It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The law that Obama broke

page: 6
63
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Commander in Chief can in fact do whatever the hell they want with the military or any aspect of it. GITMO included. If Congress doesn't like it, they can defund.




posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
If Obama was acting as CIC, then no he didn't have to inform Congress of anything. He said he might do as much in signing statements when he signed the 2012 NDAA.

Edit: Sorry that was the 2013 Defense Bill, not the NDAA.


So it'd be more apt if I said, "The law that Obama ignored"?


Yes.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Who is that guy???

I'd vote for him in a sec-. . . wait, what?



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: RedmoonMWC

His signing statement CANNOT change the law.... all it is is his opinion. The only time it can change the law is when WE LET IT!

And I'll NOT let this president change laws as he sees fit with UNCONSTITUTIONAL signing statements... OBAMA HIMSELF called signing statements illegal and unconstitutional for God's sake when he said:



“The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation.”


Link to Video

Please listen to the video! He called signing statements illegal and unconstitutional.
edit on 9-6-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Commander in Chief can in fact do whatever the hell they want with the military or any aspect of it. GITMO included. If Congress doesn't like it, they can defund.


NO they can't.

FACT:

The US military went to WAR in Afghanistan by an ACT OF CONGRESS contrary to the 'popular' dogma.

While the rest of America was at the mall.

Gitmo was opened by an ACT OF CONGRESS.

Gitmo is funded by an ACT OF CONGRESS.

Has to go through congress.

Not because Obama wants to score political points because of a 'scandal' at the VA.
edit on 9-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
If Obama was acting as CIC, then no he didn't have to inform Congress of anything. He said he might do as much in signing statements when he signed the 2012 NDAA.

Edit: Sorry that was the 2013 Defense Bill, not the NDAA.


So it'd be more apt if I said, "The law that Obama ignored"?


Yes.


So if I ignored a law, say on robbing a bank, then that's not the same as breaking it?



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

In the sense that I can murder, steal and commit fraud. Yes.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

You don't have the authority, Obama does.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: beezzer

How do you know those people weren't notified? They may say that they weren't, but this is politics.

You are assuming.


Right here from a Left leaning news outlet.


Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel stated unambiguously he did not notify Congress. At all. Just didn't. Not even a phone call or a text as it all went down.

Administration officials explained when Obama signed the bill containing the latest version of the Gitmo transfer restrictions into law, he issued a signing statement claiming that he could lawfully override them under his executive powers.



Hands tied by Congress? Obama just went ahead anyway and is sitting back watching Congress fume. That whole business about not negotiating with terrorists? Um, not anymore. The fact that Bergdahl was held in ally Pakistan for five years, just like they harbored Bin Laden?

The Huffington Piss



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

You don't have the authority, Obama does.


So Obama has the authority to break the law?

(can you source that for me?)

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

You don't have the authority, Obama does.


BUT

The executive, as well as both house derive their power from CONSENT of the people.

Otherwise we do live under a totalitarian regime.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Just because those things were done through Congress, doesn't mean CIC always has to. Just traditionally has. Again, the CIC can take any military action they want to. If they want to order the navy to dive for trash at the bottom of the ocean, they can. If they want to press the "red button" they can, all without permission or notification... and it's totally legal and Constitutional.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Then by all means start the process of impeachment. But good luck finding legal grounds to do so, you won't find any.
edit on 6/9/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

The law doesn't really apply to the CIC, that's the point.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




Just because those things were done through Congress, doesn't mean CIC always has to. J


Yeah he does.

Read the op ?



• The Secretary of Defense must determine that the risk posed by the detainee will be substantially mitigated and that the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States.




• The Secretary of Defense must notify the appropriate committees of Congress at least 30 days before the transfer or release of a Guantanamo detainee.




The Secretary of Defense must provide detailed information regarding the circumstances of the transfer or release along with the notification, including how the risk posed by the detainee will be substantially mitigated, the security arrangements in the receiving country, and an assessment of the capacity, willingness, and past practices of the receiving country.





“None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used to transfer any individual detained at United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the custody or control of the individual's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity except in accordance with section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.”


EPICALLY BROKE HIS OWN 'LAW'.



he current NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (H.R. 3304; NDAA 2014), a United States federal law which specifies the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense (DOD) for Fiscal Year 2014. The law authorized the DOD to spend $607 billion in Fiscal Year 2014.[2] On December 26, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the bill into law.[3


On December 26, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the bill into law

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 9-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

The law doesn't really apply to the CIC, that's the point.


Hmmm.

In Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution it states. . .


Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.


www.law.cornell.edu...

he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


As the Supreme court has repeatedly recognized, the take care clause—which provides that the President “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed”—establishes that the President does not hold the royal prerogative of a dispensing power, which is the power to dispense with or suspend the execution of the laws. The take care clause, then, makes plain that the President is duty-bound to enforce all the laws, whether he agrees with them or not.

A presidential power to refuse to enforce the laws is also inconsistent with the constitutional process for the enactment of legislation. As the old Saturday morning cartoon literally illustrates, the constitution provides that a bill cannot become a law unless the President gives his assent. This assent must be given or withheld in whole, as the Supreme court emphasized in striking down a statutory line-item veto.

In The Federalist, James Madison describes the system of checks-and balances. The President’s principal weapon against legislative encroachments and against improvident legislation is his veto power. Under the constitution’s design, then, if the President regards a provision of a bill to be unconstitutional, the appropriate remedy is a veto.



edit on 9-6-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Here is that other LAW HE BROKE:



The President Executive Order 12947—Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process


www.treasury.gov...

Transactions prohibted with terrorists.

Hostage trades is a TRANSACTION.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Listen to this Kali:

Obama in his own words telling you its unconstitutional what he just did!




posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Maybe people need to understand there is quite a difference between POTUS and CIC. CIC needs no authority from any one or any body to make and carry out military decisions. Congress is under no obligation to fund any actions the CIC decides to take but they certainly have no authority over the the CIC's decisions nor do they have a vote on them. The power Congress has is over the money, that's it.

And yes, it was quite designed this way intentionally. This is something I had to come to grips with, during Dubya's reign.



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join