Iowa Caucus

[gftChris]

@oldbrownsfan said:

But it did work for Obama with the slogans of hope and change. His lofty speeches about bringing the country together only to be the biggest divider for president we have had. His talk about working across the isle with the republicans when he has tried to force his polices on us with illegal executive actions. Trump is making promises now and they are empty until they are delivered on. Obama has a bunch of those empty promises that will not be happening in his 2 terms, not even close.

On Obama's promises:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/

I think it would be unrealistic to expect any president to keep every promise, simply because it's so damn difficult to get things through, especially a 'revolutionary' president such as Obama. Let alone Bernie.

Illegal executive actions? What's illegal about them?

[OldBrownsFan]

@logicisforsquares said:

Well if they wish to be obsolete then they can continue the stance of not at least being pragmatic about social issues. They would likely get more voters if they appealed to working class wallets and economics. Dems wouldn't have the "oh no the war on (insert group here)" issue and would have to actually talk money which likely puts them at a disadvantage.

To me to be pragmatic about social issues is to avoid what Todd Aiken did but not to give up those values. Since Roe v Wade every presidential election has put a pro choice democrat against a pro life republican. A big part of the republican base are Christians who will not stay with the party if they flip on social issues like abortion. I became a republican on social issues at first and later came to agree with them on economic issues as well. The socialist policies the democrats are pursuing is just going to be shared misery. Let people prosper in this country and we all prosper.

[gftChris]

@oldbrownsfan said:

To me to be pragmatic about social issues is to avoid what Todd Aiken did but not to give up those values. Since Roe v Wade every presidential election has put a pro choice democrat against a pro life republican. A big part of the republican base are Christians who will not stay with the party if they flip on social issues like abortion. I became a republican on social issues at first and later came to agree with them on economic issues as well. The socialist policies the democrats are pursuing is just going to be shared misery. Let people prosper in this country and we all prosper.

I, and many others like me in and around my generation, would be democrat by default because of the social values. If the republicans gave up the futile battle against abortion, and gay marriage, and all that stuff that makes people like DieHard feel uncomfortable (sorry old chap ), and stop digging their heels in over climate change, there'd be a shit ton of new voters, probably including me. But if I'm going to vote for a bought and paid for candidate that has largely the same financial policy regardless of party, I'm going to vote for one that at least has 21st century views on things.

[OldBrownsFan]

@gftchris said:

On Obama's promises:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/

I think it would be unrealistic to expect any president to keep every promise, simply because it's so damn difficult to get things through, especially a 'revolutionary' president such as Obama. Let alone Bernie.

Illegal executive actions? What's illegal about them?

When the executive branch of our government tries to make law that is illegal. The legislative branch makes laws.

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund

[gftChris]

@oldbrownsfan said:

When the executive branch of our government tries to make law that is illegal. The legislative branch makes laws.

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund

So is it executive actions themselves that are illegal?

[OldBrownsFan]

@gftchris said:

So is it executive actions themselves that are illegal?

When the Supreme Court rules unanimously against Obama for taking actions he does not have authority to take it means even the most liberal justices on the court clearly see he is being unconstitutional.

[LogicIsForSquares]

I know that if the Republicans gave up on the social issues, I would be firmly Republican. Fiscally, I am on board with them but I don't give a squirt of piss about social issues based on religious dogma.

[MLD Woody]

@gftchris said:

I, and many others like me in and around my generation, would be democrat by default because of the social values. If the republicans gave up the futile battle against abortion, and gay marriage, and all that stuff that makes people like DieHard feel uncomfortable (sorry old chap ), and stop digging their heels in over climate change, there'd be a shit ton of new voters, probably including me. But if I'm going to vote for a bought and paid for candidate that has largely the same financial policy regardless of party, I'm going to vote for one that at least has 21st century views on things.

Well said

[gftChris]

You'll have to bear with me, this whole monarchic system of rule isn't really something that exists here, so I'm not completely up to speed on it.

