CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Political non-debate

by mizzoucoug · 1/4/2012

Advertisement
M
mizzoucoug
No matter how y'all vote. No matter how you feel about Ron Paul or Mitt Romney (the final 2 candidates imo) please vote out Obama. Obamacare is not talked about enough anymore but that boondoggle has absolutely got to be repealed. It is a more destructive behemoth than it made out in the media, and I can only hope that whoever is nominated will truly carry out their promise to rid us of that terrible legislation.



Please don't worry about how conservative this or that candidate is this time around. We let evangelicals screw up the 2008 election due to their nit-picking and I say they can all go to hell if they screw up this one too.



The only thing that matters is voting out the most arrogant, narcissistic, and anti-American president in the history of this country. That is all.
T
tww
Amen



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
J
jvquarterback
Do you really think anyone can get rid of obamacare?



I don't think the president make much of a difference. What you really need is for the courts to throw it out or get a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate.
C
CougarClaw
you might not be able to get "rid" of it. But Romney's plan to use executive orders to render it ineffective as well as pushing additional legislation allowing states to come up with their own solutions might make it toothless.



and having Courts throw it out! They can't legislate from the bench!

That's inConstitutional and UnPossible!
B
BoiseBYU
I would vote for Obama if Paul is the candidate. Same if Bachman (I know she has withdrawn) or Palin or Gingrich were the candidate. I'd vote for Romney in a heartbeat, though, and maybe he will become the party's nominee
Advertisement
J
jvquarterback
CougarClaw wrote:
you might not be able to get "rid" of it. But Romney's plan to use executive orders to render it ineffective as well as pushing additional legislation allowing states to come up with their own solutions might make it toothless.



and having Courts throw it out! They can't legislate from the bench!

That's inConstitutional and UnPossible!


Ah yes the executive order - I must have missed that last time I read through the Constitution. I actually had a guy stand up in Sunday school and say we had to vote for Romney so he could save the Constitution that hangs by a thread. Too bad Romney has such a hard time with the Constitution - well at least he has some lawyers that could look that up for him.
S
snoscythe
BoiseBYU wrote:
I would vote for Obama if Paul is the candidate. Same if Bachman (I know she has withdrawn) or Palin or Gingrich were the candidate. I'd vote for Romney in a heartbeat, though, and maybe he will become the party's nominee


I don't know that I'd go that far. Yeah, I think Ron Paul is nutty as squirrel poo, and his foreign policy ideas are dangerous, but right now I think America is facing a greater domestic danger in Obama, so a choice between Paul/Obama would force my hand to vote for Paul.



Fortunately, that will never happen.
S
snoscythe
jvquarterback wrote:
you might not be able to get "rid" of it. But Romney's plan to use executive orders to render it ineffective as well as pushing additional legislation allowing states to come up with their own solutions might make it toothless.



and having Courts throw it out! They can't legislate from the bench!

That's inConstitutional and UnPossible!


Ah yes the executive order - I must have missed that last time I read through the Constitution.


Forgive me for being dense--but how do you suggest that the executive carry out the duties of his office? Doesn't he have to tell the rest of the executive branch what to do? I think the idea of an executive order is assumed.



Now the extent to which and purposes for which you use them, that's a different issue.
J
jvquarterback
I think Romney's bluffing on the executive order (I don't think he'll do anything about it) but I would like to hear someone ask him if he is so ready to issue an order in defiance of Congress why we should trust him to obey an order from the courts or if he would accept any check on the Executive branch at all?



Romney's proposal to use the executive order (which isn't outlined in the Constitution BTW) is an attempt to legislate by the executive which the Constitution was supposed to protect us from. I disagree with Obamacare and do not believe the law Constitutional, that does not mean I believe other unconstitutional measures should be undertaken to prevent it.
B
BroncoBot
jvquarterback wrote:
I think Romney's bluffing on the executive order (I don't think he'll do anything about it) but I would like to hear someone ask him if he is so ready to issue an order in defiance of Congress why we should trust him to obey an order from the courts or if he would accept any check on the Executive branch at all?



Romney's proposal to use the executive order (which isn't outlined in the Constitution BTW) is an attempt to legislate by the executive which the Constitution was supposed to protect us from. I disagree with Obamacare and do not believe the law Constitutional, that does not mean I believe other unconstitutional measures should be undertaken to prevent it.
CougarClaw wrote:
you might not be able to get "rid" of it. But Romney's plan to use executive orders to render it ineffective as well as pushing additional legislation allowing states to come up with their own solutions might make it toothless.



and having Courts throw it out! They can't legislate from the bench!

That's inConstitutional and UnPossible!

Totally agree here. I don't know who started using executive orders, but since then it has started the slippery slope into dictatorship. If Romney uses them why won't the next liberal president use them to do something even more absurd. Which is exactly why I'm hoping Paul DOES become the republican nominee. I believe the constitution to be a sacred document and Paul seems to be the only one willing to embrace it.



Of course I'm going to vote Romney instead of Obama if that's what it comes down to, but right now Paul and his "nutty" (I think brilliant) foreign policy has my vote.
Advertisement
S
SpiffCoug
Romney issuing executive orders is not legislating from the presidency. The executive branch executes the laws the legislative branch makes. This is just one way to execute this poor law - which you believe isn't Constitutional - by simply not enforcing it.
J
jvquarterback
Sort of like when Andrew Jackson told the Supreme Court to stick it. I'm so happy Mitt Romney is such a great champion of the Constitution. But once again he has some attorneys who can look into that.



