.

Are you a bot? That is the only possible explanation for your last post.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:15 pm

are you an idiot? Because that's the only reason I see for yours. Still waiting for CUDA to find the time to answer. Thus far you've responded twice, Will to a question I asked of him.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:21 pm

CUDA wrote:What does benghazi have to do with the president threatening to write legislation.?

because he came into popularity specifically because of it. It's one of those little details I picked up along the way.

If you wish to HONESTLY debate this issue, I'm all for it.
but when your very first response is a snarky comment, it tells me thats probably not the case.

do you wish to honestly and civilly debate this topic?
Just let me know

as long as you're fair and reasonable, I'm game.

Can you fill me in on what legislation the President plans to write or enact?

I was leading up to this, but you sort of beat me to the punch.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:47 pm

callmeslick wrote:
CUDA wrote:What does benghazi have to do with the president threatening to write legislation.?
I've been away at a billfish tournament(socializing, not competing), but it WAS on this planet. Can you fill me in on what legislation the President plans to write or enact?

We can fill you in on what legislation he has changed, starting with Obamacare mandates.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:59 pm

that was not the claim, nor my question. Either CUDA is taking up online ventriloquy, or you're simply mouthing the same old, same old on his behalf. I have faith that he will at least attempt to answer or qualify the claim himself.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:51 am

If you change legislation, you are creating new legislation...and that is a job for congress.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:20 am

woodchip wrote:If you change legislation, you are creating new legislation...and that is a job for congress.

Presidents have, via executive order and implementation wording(such as signing statements) fine-tuned(ie-changed) legislation forever. It has never been a matter of replacing legislation, nor changing intent of legislation wholesale. CUDA clearly said that Obama had created legislation and/or enacted legislation on his own. He hasn't. And, thus far, CUDA hasn't provided any more proof than you have, which is nothing.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:22 am

OK just to do my due diligence I took my time over the last day and a half and looked into this to be as objective as I can. and since the most likely target IS the ACA lets go there.

http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/what-congr ... g-of-laws/

there is little doubt that the President has rewritten the ACA, to deny it would be

Slick wrote: more lies and fabrications

Regarding immigration, health care, welfare, education, drug policy and more, Obama has suspended, waived and rewritten laws, including the Affordable Care Act.

That law required the employer mandate to begin this year. But Obama wrote a new law, giving to certain-sized companies a delay until 2016, and stipulating that other employers must certify they will not drop employees to avoid the mandate. Doing so would trigger criminal perjury charges; so, he created a new crime, that of adopting a business practice he opposes.

Presidents must exercise some discretion in interpreting laws, must have some latitude in allocating finite resources to the enforcement of laws and must have some freedom to act in the absence of law.

Obama, however, has perpetrated more than 40 suspensions of laws. Were presidents the sole judges of the limits of their latitude, they would effectively have plenary power to vitiate the separation of powers, the Founders’ bulwark against despotism.

so YES the President used his pen and re-wrote the law.

but was it legal??

that all depends on which side of the argument you are on. there is precedent and legal standing on both side to support each argument, so until the SCOTUS rules on it we will never know. and this is something that the SCOTUS has always been hesitant on doing.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/11/5890659/employer-mandate

Some of these delays are relatively small in scope, like the decision to allow some people to keep plans that don't comply with Obamacare mandates after those products were supposed to be pushed off the market. This change effected a few million people.

Delays to the employer mandate are arguably the largest deviation from an Affordable Care Act deadline. There, the White House decided in July 2013 that it would not enforce the requirement that all large businesses provide insurance to their employees in 2014. Instead, companies would not face any penalties until 2015. Medium sized businesses with fewer than 100 workers have since received additional time, until 2016, to fall in line.

The White House is essentially telling businesses they don't have to comply with current law — and that the federal government won't penalize them for it. And some legal experts don't think that's legal, arguing that its a significant deviation from Obamacare as written.

