Obama--Eating his cake and having it too.

In selling Obamacare to the American people, Obama and the left promised voters that it was funded by a penalty, not a tax. When it got to the Supreme Court, the Obama administration argued as their third argument that it was a tax and a valid exercise of the taxing power. SCOTUS upheld it under Congress' ability to tax. The very next day, the Obama campaign tells the media "It's a penalty--it's always been a penalty and it's never been a tax. Don't listen to what the other side is selling."



What's more troubling is the double-standard Obama and the DOJ are looking for regarding executive privilege. Here's an informative read about the position the DOJ and Eric Holder have taken about the scope of executive privilege assertions in their lawsuit against the Texas voter ID law, and how those positions are completely at odds with the assertion of the same privilege in the Fast and Furious investigation.



http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/DOJ-No-Executive-Privilege-for-Texas-Pols" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Excellent article. Good post. Both Obama and Holder are frauds and deceitful. Nov. can not come soon enough. Out with da Bums!!!

So you think Mitt's lawyers wouldn't make every possible argument for one of his bills that face the supreme court. Or argue both sides of EP if it suited his purposes. That's kind of naive. Presidents have been doing this for two centuries and more.

jvquarterback wrote:
So you think Mitt's lawyers wouldn't make every possible argument for one of his bills that face the supreme court. Or argue both sides of EP if it suited his purposes. That's kind of naive. Presidents have been doing this for two centuries and more.

Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?

ABYUFAN wrote:

So you think Mitt's lawyers wouldn't make every possible argument for one of his bills that face the supreme court. Or argue both sides of EP if it suited his purposes. That's kind of naive. Presidents have been doing this for two centuries and more.

Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?

Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.

I'm in DC for the week. The Obamba supporters are organizing. I have seen very little for romney so far. Did get to talk to a few supporters, or at least I assume supporters. I read that BO has $100M in the bank while MR has $17M. I hope those are fairly old numbers. Mitt raised $100M in June, which is an all time high for him.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
So you think Mitt's lawyers wouldn't make every possible argument for one of his bills that face the supreme court. Or argue both sides of EP if it suited his purposes. That's kind of naive. Presidents have been doing this for two centuries and more.

Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?

Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.

Thank you for your comment Mr. snarky. We get it, you don't like Mitt but making tacky assertions is pointless.

tww wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

So you think Mitt's lawyers wouldn't make every possible argument for one of his bills that face the supreme court. Or argue both sides of EP if it suited his purposes. That's kind of naive. Presidents have been doing this for two centuries and more.

Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?

Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.

Thank you for your comment Mr. snarky. We get it, you don't like Mitt but making tacky assertions is pointless.

Let me give you proof of what jvq was saying.



" I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world.I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now. I understand that some in the Senate for instance have written letters to the president indicating you should know that a containment strategy is unacceptable. We cannot survive a course of action which would include a nuclear Iran we must be willing to take any and all actions.



All those actions must be on the table. "



That's blatant disregard for the constitution. This is the problem with our government, no one believes in the constitution anymore.



I guess I'm just one of those homeland "liberty loving" terrorists out there.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
So you think Mitt's lawyers wouldn't make every possible argument for one of his bills that face the supreme court. Or argue both sides of EP if it suited his purposes. That's kind of naive. Presidents have been doing this for two centuries and more.

Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?

Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.

WOW! I WAS going to vote for Mitt, now I definately won't! My vote was changed by a quarterback.. a Junior Varsity Quarterback no less!

BroncoBot wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
So you think Mitt's lawyers wouldn't make every possible argument for one of his bills that face the supreme court. Or argue both sides of EP if it suited his purposes. That's kind of naive. Presidents have been doing this for two centuries and more.

Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?

Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.

Thank you for your comment Mr. snarky. We get it, you don't like Mitt but making tacky assertions is pointless.

Let me give you proof of what jvq was saying.



" I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world.I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now. I understand that some in the Senate for instance have written letters to the president indicating you should know that a containment strategy is unacceptable. We cannot survive a course of action which would include a nuclear Iran we must be willing to take any and all actions.



All those actions must be on the table. "



That's blatant disregard for the constitution. This is the problem with our government, no one believes in the constitution anymore.



I guess I'm just one of those homeland "liberty loving" terrorists out there.

So you are saying that because Romney wants to defend America and Israel that he is trashing the constitution? Hmmm? What?