As long as we're talking about the president ignoring Congress though, what do you guys think about Mitt's position on NDAA and the Patriot act? Anyone still think the 4th amendment applies? Well I guess he has his man McCain on that one so no worries.
M
Mars
jvquarterback wrote:
Sort of like when Andrew Jackson told the Supreme Court to stick it. I'm so happy Mitt Romney is such a great champion of the Constitution. But once again he has some attorneys who can look into that. As long as we're talking about the president ignoring Congress though, what do you guys think about Mitt's position on NDAA and the Patriot act? Anyone still think the 4th amendment applies? Well I guess he has his man McCain on that one so no worries.

I see the "non-debate" aspect of this thread has gone over your skull.
T
tww
It is not unconstitutional for any branch of the federal government, having sworn to uphold the constitution, to ignore or declare void any unconstitutional act of another branch. In other words, the constitution does not require any agent, officer, or branch to be bound by an unconstitutional law. The constitution declares all such laws void automatically. So neither states nor president are bound to obamacare by the constitution.



Also, not all executive orders are unconstitutional. Most are quite legitimate. However, liberal presidents have been writing and getting away with extraconstitutional orders for some time. Clinton did it and Obama does it on nearly a weekly basis. Executive orders are supposed to be for the purpose of directing federal agencies but way too much authority is given to agencies to write their own rules of operation so the agencies and the presidency end up writing their own legislation as long as congress does not object.
J
jvquarterback
So are you saying the executive should exercise civil disobedience in this case? That is pretty silly when you think about it. And a very dangerous precedent - it basically means that the executive has all the power of the government. No, the only two branches of government the Constitution recognizes as having power to determine what is Constitutional are the legislative and judicial branches (though the states are involved as well). Not even Alexander Hamilton went as far as you are trying to.
Advertisement
J
jvquarterback
Mars wrote:
Sort of like when Andrew Jackson told the Supreme Court to stick it. I'm so happy Mitt Romney is such a great champion of the Constitution. But once again he has some attorneys who can look into that. As long as we're talking about the president ignoring Congress though, what do you guys think about Mitt's position on NDAA and the Patriot act? Anyone still think the 4th amendment applies? Well I guess he has his man McCain on that one so no worries.

I see the "non-debate" aspect of this thread has gone over your skull.


No the presumption of the OP is misfounded. What would be different in the US if John McCain had won the election four years ago? A few more troops in Iraq but that is it.



Now I think Mitt Romney is much better than Obama - but he in a couple cases he has deferred questions about the Constitution - did you see the debate on Saturday? And that has me very worried.
B
BoiseBYU
tww wrote:
It is not unconstitutional for any branch of the federal government, having sworn to uphold the constitution, to ignore or declare void any unconstitutional act of another branch. In other words, the constitution does not require any agent, officer, or branch to be bound by an unconstitutional law. The constitution declares all such laws void automatically. So neither states nor president are bound to obamacare by the constitution.



Also, not all executive orders are unconstitutional. Most are quite legitimate. However, liberal presidents have been writing and getting away with extraconstitutional orders for some time. Clinton did it and Obama does it on nearly a weekly basis. Executive orders are supposed to be for the purpose of directing federal agencies but way too much authority is given to agencies to write their own rules of operation so the agencies and the presidency end up writing their own legislation as long as congress does not object.


I am not expert, so perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think unconstitutional laws are void automatically. Where in the constitution does it say that? More of concern to me is this idea that anyone and everyone can declare a law unconstitutional and thus opt to ignore it. Perhaps you were limiting yourself to the federal branch, but if not, we have various states saying that the health care law Congress passed is unconstitutional and therefore they can "nullify" it and ignore it. We have citizens who think the income tax is unconstitutional and then choose to ignore it. To me that is a recipe for anarchy. And for the record it is not just "liberal" presidents who have issued executive orders that are unconstitutional. President Bush issued some doozies in the wake of 9/11 regarding 1st A and 4th A protections I think we all thought we had...
M
mizzoucoug
jvquarterback wrote:
jvquarterback wrote:
Sort of like when Andrew Jackson told the Supreme Court to stick it. I'm so happy Mitt Romney is such a great champion of the Constitution. But once again he has some attorneys who can look into that. As long as we're talking about the president ignoring Congress though, what do you guys think about Mitt's position on NDAA and the Patriot act? Anyone still think the 4th amendment applies? Well I guess he has his man McCain on that one so no worries.

I see the "non-debate" aspect of this thread has gone over your skull.


No the presumption of the OP is misfounded. What would be different in the US if John McCain had won the election four years ago? A few more troops in Iraq but that is it.



Now I think Mitt Romney is much better than Obama - but he in a couple cases he has deferred questions about the Constitution - did you see the debate on Saturday? And that has me very worried.


My only presumption is that the next president has the power to disable and disarm Obamacare, which he does via power of the executive order and by issuing waivers to the states. And things would of course be different with John McCain as president (thank you retarded evangelicals) because we wouldn't have had Obamacare! That is my only point and I encourage all to vote out Obama no matter who is nominated.
J
jvquarterback
I disagree with you on both accounts. The second one is easiest. McCain wouldn't have done anything to stop health care legislation had he won. Have you forgotten the debates?



Call it a political non-debate if you want, but believing the executive has the power to write legislation (which is what the Romney's proposed waivers are) would mean Romney would would be cutting whatever string the Constitution hangs by rather than upholding the Constitution.
S
SpiffCoug
jvquarterback wrote:
I disagree with you on both accounts. The second one is easiest. McCain wouldn't have done anything to stop health care legislation had he won. Have you forgotten the debates?

Would McCain have needed to do anything to stop healthcare legislation? Would Obamacare have even been proposed?
Page 1 of 5
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.