The White House cannot simply decide to abandon a standing law. That much is made clear in the Constitution, which directs the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

so to add to this discussion, when a President blames Congress for everything and then says I have a Pen and a Phone and I will get things done implying that he will use his executive powers, and then tells congress to do something with this immigration problem and Law or he will. he is again implying that he intends to executive order legislation, don't deny it

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:30 am

CUDA wrote:so to add to this discussion, when a President blames Congress for everything

um, no, he's blaming them for DOING NOTHING. Would you be able to claim otherwise?

and then says I have a Pen and a Phone and I will get things done implying that he will use his executive powers

meaning, within normal Presidential authority, he can allocate resources as he sees fit, can call private entities to enlist non-government assistance and can instruct via executive orders certain patterns of enforcement. Thus far, no new legislation that I can see.

,

and then tells congress to do something with this immigration problem and Law or he will. he is again implying that he intends to executive order legislation, don't deny it

one cannot 'executive order legislation'. One is permanent(legislation) until rescinded by Congressional action, the other is at the whim of the sitting President. Far different just on that aspect alone. Once again, you're allowing your hatred and/or fears of Obama to obscure the common-sense I know you posess. Legislation is unique, and its very name implies action by a legislature. Executive action is both different in scope, and has a long history of precedent.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:46 am

I see you ignored everything I posted and went straight to the talking points. guess you don't really care to debate. Glad you read my articles. I know you didn't because you posted too fast. probably had no intention to either did you.

because it make it easier to claim

more lies and fabrications

when you don't do any research and you take a stance to one side without being objective. and we all know how "OBJECTIVE" you can be

I agree Congress has done nothing. but maybe you should talk to Harry Reid about the 340 bills passed by the House that he never allowed to the senate floor for a Vote.
But Alas that would require you being OBJECTIVE. see my above comment

Thus far

hedging your bets I see.

thanks for your participation and wasting my time doing research to have a REAL discussion, I guess I'll have to rest my hopes for that in Ferno ***SHRUG***

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:54 am

CUDA wrote:I see you ignored everything I posted and went straight to the talking points. guess you don't really care to debate. Glad you read my articles. I know you didn't because you posted too fast. probably had no intention to either did you.

because it make it easier to claim
more lies and fabrications
when you don't do any research and you take a stance to one side without being objective. and we all know how "OBJECTIVE" you can be

um, no, because I agreed completely with what you came up with, and the assessment. I too, can understand both sides, but fall in opinion on the side that the intent wasn't changed.

I agree Congress has done nothing. but maybe you should talk to Harry Reid about the 340 bills passed by the House that he never allowed to the senate floor for a Vote.
But Alas that would require you being OBJECTIVE. see my above comment

having a bill die in committee isn't 'not allowing' a vote. Find me one major piece of legislaton that was vote-ready, and not promised a Presidential veto that didn't get to a Senate vote. I put in the veto caveat, because it is worthless voting on legislation that is facing veto, unless enough of a majority is there to override. Otherwise, you're just wasting the taxpayers time and money. Please, send me a link to this list of 'bills' from the House. I think you'll find almost 90% included a demand for gutting the ACA somehow, and that isn't legislation, it's political grandstanding. So, CUDA, I am trying to be objective, I just haven't seen anywhere near the failure from the Senate side(even the GOP senators, to the extent of the House). Sorry.

anyhow, thanks for the legwork. Sorry I didn't go out of my way to mention that I agreed with it, nor express my appreciation you did so.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:10 am

Slick, you are not being objective. You are being dishonest playing word games.

slick(he thinks he is) wrote:one cannot 'executive order legislation'. One is permanent(legislation) until rescinded by Congressional action, the other is at the whim of the sitting President.

If the sitting President, on a whim, decides to cause the legislation to not be enforced it is only permanent in theory...in real life it ceases to exist....except on paper somewhere.

