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.

 

Dick Cheney: "Obama Exceeded Constitutional Authority by Use of Executive Power"

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

That would require congress to work, whats the likely hood of that?




posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
Know how many were "reestablished"?

Three.

Extensions?

Two.


Do you have a link for this? Or are you just doing that "jedi hand wave" thing?


I used the above links from Xcathdra.

National Archives

Look for "reestablishment" and "extension" and you can count the number yourself.

Like I said... seems we both were working with incorrect info, true?

I can admit it... can you?

~Namaste



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010If his EO's violate the Constitution then they can be struck down by the Supreme Court.


Only if they are successfully challenged. Scotus has ruled that differences between the Executive and Legislative should be worked out between the 2. The courts get touchy on this topic since its not specifically spelled out. Although that has changed recently with their rulings on the NLRB appointments.

There is no such thing as executive privilege in the Constitution. Nixon created it to hide the Watergate scandal and the recorded meetings discussing it. Scotus ruled against Nixon however the ruling legitimized the "executive privilege" concept.

Personally I think executive privilege should not exist. I think it undermines to concept of checks and balances for each branch.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
I can admit it... can you?


If I'm wrong, I'll GLADLY admit it. I said many EOs were issued by other presidents and signed by Obama (as opposed to the numbers getting smaller because other presidents had written them all). I don't know how many, but at least 14.

See this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Ah yes, Dick Cranium, the bloke that went out hunting and couldn't tell the difference between a quail and a Lawyers face.

He's probably still allowed to carry a gun too.

By the way, anyone here shot a mate in the face and suffered almost zero repercussions for the act? Didn't think so.

Then he raped Iraq.

Maybe he raped Iraq first and then shot his mate, or raped Iraq twice......I get so confused with all the acts this war criminal has partaken in.

Anything that comes out of his mouth I consider either lies or propaganda......or both.

======> Why isn't he in jail?



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Truth is, it doesn't matter HOW many EOs Obama wrote or HOW many were reissued or reestablished. No one has yet given specifics of how Obama has exceeded his authority, as Cheney claims. And each time I ask, all I hear is crickets.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_

I didn't read the whole Res 1258, but much of that can be added to the charges against Obama, Just replace Iraq with Libya. I didn't see any reference to abuse of EOs and certainly the Posse Comitatus issues also applies. In addition the current POTUS is failing to protect our borders which he's sworn to do. As a matter of fact that is one of his primary duties as POTUS. Bush was no bargain along with his partners, but we've gone way farther down the rabbit hole with Obama. So maybe it's time to direct your outrage toward the present and not what can be considered ancient history. Bush can no longer effect things the way he did as POTUS.
edit on 67106Tuesdayk22 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Why is anyone giving attention to this creep? If ANYONE practiced "lawlessness", it was him and his puppet, Georgie. They got us into a mess we'll likely never recover from.

That creepy picture scared me.


And Darth Cheney doesn't have a heart. I mean seriously, he has not heart, just a mechanical pump system. I am not sure how that thing can even be alive LOL

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
He actually has a heart now. Somehowgot at fro t of li e for donor heart?a reply to: bobs_uruncle



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

I may have missed part of the conversation - How does Posse Comitatus apply?




edit on 15-7-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
No one has yet given specifics of how Obama has exceeded his authority, as Cheney claims. And each time I ask, all I hear is crickets.


My bet is because anyone who tries is met with "well the last guy started it...or did it first...or did something similar", and in your book, that somehow magically coverts what is reasonably argued as unlawful action today into cupcakes and roses.

But operating on the assumption you are honestly asking now...

How about this recent example?

Was Bergdahl swap legal? Depends on who you ask




In the aftermath of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's weekend release in exchange for five Taliban figures held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, some in Congress allege President Barack Obama broke the law by failing to inform them about the move 30 days in advance -- as called for under the National Defense Authorization Act.

"The law says they are to give us 30 days' notice. If the President thought that was unconstitutional or an invalid law, than he shouldn't have signed the bill," said Georgia's Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "He knew very well that he was required by law to give us 30 days' notice and he didn't do it."

Obama told reporters in Poland on Tuesday that the circumstances required an immediate decision within his authority as commander in chief.

...

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin disagreed, saying Obama "clearly broke the law" even if he can provide a legal justification for what he did. The bottom line, to Toobin, was that the law calls for 30 days' notice and Obama didn't do it.





Or this one?

Supreme Court Says Obama's NLRB Recess Appointments Were Unconstitutional

Or how about the continuing and dangerous belief that the government can kill American citizens without meaningful process or transparency?

Obama Is Still Hiding the Legal Cover He Used to Kill an American




Abdulrahman al-Awlaki

Anwar al-Awlaki and his Egyptian-born wife, Gihan Mohsen Baker, had an American son, born on Sept. 13, 1995, in Denver, while al-Awlaki was a student at Colorado State. His son's name Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki. He was killed at age 16 in a drone strike on Oct. 14, 2011, in Yemen. It, too, was a controversial extra-judicial killing. Some U.S. officials called it a mistake. Even the president is said, in some reports, to have considered it a bad mistake.