We have already been down this road of thought on a very lengthy thread that involved Lincoln and slavery and JV's arguments did not hold up. It seems to me that this is what happens when someone has a narrow understanding of the constitution and what it was intended to do. I appreciate anyone willing to defend the constitution but context is very important for understanding, otherwise we just end up with specious arguments.



It is not unconstitutional to defend ourselves from evil whether it be slavery or an Iran that wants to blow up Israel and kill all Jews and Christians.



It seems strange to me that a president, congress, and supreme court just threw the constitution out the window with prejudice and you want to nit-pic Romney for wanting to defend America. That is bazaar to me.

Really?



Congressional approval for waging war was another way the founders made sure the president was kept in check (they were tired of the heavy handed tactics of kings, which sounds exactly like what Obama and Romney want). That's all the "context" I need. Context unfortunately at this point is subjective, I've got some very liberal associates who will twist the constitution with plenty of context. I think it was a mistake for Obama to dabble in the middle east without any approval whatsoever, and I'll criticize Romney if he does the same.



My point is that while Romney is a step in the right direction, he is not going to be able to deliver America from the path they've started down and I'm afraid he won't honor the constitution any more than other recent presidents. It will take a monumental shift in the house and senate towards sound constitutional decisions. Those types of decisions haven't been made by either political party for decades. America's house and senate seats need to be full of people who are willing to stand up to people like Barack Obama, Janet Napalatino, Orrin Hatch, HArry Reid, Mitt Romney, Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel and anyone else who believes they are above the guidelines established in the constitution.



Americans have justified this departure from sound policies because they've been convinced they need the government to take care of them from some rogue nation like Iran, or a flu epidemic, or gun loving religious zealots who invariably are going to take over. Some no longer want freedom, instead, they favor a babysitter who will make all their decisions for them and in turn force others to depend on the government as well.



It's an extremely slippery slope when the president doesn't believe he needs to go through the checks and balances that were set up when our country was founded.



tww, honest question. Could you explain the context you are speaking of?

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
So you think Mitt's lawyers wouldn't make every possible argument for one of his bills that face the supreme court. Or argue both sides of EP if it suited his purposes. That's kind of naive. Presidents have been doing this for two centuries and more.

Is this an "everyone's doing it so it's not a sin" argument?

Nope. Just letting you know Mitt doesn't care one bit about the Constitution either.

Wow. That's enlightening. I hope you are wrong. What this country needs is a president that really does give a damn about the constitution and the rule of law. Not just a self serving agenda. That's not a naive hope. That's hope for the survival of the is country are we have known it. Another 4 years of Obama and we will not recognize this country.

BroncoBot wrote:
Really?



Congressional approval for waging war was another way the founders made sure the president was kept in check (they were tired of the heavy handed tactics of kings, which sounds exactly like what Obama and Romney want). That's all the "context" I need. Context unfortunately at this point is subjective, I've got some very liberal associates who will twist the constitution with plenty of context. I think it was a mistake for Obama to dabble in the middle east without any approval whatsoever, and I'll criticize Romney if he does the same.



My point is that while Romney is a step in the right direction, he is not going to be able to deliver America from the path they've started down and I'm afraid he won't honor the constitution any more than other recent presidents. It will take a monumental shift in the house and senate towards sound constitutional decisions. Those types of decisions haven't been made by either political party for decades. America's house and senate seats need to be full of people who are willing to stand up to people like Barack Obama, Janet Napalatino, Orrin Hatch, HArry Reid, Mitt Romney, Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel and anyone else who believes they are above the guidelines established in the constitution.



Americans have justified this departure from sound policies because they've been convinced they need the government to take care of them from some rogue nation like Iran, or a flu epidemic, or gun loving religious zealots who invariably are going to take over. Some no longer want freedom, instead, they favor a babysitter who will make all their decisions for them and in turn force others to depend on the government as well.



It's an extremely slippery slope when the president doesn't believe he needs to go through the checks and balances that were set up when our country was founded.



tww, honest question. Could you explain the context you are speaking of?

BroncoBot, I don't think you and I have any real disagreement about the constitution. I just think it is bad timing to attack Romney now. I will make you a deal that as soon as he is elected I will be right there with you doing everything we can to hold him to his oath to protect, preserve, and uphold the constitution.



Now, if you want to talk about whether we should bomb Iran or not that may be a topic for a whole new thread.



