Obama on Flouting Article 2, Section 2 of Constitution: ‘I Won’t Take No For An Answer’
By Fred Lucas
January 4, 2012
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oba...section-2-constitution-i-won-t-take-no-answer
Obama ignores constitution: 'I won't take no for an answer'
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, Jan 5, 2012.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
So, what else is new?
And, this sort of refutes Havensdad's position in another thread that Obama and Bush are the same... Obama is magnitudes more liberal than the moderate Bush, and has caused magnitudes more future change in America than any other sitting President in our history, save George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, both of who, oversaw the creation of our nation in multiple ways.
Just wait until those reems and reems of passed bills, most over 10,000 pages in length start to kick in. One thing after another in America will start to change by force of law and it will be too late to do anything about it.
First indicators: Medicare cut by 25% in one of the most under-reported news stories of the decade. Subsidies cut for ethanol, which will radically realign both the farming and fuel industries. -
-
Like Bush's 750 "signing statements"? His Executive Orders? His frustration over wanting to enforce the Patriot Act, and his assertion that the "Constitution is just a piece of paper!"?
Yeah, WAY different... :laugh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE -
Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>Site Supporter
Critics of Ron Paul's supporters do well to ignore Bush's extra-constitutional activities.
-
Note the last sentence which has been used many times by Republican presidents.
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. -
The Senate is not in recess. -
-
-
-
-
-
>The Senate is not in recess.
3 neocon pharisees every day to fulfill the letter of the law? -
Why would I agree with your lies? -
-
Obama's recess appointments were perfectly constitutional. The power to make recess appointments has no lower time limit. The clause in the Constitution has generally been given a practical interpretation. The Republicans can not obstruct the President's power by holding sham pro forma sessions every three days.
I'm glad he did this because normally he just gives in to the Republicans, which isn't surprising given that he's not a real liberal. He should be a strong leader and be willing to fight sometimes.
If you want a real example of Obama shredding the Constitution, you should look at the National Defense Authorization Act. -
Easy to say. You offer no proof.
We have proof on the table that Obama is disregarding the constitution. -
Democrats did.
The difference...Bush did not make appointments when they did. It would have been unconstitutional, just as it is now. -
-
Hopefully, it will be tested in court.
The constitution says: "
Page 1 of 2