It is not clear where the young al-Awlaki was when he was killed. Some reports say that he was in a cafe with friends; other reports that he was sitting by the road eating with friends. His family said that he had run away from home and was trying to find his father. He had no known ties to terrorism.

Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, stated that his death was justified, and that he "should have had a more responsible father."

Link.



Or any of these four examples....




1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements. The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

Link



And so on and so on....

But somehow I doubt these will qualify in your book.

Sad really.




edit on 15-7-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
The irony of Dick saying this is overwhelming. Glad I'm not the only one who noticed.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
My bet is because anyone who tries is met with "well the last guy started it...or did it first...or did something similar", and in your book, that somehow magically coverts what is reasonably argued as unlawful action today into cupcakes and roses.


You lose the bet. And thanks for the attitude. I really have never been able to get an answer. Thanks for taking the time to respond.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam


My bet is because anyone who tries is met with "well the last guy started it...or did it first...or did something similar", and in your book, that somehow magically coverts what is reasonably argued as unlawful action today into cupcakes and roses.



Maybe if the right didn't try to make it seem like Obama was the only President to to ever do something wrong...they wouldn't have to resort to that argument.

Obama has done a lot of right and also has done some wrong. Either way the fact of the matter is, your country is no longer on the verge of collapse as it was when Bush left. Bush left America on the possibility of another great depression..Obama got you out of it.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
You lose the bet.


Well, that's encouraging.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Bilk22

I may have missed part of the conversation - How does Posse Comitatus apply?






‘Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.’.
I seem to remember drones being used to kill US citizens abroad. That's a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Bilk22

The act prevents active duty federal military units from engaging in civilian police actions inside the US. That act does not apply to state guard units and does not apply outside of the US. Congress passed the law at the end of the civil war to start bringing the southern states back into the Union - a transition from military occupation back to elected officials by the people.

The law is not in the Constitution, meaning it can be changed by congress.

Secondly the military / civilian oath specifically states they would protect the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.

The law states you cannot murder a person. However, in circumstances where life is threatened, deadly force can be used to stop the threat.

He could join any terror group he wants.
He was free to assist individuals who are at war with the US.
He became a legitimate military target.

If your gonna play stickball in Brooklyn, you better know the rules.


edit on 15-7-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: loam
My bet is because anyone who tries is met with "well the last guy started it...or did it first...or did something similar", and in your book, that somehow magically coverts what is reasonably argued as unlawful action today into cupcakes and roses.


You lose the bet. And thanks for the attitude. I really have never been able to get an answer. Thanks for taking the time to respond.


Help understanding.

I don't venture that much into politics on ATS because it's so one sided and closed minded. Posting different points of view is like slamming into a brick wall.

But, anyway, I have a question regarding the Supreme Court ruling against a Obama NLRB recess appointments.

Didn't they basically clarify what he could and could not do? I mean, he wasn't just completely shot down. I don't think.



Second, in a 5-to-4 decision, the court embraced a broad reading of a president’s power to make recess appointments, although not as broad as Mr. Obama had claimed. The second decision is a landmark. www.csmonitor.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Bilk22

The act prevents active duty federal military units from engaging in civilian police actions inside the US. That act does not apply to state guard units and does not apply outside of the US. Congress passed the law at the end of the civil war to start bringing the southern states back into the Union - a transition from military occupation back to elected officials by the people.

The law is not in the Constitution, meaning it can be changed by congress.

Secondly the military / civilian oath specifically states they would protect the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.

The law states you cannot murder a person. However, in circumstances where life is threatened, deadly force can be used to stop the threat.

He could join any terror group he wants.
He was free to assist individuals who are at war with the US.
He became a legitimate military target.

If your gonna play stickball in Brooklyn, you better know the rules.

He needed the approval from Congress and he never sought that. He was judge, jury and executioner.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

The 9-0 ruling clearly established that the Senate determines when they are in recess and when they are not. The recess issue is nowhere near the Presidents authority. It would be like Congress passing laws and then just signing them because they know the President would veto it.

The only thing the president can order that applies to Congress would be -

Clause 3: Calling Congress into extraordinary session; adjourning Congress[edit]

The President may call extraordinary sessions of one or both Houses of Congress. If the two Houses cannot agree on a date for adjournment, the President may adjourn both Houses to such a time as befits the circumstances. The last time this power was exercised was in 1948, when President Harry S Truman called a special session of Congress. That was the twenty-seventh time in American history that a president convened such a session.[17]


This will present an issue for Obama because he failed to use this ability. Instead he went in the direction he did, which makes one wonder why.


The second ruling set a precedence in that before the ruling, recess appointments could only occur during their main break between sessions. It now will allow a recess appointment to occur during any official "recess".

The ruling on the NLRB shut Obama down in terms of trying to usurp Congressional constitutional authority. I can see the ruling being used in the upcoming executive privilege / executive order lawsuits.


edit on 15-7-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join