Obama Unveils National ObamaLaw Plan

originally posted by: xuenchen
St. Louis County in Ferguson looks more and more like a proving ground.

Obama Unveils National ObamaLaw Plan

edit on Mar-03-2015 by xuenchen because: [_[__zzzz__]_]

Obama’s strategy matches the progressive playbook, which continuously expands progressives’ power by gradually adding more conditions to federal aid. That same strategy is implemented in education via the “Common Core” education plan, in the health-sector via Obamacare, in the banking industry via the mortgage rules that caused the damaging property bubble and in housing via Obama’s “regionalism” plan.

There is going to be a huge States' Rights battle before this man is finished. He is so overstepping his boundary.

a reply to: nullafides

Well if we should do something, there needs to be a valid reason why. Not just because. If you provide reasons that are inaccurate or lies then you have no argument.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: derfreebie

We need a constitutional amendment that states that, upon last day of the term of service for a president, all EOs are hereby rendered ineffective. If Congress likes what the presi did during that term, they need to draft it into law. If not, the new president isn't burdened by having to waste time nullifying the prior presidents' EOs.

Good idea, but the rub is: how many of the new POTUS want
to build on what's already in there? I didn't see that incumbent
pen and phone jump on any of Bush43's EOs.. even though it was
a campaign promise of his to get rid of every one of them that
didn't pass constitutional muster. So much for law professor guy...
approximately 75% (more?) of them actually and technically were.

We may be living in an era in this country where the great majority of
laws as interpreted to the letter will be applauded standing by the 51%..
and in implementation cruel and unusual punishment for the rest of us.
Thereafter the founding fathers' worst fear comes true-- where the
instrument designed to protect us will be abused unto our undoing.

originally posted by: Elementalist
I'll say it again..

The American government has been hijacked on yhe inside by rogue faction who are trying to change how the nation operates and goes about globally.

Obama is a false president, he is not there for the heart nor the greater good of the American people.

By empty promises, selling hope (lol too easy..), changing laws, allowing conspiracy events (Sandy hook, Boston, Colorado shooting), to change citizen self security, and finally the big one, changing YOUR constitution.

He seems like a light dictator, and America is frozen in fear and obedience to change anything, so this rogue faction will continue pressing until WW3 is past escalation and the globalist win every corner of earth.

It's all a plan, nobody is put into power by pathetic votes of Slaves. Harsh you say? Reality is harsher, that's why no one will dare go against the establishment.

Today America, reminds me of Rome. Press to conquer all, even it's own people, divide globally and thin itself out, and fall due to division and blind ego.

One sharpening of a coffin nail, my friend... the personal wealth
disparity right now in the US is four to seven times worse than
Rome's at the beginning of it's visible collapse. We're either long
overdue, heavily sedated, or both.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Not arguing that, he's not the best president the U.S. has ever had, that's for sure.

Just commenting on political strategy and how it tends to coin entirely new words.

The democrats wanted "brand" Obama, now they have it. They should have been more careful of what they wished for LOL. Now they can't disassociate or distance themselves from the turd they created fast enough.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No.

I provided my opinion.

At no point in time did I say "Hey, you NEED to go along with me because I FEEL X".

At no point in time did I lie to anyone, either.

And btw, I happen to believe that not only are my opinions as valid as yours, but that there are others who agree with me. Not that I feel I *need* to have others agree with me, but that they are out there nonetheless. I cannot ignore the idea that you appear to need to prove that someone is right and someone is wrong. Opinions being what they are, are neither "wrong" nor "right". They simply are.

Again, this seems to be a situation in which you expect to have a referee raise your hand in victory.

Not here, my friend. Not here.

a reply to: nullafides

You are using a lot of empty words to defend your faulty opinion. I showed you that your opinion is formed based on lies yet you go right on angrily defending it. If you want to believe that Obama should be impeached. Fine. Knock yourself out. But that doesn't prevent you from being wrong.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. The fact of the matter is that you have provided no valid evidence to suggest that Obama should be impeached. Therefore Obama SHOULDN'T be impeached due to lack of evidence. That's how our legal system works. You know the one that you claim Obama is breaking?

a reply to: derfreebie

Want to build on them or not, EOs should not be allowed to stand as law after the person who enacted them has officially left office. In fact, I'd almost go so far as to say that they should be reset to zero every four years, whether a winning politician is the incumbent or not. It'd sure reduce the amount of them in the second half of the terms, I'd think, instead of watching them continue unabated until the last day in office.