So Obama, or any other president, issues executive orders, and these can be challenged in the supreme court (which makes sense). So how many executive orders have been overturned in the supreme court? Apparently that 13 times defeated thing is bogus:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/29/bob-goodlatte/gop-leader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/

[bbedward]

To be fair, outside of HRC I think they all lack detail. Likely because they don't know what's there. Trump has a tax plan, veterans plan, pay for the wall plan that are about as detailed as the next guys.

How are you going to avoid the projected deficit blow up from your stupid tax plan? (everyone, "Idk cut some stuff")

How are you going to rule the supreme court ruling on gay marriage unconstitutional when the bible isn't the constitution? (Cruz, "idk lol")

What are you going to do after you repeal obamacare and take health coverage away from millions? (everyone, "idk lol something obamacare killz jobs")

What are you going to do with isis? ("see if sand glows in the dark")

Sanders is also lax on a lot of detail. Policy positions are more important than excessive detail. It takes several months, several people to collaborate on a bill or any sort of plan to work out all the details - and many times it's all for nothing anyway.

---

And executives orders still have to be within the law - they can't be unconstitutional or anything like that. The supreme court could overrule them, and 2/3 of congress could shut them down too (to avoid a veto)

[OldBrownsFan]

@gftchris said:

You'll have to bear with me, this whole monarchic system of rule isn't really something that exists here, so I'm not completely up to speed on it.

So Obama, or any other president, issues executive orders, and these can be challenged in the supreme court (which makes sense). So how many executive orders have been overturned in the supreme court? Apparently that 13 times defeated thing is bogus:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/29/bob-goodlatte/gop-leader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/

It is not bogus:

Supremes Smack Down Obama Administration 9-0 For 13th TIME SINCE 2012

The nine members of the Supreme Court have now unanimously smacked down the position taken by the administration of President Barack Obama over a dozen times since January 2012.

The number of total and humiliating defeats rose to 13 this particularly unlucky week after three cases went against the executive branch by a tally of 9-0, notes John Fund, writing at National Review.

In one case, NLRB v. Noel Canning, the Court unanimously rebuked President Obama for his three unconstitutional attempts to declare the U.S. Senate in recess when, in fact, the Senate was not in recess.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/27/supremes-smack-down-obama-administration-9-0-for-13th-time-since-2012/

[gftChris]

Oh well if the daily caller said Obama is bad, then it must be true...

[OldBrownsFan]

@gftchris said:

You'll have to bear with me, this whole monarchic system of rule isn't really something that exists here, so I'm not completely up to speed on it.

So Obama, or any other president, issues executive orders, and these can be challenged in the supreme court (which makes sense). So how many executive orders have been overturned in the supreme court? Apparently that 13 times defeated thing is bogus:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/29/bob-goodlatte/gop-leader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/

USA Today Supreme Court shutouts reveal reckless decisions: Column

Ilya Somin 11:46 a.m. EDT July 23, 2013

When the White House loses cases 9-0, the president is going too far.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/22/supreme-court-losses-column/2576625/

[gftChris]

@oldbrownsfan said:

USA Today Supreme Court shutouts reveal reckless decisions: Column

Ilya Somin 11:46 a.m. EDT July 23, 2013

When the White House loses cases 9-0, the president is going too far.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/22/supreme-court-losses-column/2576625/

That wasn't an executive order though, right? I mean, that was department of agriculture vs a farmer - not exactly Obama in his ivory tower as you'd like to portray?

[OldBrownsFan]

@gftchris said:

That wasn't an executive order though, right? I mean, that was department of agriculture vs a farmer - not exactly Obama in his ivory tower as you'd like to portray?

In Horne v. Department of Agriculture, a decision issued in June, the justices unanimously rejected the Obama administration's argument that raisin farmers did not have the right to go to court to contest the seizure of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of raisins. The Fifth Amendment states that the government must pay "just compensation" whenever the government takes private property for "public use." But the administration claimed that farmers could not even raise the takings issue in court without first enduring lengthy delays and paying a $483,000 fine.

This is one of the cases which I was glad to see the Supremes rule 9-0 against Obama on as being unconstitutional.

The Supremes will soon be hearing the case about Obama's use of executive order in granting amnesty. Obama himself said he did not have this authority 25 times but he did it anyway.