So that grand difference you were trying to hide behind doesn't cover your ass at all. It just makes it more prominent.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:59 am

I am being objective, Will, and if you'll allow me, I'll spell out the objective reality here:

for decades, every President has to deal with what are called unfunded mandates. In other words, Congress writes a law or set of laws which dictate certain courses of action, and require a certain level of staffing or infrastructure for all those actions to be able to get taken. When Congress fails to appropriate enough monies to enact or take all action which the law dictates, the President is confronted with EXECUTIVE decisions. Does he enforce the law in full, taking money from other parts of the budget? If so, that requires executive orders to transfer the funds. Does he selective enforce the law, dealing presumably with those priorities he deems most necessary? If so, that requires executive action as to define the priorities. All Presidents have done this. It's nothing new, certainly not even something in which Obama has been overly active, compared to others. The problem now that has 'conservatives' crying is that he is having to make those decisions around the ACA to enable full enaction of the law down the line, and most notably, in terms of immigration, which is WOEFULLY underfunded. The immigration law might dictate that several classes of aliens be processed and deported, but with only enough judges to handle about 1/4 of the overall workload, Obama has to try and aim for what he deems most necessary. Still, the exec actions on those two fronts, and others, are always around implementation, which is exactly what Executive powers require him to do. He is clearly NOT writing legislation, nor is he radically altering existing legislation so as to change the intended outcome.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:28 pm

No he is not 'writing legislation' in a literal sense.
He is effectively creating legislative results at odds with the existing legislation.
And not simply because some rascally republicans stole his lunch money.

He is doing things like tying up the process to delay court appearances, ordering reviews...then crying that he doesn't have enough judges! While his team sends these newcomers out on their own recognizance to appear later at a court date that the team seems to have lost the receipts that were the only way to know if they have showed up or not...

He is postponing, simply for political considerations, the implementation of certain parts of the ACA.

He may not be the first one to do it. Maybe not even the best at it, that doesn't really matter what matters is it is happening 'effectively' not literally, no, but effectively, and I don't think he is capable of doing anything you wouldn't defend so you'll have to cope with how your protests are received since that is a result of your reputation preceding your act.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:46 pm

Will Robinson wrote:No he is not 'writing legislation' in a literal sense.
He is effectively creating legislative results at odds with the existing legislation.
And not simply because some rascally republicans stole his lunch money.

He is doing things like tying up the process to delay court appearances, ordering reviews...then crying that he doesn't have enough judges! While his team sends these newcomers out on their own recognizance to appear later at a court date that the team seems to have lost the receipts that were the only way to know if they have showed up or not...

proof please, of the extent of the above.

He is postponing, simply for political considerations, the implementation of certain parts of the ACA.

sorry, but not true. Politics aside, the implementation delays were at the request of certain affected parties for the sake of eventually full implementation. You WISH to make it political, but have utterly no proof of that assertion. Now, do you?

He may not be the first one to do it. Maybe not even the best at it, that doesn't really matter what matters is it is happening 'effectively' not literally, no, but effectively, and I don't think he is capable of doing anything you wouldn't defend so you'll have to cope with how your protests are received since that is a result of your reputation preceding your act.

I had faith in you.....you had to throw in one outright lie. On more than one occaision, I have cited policies of the administation I bitterly disagree with, most recently of the 'Red Line' statement in Syria(although the fact that he restrained the US from essentially arming or strategically aiding ISIS by doing nothing starts to look like a good call), and the decision to creep back into Iraq(although, I tend to sympathise with helping the refugees in the mountains). But, you couldn't help yourself, could you? You have to make up Will's Reality, as ever, and claim that I always defend every action or decision. Liar. Why would you dare to imagine that your words carry much credibility here, at this point. It's almost a daily thing with you.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Aug 13, 2014 1:00 pm

having a bill die in committee isn't 'not allowing' a vote. Find me one major piece of legislaton that was vote-ready, and not promised a Presidential veto that didn't get to a Senate vote. I put in the veto caveat, because it is worthless voting on legislation that is facing veto, unless enough of a majority is there to override. Otherwise, you're just wasting the taxpayers time and money. Please, send me a link to this list of 'bills' from the House. I think you'll find almost 90% included a demand for gutting the ACA somehow, and that isn't legislation, it's political grandstanding. So, CUDA, I am trying to be objective, I just haven't seen anywhere near the failure from the Senate side(even the GOP senators, to the extent of the House). Sorry.

one major problem I see with your comments. you have hedged your bets so many times I don't know what you believe

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/20022 ... -our-bills