ADDED: The best option would be to outlaw EOs altogether, but that's never going to happen because too many in Congress have presidential aspirations and savor the power that EOs afford them. Damn power-hungry politicians...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nullafides

You are using a lot of empty words to defend your faulty opinion. I showed you that your opinion is formed based on lies yet you go right on angrily defending it....blah...blah...blah....

Keep on winning, my friend, keep on winning.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

What you mean like homophobe, Islamophobe, etc.? You can thank the PC police on the left for that gift.

a reply to: nullafides

Yea god forbid I try to engage you in debate on a social media platform. That's only what these forums are for. But hey I can't make you challenge your opinions. Carry on.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You did challenge them. I read everything you had to say. I tasted, chewed, and digested your statements.

But you have an unreasonable belief that your challenge will sway my opinions.

I apologize, but that simply didn't happen.

And that doesn't mean that someday you'll say something that will make me have a bit of an epiphany. I'll be certain to continue to taste, chew, and digest everything you have to say.

I promise you I will.

a reply to: nullafides

So in other words, you acknowledge that there is no legal basis for impeaching Obama, but believe we should do it anyways?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Article II Section 3 Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Executive Orders stand with the force of law only when they represent the exercise of an executive power ceded to the President in the Constitution, or, as ceded from the Congress via legislation.

Executive Orders are not "above the law" or the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the authority to nullify EOs as appropriate in regard to the Constitutional text mentioned above and has done so as determined necessary.

Claiming that there should be no way for the President to successfully administer his Constitutional duties seems absurd.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nullafides

So in other words, you acknowledge that there is no legal basis for impeaching Obama, but believe we should do it anyways?

Earlier, in another reply to someone else in this thread, I performed a meaculpa, and admitted that I used the term "impeach" either blatantly improperly or without proper understanding on my part of the term. I went on to say that I would have been better to have simply said that I wish he could be removed from office in such a way not unlike a vote of no confidence.

In other words, legally remove him? I was wrong on that, and brashly used an incorrect term to suggest what I would want.

Rather, my intent was to voice my personal displeasure in his actions as POTUS.

If I failed in communicating this to you personally, my apologies. It was not my intent to be vague or somehow misleading in my statements of personal opinion.

a reply to: nullafides

Nullafides, I don't mean to break in unnecessarily to a conversation between two members here, but you do realize that part of the overall purpose of ATS is to review documentable evidence (whatever the topic), providing citations and backups for our claims made, and, at least thematically, to express our opinions in clear distinction to what we're claiming to be factual.

At least as I understand the T&C of the site. So, yes, in a way, posting on these forums is an invitation to a kind of "debate."

We have to learn not to take disagreement so seriously.

Best,

a reply to: nullafides

Fair enough. In response I will give you this. The last two years of Obama's presidency will probably end up as a lame duck presidency. This has been the case for just about every President that has served two terms.

6 Weirdly Specific Things That Screw All 2nd Term Presidents

The right really doesn't have much more to fear from Obama as he approaches the end, and they will likely take the Presidency. Such is the pattern of history.

litigation.law

What constitutes an impeach able offense with regard to the POTUS?

There are differing opinions.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

What you mean like homophobe, Islamophobe, etc.? You can thank the PC police on the left for that gift.

Not unlike wondrous terms like "welfare queen" and "creation science" and "anti-Christian" brought to you by the PC police on the right. The gifts just keep coming!

originally posted by: butcherguy
litigation.law

What constitutes an impeach able offense with regard to the POTUS?

There are differing opinions.

Yes, technically it would be whatever the House decides to be "high crimes and misdemeanors" (like adultery in the most recent example).

What do you think "impeachable offenses" should be, Butcherguy, in your opinion?