[ZXRamon]

On Saturday night, President Obama had the ballroom of the Washington Hilton rolling (and himself, since he laughed at a few of his own jokes) at the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner. You can read more about it here and comment: http://www.theroot.com/blogs/bloggin...root_more_news

[Forex Trading Software]

On Saturday night, President Obama had the ballroom of the Washington Hilton rolling (and himself, since he laughed at a few of his own jokes) at the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner. You can read more about it here and comment: http://www.theroot.com/blogs/bloggin...root_more_news

Obama excused himself to walk backstage, presumably to use the bathroom, and the gag started about his having an open mike. You could hear him talking about Jimmy Kimmel, the cast of Glee, and other things. Then he comes back out acting as if nothing happened and then thank people like Kimmel and the cast of Glee for attending.

When he mentioned that a year ago the world was rid of a terror the audience started clapping and then Donald Trump's picture was shown (think birther nut) and the audience cracked-up laughing. Hilarious.

[StampNews]

I thought it was very funny. These things are always funny, no matter who the President is. Why the hell can't these guys just talk like this all the time. It would make them much more likeable and probably allow us to see them as real people instead of having an unrealistic view that they should be infallible.

[Larisochka]

I thought it was very funny. These things are always funny, no matter who the President is. Why the hell can't these guys just talk like this all the time. It would make them much more likeable and probably allow us to see them as real people instead of having an unrealistic view that they should be infallible.

The reason they can’t be like that all the time is because their Political Base and their Political Opposition would eat them for breakfast if they were.

Their Base would say “Doing it once a year is fine, but we didn’t send you there to be a Comedian. If you don’t get serious and evade the efforts of the Opposition, we will throw you out at the next election and find someone who will do what we sent you to do.”

Their Opposition would pretty much say the same thing in reverse.

The Two Ton Elephant in the room is that neither side will let the President use the language of Article Two of the US Constitution the way it was intended. Technically, the only reason why the President should need to depend on Congress to put his program into effect is if there is no current law that can be used to achieve what he wants to do. In other words, that is the language that allows him to use Executive Orders to put something into motion. That is the language that Obama has been using since his announcement to put the things that the Republicans have been blocking legislatively into motion by Executive Action.

If you don’t believe me, then take some time and read what the Supreme Court has said over the years on the subject of the powers of the Executive Branch here: Annotations: U.S. Constitution: Article II, Section 1. The President, Clause 1. Powers and Term of the President, " NATURE AND SCOPE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER".

[Brareevor]

The reason they can’t be like that all the time is because their Political Base and their Political Opposition would eat them for breakfast if they were.

Their Base would say “Doing it once a year is fine, but we didn’t send you there to be a Comedian. If you don’t get serious and evade the efforts of the Opposition, we will throw you out at the next election and find someone who will do what we sent you to do.”

Their Opposition would pretty much say the same thing in reverse.

The Two Ton Elephant in the room is that neither side will let the President use the language of Article Two of the US Constitution the way it was intended. Technically, the only reason why the President should need to depend on Congress to put his program into effect is if there is no current law that can be used to achieve what he wants to do. In other words, that is the language that allows him to use Executive Orders to put something into motion. That is the language that Obama has been using since his announcement to put the things that the Republicans have been blocking legislatively into motion by Executive Action.

If you don’t believe me, then take some time and read what the Supreme Court has said over the years on the subject of the powers of the Executive Branch here: Annotations: U.S. Constitution: Article II, Section 1. The President, Clause 1. Powers and Term of the President, " NATURE AND SCOPE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER".

This would be a very good time to give an example or twelve. I think you'd find most of his critics find that he oversteps that authority on a regular basis, I find myself among them in many such cases. Libya is a recent example, but hardly the only example of such.

[aparneioninny]

This would be a very good time to give an example or twelve. I think you'd find most of his critics find that he oversteps that authority on a regular basis, I find myself among them in many such cases. Libya is a recent example, but hardly the only example of such.

It’s funny you should mention Libya, considering how Thomas Jefferson used Executive Action to fight a war in Libya. The “…to the shores of Tripoli…” portion of the Marine Corps Song refers to Jefferson’s anti-piracy war against Libya. Libya was historically known as Tripolitania. Jefferson didn’t wait for a declaration of war against Libya, but sent the US Navy to take the Libyan pirates on. The result was a draw, we declared victory and came home, and the rest is history. The point is that there are ample examples of most US Presidents using Executive Action instead of waiting for Legislative Action, and it IS legal and Constitutional. as (Constitutional) Professor and (US President) Woodrow Wilson noted: At the least, it is no doubt true that the ''loose and general expressions'' by which the powers and duties of the executive branch are denominated 15 place the President in a position in which “he has the right, in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can” and in which ''only his capacity will set the limit.'' 16

Footnotes

[Footnote 15] A. Upshur, A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government (Petersburg, Va.: 1840), 116.
[Footnote 16] W. Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States (New York: 1908), 202, 205.

