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: 8
63
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
One apologist I heard last evening brought up the fact that this trade had been openly discussed in the media as early as February. I googled and found it reported in the Navy Times.
www.navytimes.com...

I'm not attempting to defend any actions taken by anyone. I think they're all a bunch of criminals and I get the giggles sometimes when I see the little roosters strutting about and crowing "Liar! Deceiver! Law-Breaker!" But when the giggles subside I get perturbed when I think that all Nixon did was to bug one hotel room....nobody died as a result of his actions, nobody was significantly injured by his actions as far as I can remember. Since Nixon I've watched every single one of them do far worse crimes than his and never a peep----until the "sex" scandal! Seems that sex is the only thing that can catch their attention in the sacred halls of law makers. So until you have a confirmed NSA tape of the current occupant of the WH doing the dirty with....small children and animals... or organizing cock fights...you won't make any traction with either party. And even if you had such evidence of deviant behaviors, it would likely get squashed because similar tapes exist for enough of the members of that scum-ridden body of humanity that they would never, ever, be so bold as to DO anything----except express outrage!
I understand expressing outrage, I do it myself all the time because that's about the limits of my power. Those who could and should be doing more are too caught up in petty political squabbles to be paying attention to any scene beyond the next election. That's why I'd like to see every incumbent running the next election defeated---utterly defeated. We might get another crop of crooks but at least they'd be a different crop of crooks.
Of course he's broken the law, but he's a member of one of the baddest gangs in the history of the world. Who's gonna tag him?




posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Well I don't hear people chanting 'Obama lied and people died'.

That fits the VA,Fast and Furious,Libya, and Syria, and when he violated Pakistans sovergnty to kill Bin Laden again.

Then his solution was to 'close gitmo' 6 years later still open and his solution to gitmo was just to drone them outright.

Then one day he decided to trade terrorists for a deserter.

It is simply GD amazing what Obama gets away with.
edit on 9-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Re-read the whole quote, in context. NVM, I'll break it up.


Story wrote in his Commentaries: “The propriety of admitting the president to be commander in chief, so far as to give orders, and have a general superintendency, was admitted.


but...


But it was urged, that it would be dangerous to let him command in person, without any restraint, as he might make a bad use of it. The consent of both houses of Congress ought, therefore, to be required, before he should take the actual command.


This applies to Congress' power to declare war.


The answer then given was...


You see, the whole paragraph is a question and then the answer.


...that though the president might, there was no necessity that he should, take the command in person; and there was no probability that he would do so, except in extraordinary emergencies, and when he was possessed of superior military talents.”


Meaning, he could... but it wasn't probable he would do so except in extraordinary emergencies. And that...


In 1850, Chief Justice Taney, for the Court, said: “His duty and his power are purely military. As commander-in-chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may invade the hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States.


Except this...


But his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power.”



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Thanks for the link.

The law, however, clearly 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."

(from my OP)

The president could have talked about it every day. But if Congress wasn't notified 30 days prior to the trade, then it's against the law.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Okay.

WHERE does it say he can break his own laws?



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

To add, the Constitution even states (I provided the source twice) that the president has to obey the law..

Now if you can find a source that trumps the Constitution, let me know.

Otherwise, you're just being deliberately obtuse.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Really? You're going to be this stubborn so as to appear incapable of understanding a simple concept? There is nothing besides the Constitution that regulates the Commander in Chief when he is directing the military.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Even though it is the same person, POTUS is entirely different than CIC... they are even sworn into each position, separately.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Really? You're going to be this stubborn so as to appear incapable of understanding a simple concept? There is nothing besides the Constitution that regulates the Commander in Chief when he is directing the military.


Me stubborn? I cited Constitutional citations that clearly stated that the president has to obey the law.

There is no citation/provision that says Obama can ignore the laws of the land.

Get over it!



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Even though it is the same person, POTUS is entirely different than CIC... they are even sworn into each position, separately.


You are now lying.

Source it.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Clause 5


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 Take Care Clause,[20] also known as the Faithful Execution Clause[21] or Faithfully Executed Clause.[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.[2




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


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



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Jet packs you say?

Of course he broke the law. Ain't the first time, won't be the last time. The next guy will break the law too, just like the last. Nothing changes.

They are above the law. That much has always been made clear.
edit on 9-6-2014 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer


So are you saying that the Secretary of Defense went rogue, did the swap, MADE Obama do a press release in the Rose Garden? Oh my goodness!


No.

I'm saying that the law applies to the Secretary of Defense. Obama is not the Secretary of Defense and so he can't break a law that is applied to the Secretary of Defense.

If you want to talk about how the Sec Def broke a law...be my guest. But Obama didn't break any of the laws you highlighted in your thread...in fact Obama can't break any of those laws because he is not the Sec Def.

And the burglars that broke into the watergate offices were guilty of the break in. So why was Nixon impeached for it? The quality of args has diminished so in this generation.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: beezzer

Jet packs you say?

Of course he broke the law. Ain't the first time, won't be the last time. The next guy will break the law too, just like the last. Nothing changes.

They are above the law. That much has always been made clear.


Truth!

But that won't stop me from calling them on it every chance I get!



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

i quote "to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy."

interesting,,to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy,, well i guess all the President needs to do is show how this was done.

"to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy"

have a hard time convincing me though.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Lying? No. Being wrong isn't the same as lying. I was reading something quickly and misread. The rest of what I said, stands however.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: BobAthome

No where once have I said I agree with the decisions CICs make, just that when it comes to the military... they are pretty much King. Whether we like it or not.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: BobAthome

No where once have I said I agree with the decisions CICs make, just that when it comes to the military... they are pretty much King. Whether we like it or not.



"they are pretty much King. Whether we like it or not.

its American its your duty to change it then,, unless u want Kings to Rule again.

And if the Bush family is any indication,,well,,they sure was powerfull. lets say they headed a C leaver I nsisive A rm of the Government.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I'd like to put this out for general consensus:

Did 0bama not tell the entire world he was going to shut Gitmo down during his tenure? Did that not include all current and future member of Congress? Does that not imply repatriation of detained personnel? Did he not meet the 30 notification requirement (it's not real specific mind you) 30 days after being elected (or even sooner)?

[Sarc]Would anyone rather discuss the VA scandal and the Death Panels our vets have experienced as a reality?[/Sarc]



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Not even remotely close as a joke does *THIS* qualify as shutting down Gitmo.

Heck.. The US prison system costs too much to run. Lets just release all the criminals. No more prison costs..and God help the citizens who they encounter.

In this case? We didn't release them HERE...but God help the people of Afghanistan for what is working it's way back to them.

Releasing prisoners as logic to close a prison is the most extreme example of "Ends justify the means" thinking I believe I've ever seen. We normally agree on stuff....but Obama is supposed to be Commander and Chief, not CRIMINAL in Chief. He was supposed to follow through on seeing those human pieces of garbage put on TRIAL not kicked loose and with just about our apologies.

These are NOT goat herders or A.Q. Street fighters he just released. He turned out something like the Death Row of an American Prison that were just awaiting the trials to make that official. Obama decided convicting terrorists isn't to his liking.. Well.. TOO BAD. That isn't HIS call to make. Congress made that exceptionally clear, and they aren't letting this one slide. Good.

He screwed up and jeopardized the direct national security of the United States. In my personal opinion.




top topics



 
63
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join