Obama hands out over 1000 commutations. More than the past 11 Presidents combined.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Changing Federal Law requires Congress.

but he said " i got a pen and i got a telephone", remember if he can use them for one thing he can use them for another.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

but he said he's got a pen and a phone, remember if he can use them for one thing he can use them for another.

Overriding a federal law isn't something an EO can change.

Please say you knew that and was just being facetious.

a reply to: Grimpachi

i never said that he could, the little devils at the bottom of the post should have told you that was sarcasm.
i guess nest time i'll just have to put sarc/off. so people will know.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Your red devils sort of blended into your banner so I missed them.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I understand that, but it hasnt stopped him yet

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I think his plan is to build a case for changing the law on that basis that having money to access to the law and to purchase reasonably competent representation is likely to build evidence for the need to change the law rather than try to change the law with out any evidence to support the initative.

having the evidence will provide the basis for acting and for making it harder for future administrations to change it back again.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
but he said " i got a pen and i got a telephone", remember if he can use them for one thing he can use them for another.

That only gets you so far. To change Federal law you need the ding dongs in Congress.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
I understand that, but it hasnt stopped him yet

Sure it has. You think if Congress was not around you would not be living in some sort of Obama-topia of his design?

a reply to: brutus61

Releasing non-violent drug offenders is NOT an overreach of presidential powers. The president has the authority to commute the sentence of ANY inmate. PERIOD! He's choosing to commute the sentences of people who shouldn't be in jail to begin with.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


second one i've told the little devils are for sarcasm. next time i'll just write sarc/off.

Would need to look at individual cases. Seems like a good thing to do overall.

Add it to his large list of accomplishments that are also not failures
1. got bin laden
2. improved relations with cuba
3. commuted non-violent drug offenders

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
second one i've told the little devils are for sarcastic. next time i'll just write sarc/off.

Never knew that.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

well it may not be the way ATS intended, but that is what i use them for. i guess i don't write good enough for the sarcasm to come through.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: ColaTesla

I agree entirely, but as burd suggested, why the hell hasnt Obama used his pen and his phone to change people being jailed to begin with?

I'm not sure how things are in America with regard to drugs laws etc., but here in the UK people convicted of drugs offences, including non-violent crimes, gives authorities a right to confiscate everything you possess - money, investments, property, house, everything and anything. Government will take your ill-gotten gains for itself.

So even if a drugs offender doesn't go to jail, he/she could have their possessions and cash confiscated as proceeds of crime.

Drugs convictions are extremely lucrative for government and that's prolly why drugs won't be legalised.

Yes you need congress to change a law... nothing stopping him from taking a public stance on changing these horrid mandatory sentencing laws on non-violent offenders, he could have lead members of his own party to change the laws, proposed changes and given input on how to re-write the laws...

But as usual leading is tough and he wanted no part of it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, there are a bazillion executive orders to prove it. Thats my gd problem....devils advocacy means nothing compared to FREEDOM

originally posted by: BlueJacket
No, there are a bazillion executive orders to prove it. Thats my gd problem....devils advocacy means nothing compared to FREEDOM

And which of them would require Congress to undue them?

The answer is none.