[gftChris]

So, it wasn't an executive order? And not directly from Obama? OK, it's not looking like an executive order was defeated by the supreme court here.

[bbedward]

Obama has issues 227 executive orders so far.

W Bush issued 291

B Clinton issued 364

Bush Sr issued 166 (but only in 1 term)

Reagan issued 381

The most ever was FDR who issued 3,522

--

Stop acting like it's unusual and Obama is overriding congress and stepping above the boundaries of the law. It's a Retard and inaccurate attack line.

Two scenarios to overturn an executive order:

1) Congress can repeal executive orders if they're unconstitutional (This could be an issue that's settled in the supreme court - notice: not liking something doesn't make it "unconstitutional")

2) Congress can pass legislation that negates the executive order. President can veto said legislation. Congress can override the veto with 2/3 vote.

Obama is not overstepping the powers he has. People just read too much of the Blaze nonsense and don't actually think for themselves.

[jbluhm86]

[OldBrownsFan]

In the spring of 2012, President Obama issued an aggressive string of executive orders to combat what he viewed as hopelessly-deadlocked Congress. Some of his more controversial, and arguably unconstitutional executive orders are as follows:

1. Directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act;

2. Gave states waivers from federal mandates if they agreed to education overhauls;

3. Changed significant provisions of and the timing of Obamacare;

4. Declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional;

5. Reshaped immigration policy by ordering the federal government to halt deportation of certain illegal

immigrants

President Obama’s five executive orders above are clearly unconstitutional under the guidelines set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court because the five executive orders are not only merely “incompatible” with the expressed or implied will of Congress, they directly contravene, change, or alter acts of Congress in violation of the separation of powers and the U.S. Constitution. Congress set forth specific deadlines and enforcement laws with regard to the implementation of Obamacare and the president has changed them on his own authority because it was politically advantageous to do so. Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act and Obama’s executive order to stop defending it is directly contrary to the will and intent of Congress. He has declared certain laws “unconstitutional” – something that not even the most radical liberals have suggested is within the purview of the executive branch. He has also halted the enforcement of existing immigration policy enacted by Congress pursuant to their congressional authority on his own initiative because he simply didn’t like the law. Lastly, he has exempted a number of states from the No Child Left Behind Law which was duly passed by Congress. And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

On Monday, February 10, 2014, the Obama Administration announced yet another unconstitutional edict. This time the regime has reversed Congress once again, pronouncing that it will violate the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate for the second consecutive year - in direct violation of the law Congress voted on and passed. Obama's Treasury Department said it will delay the mandate's penalty another year for small businesses with 50 to 99 employees and will also adjust some of the requirements for larger employers. Under the Executive Branch's new legislation - passed without a single vote in Congress, businesses with 100 or more employees must offer coverage to at least 70% of full-time workers in 2015 and 95% in 2016. Congess didn't debate and pass this law and Obamacare provided quite differently. Our president just willed the new laws into existence. These are clearly unconstitutional proclamations committed for purely political reasons.

The uninformed supporters of our president blindly defend this usurpation of executive power by noting that “all presidents issue executive orders”, but there has never been a president in history who has so brazenly sidestepped Congress’ powers and usurped the role of lawmaker. It is now also clear that the nation’s attorney general is of absolutely no help in giving our president guidance on this subject. In responding to questions at a Senate hearing recently, Eric Holder was asked to explain to Congress why he thought Barack Obama was within his constitutional limits when he reversed Congress by issuing an executive order to delay Obamacare’s employer mandate. After Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) read to him the above Supreme Court’s rulings on the matter, Holder replied:

I’ll be honest with you, I have not seen — I don’t remember looking at or having seen the analysis in some time, so I’m not sure where along the spectrum that would come.”

Armed with his radical pen, President Obama has fulfilled the words of humorist Will Rogers, who observed that Congress doesn't make laws anymore, "they just wave at the bills as they go by." It is no wonder that many members of Congress are truly wondering if they really are the nation’s lawmakers any more.

http://www.mequonnow.com/blogs/communityblogs/244794131.html

[bbedward]

If they were unconstitutional then the congress wouldn't just bitch about it they would do something about it - as is within their power.