We are already committed to Israel so supporting them in an attack on Iran is different than a declaration of war. I don't think the president needs any more authority from congress than he has already been given for that purpose. I am pretty sure that all of the paperwork necessary to protect Israel was signed off by congress long ago. Just like the president doesn't need a declaration from congress to protect the United States if attacked, I don't think he needs it to give support or protection to Israel. So the constitution has already been satisfied regarding a defense mechanism for Israel. This may be what Romney was referring to. I don't think he was saying that he plans on disregarding the constitution but that provisions have already been made and no further congressional action is necessary. That is a partial answer to the context question you had.

tww wrote:

Really?



Congressional approval for waging war was another way the founders made sure the president was kept in check (they were tired of the heavy handed tactics of kings, which sounds exactly like what Obama and Romney want). That's all the "context" I need. Context unfortunately at this point is subjective, I've got some very liberal associates who will twist the constitution with plenty of context. I think it was a mistake for Obama to dabble in the middle east without any approval whatsoever, and I'll criticize Romney if he does the same.



My point is that while Romney is a step in the right direction, he is not going to be able to deliver America from the path they've started down and I'm afraid he won't honor the constitution any more than other recent presidents. It will take a monumental shift in the house and senate towards sound constitutional decisions. Those types of decisions haven't been made by either political party for decades. America's house and senate seats need to be full of people who are willing to stand up to people like Barack Obama, Janet Napalatino, Orrin Hatch, HArry Reid, Mitt Romney, Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel and anyone else who believes they are above the guidelines established in the constitution.



Americans have justified this departure from sound policies because they've been convinced they need the government to take care of them from some rogue nation like Iran, or a flu epidemic, or gun loving religious zealots who invariably are going to take over. Some no longer want freedom, instead, they favor a babysitter who will make all their decisions for them and in turn force others to depend on the government as well.



It's an extremely slippery slope when the president doesn't believe he needs to go through the checks and balances that were set up when our country was founded.



tww, honest question. Could you explain the context you are speaking of?

BroncoBot, I don't think you and I have any real disagreement about the constitution. I just think it is bad timing to attack Romney now. I will make you a deal that as soon as he is elected I will be right there with you doing everything we can to hold him to his oath to protect, preserve, and uphold the constitution.



Now, if you want to talk about whether we should bomb Iran or not that may be a topic for a whole new thread.



We are already committed to Israel so supporting them in an attack on Iran is different than a declaration of war. I don't think the president needs any more authority from congress than he has already been given for that purpose. I am pretty sure that all of the paperwork necessary to protect Israel was signed off by congress long ago. Just like the president doesn't need a declaration from congress to protect the United States if attacked, I don't think he needs it to give support or protection to Israel. So the constitution has already been satisfied regarding a defense mechanism for Israel. This may be what Romney was referring to. I don't think he was saying that he plans on disregarding the constitution but that provisions have already been made and no further congressional action is necessary. That is a partial answer to the context question you had.

Agree to disagree (on some points). If some arrangement WAS made by congress that the USA always protects Israel and the president does not need approval to put our troops in harms way, I think that was a foolish decision, another un-constitutional policy and one that should be revoked. It means that the USA does not see Israel as a sovereign nation (and I totally think that Israel could defend herself, let's not kid ourselves). And secondly, it now means that the USA is at the beck and call of Israel. If Israel wants to become a STATE, that would be one thing, although I think it would be foolish for the USA to take her up on that.

Congress gets to declare war, but I do not think that reserved power restrains the Commander in Chief from ordering the military to undertake various military measures like drone strikes or sending in bombers to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The War Powers Act reigns in presidential military action and in the end Congress as controller of the purse checks the President here. There would have not been an Iraq if Congress refused to have paid for it. So I'm with TWW. Romney would be in his prerogative to launch an air strike against Iran for example, although I still question greatly the wisdom of that course of action

Also agree with tww. The War Powers Act was not meant to reign in the president, as much as it was designed to allow the United States to respond promptly in a crisis by giving the president the authority to wage war for a limited period, giving the congress time to debate the matter; I think about 60 days, IIRC. The president can order air strikes and send in the Marines and Special Forces without asking Congress, but then the congress can call it off after the presidential war powers expire.



Also, anyone who thinks that Obama respects The Constitution as much as Romney, is smoking something, or perhaps deranged from their childhood.



Go Romney! Throw the anti-American bum out!