[wizardasa]

It’s funny you should mention Libya, considering how Thomas Jefferson used Executive Action to fight a war in Libya. The “…to the shores of Tripoli…” portion of the Marine Corps Song refers to Jefferson’s anti-piracy war against Libya. Libya was historically known as Tripolitania. Jefferson didn’t wait for a declaration of war against Libya, but sent the US Navy to take the Libyan pirates on. The result was a draw, we declared victory and came home, and the rest is history. The point is that there are ample examples of most US Presidents using Executive Action instead of waiting for Legislative Action, and it IS legal and Constitutional. as (Constitutional) Professor and (US President) Woodrow Wilson noted: At the least, it is no doubt true that the ''loose and general expressions'' by which the powers and duties of the executive branch are denominated 15 place the President in a position in which “he has the right, in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can” and in which ''only his capacity will set the limit.'' 16

Footnotes

[Footnote 15] A. Upshur, A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government (Petersburg, Va.: 1840), 116.
[Footnote 16] W. Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States (New York: 1908), 202, 205.

Dodged that question handily now didn't ya? Nice history lesson, a pleasant distraction. Again please show an example, even one, where Obama has been denied the opportunity to the exert the authority he has been granted in Article II. I could care less about what the forefathers did in their presidencies at the moment because it's not particularly pertinent to the conversation.

[boleroman]

The reason they can’t be like that all the time is because their Political Base and their Political Opposition would eat them for breakfast if they were.

Their Base would say “Doing it once a year is fine, but we didn’t send you there to be a Comedian. If you don’t get serious and evade the efforts of the Opposition, we will throw you out at the next election and find someone who will do what we sent you to do.”

Their Opposition would pretty much say the same thing in reverse.

The Two Ton Elephant in the room is that neither side will let the President use the language of Article Two of the US Constitution the way it was intended. Technically, the only reason why the President should need to depend on Congress to put his program into effect is if there is no current law that can be used to achieve what he wants to do. In other words, that is the language that allows him to use Executive Orders to put something into motion. That is the language that Obama has been using since his announcement to put the things that the Republicans have been blocking legislatively into motion by Executive Action.

If you don’t believe me, then take some time and read what the Supreme Court has said over the years on the subject of the powers of the Executive Branch here: Annotations: U.S. Constitution: Article II, Section 1. The President, Clause 1. Powers and Term of the President, " NATURE AND SCOPE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER".

That is a bit simplistic. Another important part of the checks and balances is that Congress controls the purse strings. The President can make all the 'executive actions' he wishes, if he can't fund them they just don't happen.

Another annoying issue is reality. When was the 'executive action' issued ordering the close of Gitmo?

[kubekniekubek]

Dodged that question handily now didn't ya? Nice history lesson, a pleasant distraction. Again please show an example, even one, where Obama has been denied the opportunity to the exert the authority he has been granted in Article II. I could care less about what the forefathers did in their presidencies at the moment because it's not particularly pertinent to the conversation.

Actually, a good example would be the Debt Ceiling. He can't raise it on his own beyond the limit established by the Congress, but there is no actual floor. Accordingly, if Obama decided tomorrow to unilaterally LOWER the Debt Limit, Congress would have to pass an Amendment to block him. Of course, He would raise all sorts of sand if he did something like that, but he couldn't be impeached for it. Likewise, he is free to rearrange the spending on items that don't have specific allocations established by Congress, and he could reallocate funds from a program that everyone agrees is ripe for disestablishment to another program, or direct to the General Fund. Congress has absolute control of the Budget, but the President can move things around as needed. If tomorrow the Army and the Marine Corps declared that they no longer needed - or wanted - Tanks, on Obama's Executive Order they could turn them over to the General Services Administration for proper disposal, and apply the funds appropriated for their maintenance back to the General Fund. Congress might have a fit, but there would be nothing they could do about it. An example of this is the Beret. Prior to President Kennedy prescribing by Executive Order the Beret for the Army's Special Forces Groups in 1963, and the spending funds otherwise allocated to other Military purposes for its addition to the Authorized Clothing Bag, the Beret was universally banned in the US Military. Ultimately, many other US Military personnel wear one today, and there has been no political rancor.

[feseEscaple]

Actually, a good example would be the Debt Ceiling. He can't raise it on his own beyond the limit established by the Congress, but there is no actual floor. Accordingly, if Obama decided tomorrow to unilaterally LOWER the Debt Limit, Congress would have to pass an Amendment to block him. Of course, He would raise all sorts of sand if he did something like that, but he couldn't be impeached for it. Likewise, he is free to rearrange the spending on items that don't have specific allocations established by Congress, and he could reallocate funds from a program that everyone agrees is ripe for disestablishment to another program, or direct to the General Fund. Congress has absolute control of the Budget, but the President can move things around as needed. If tomorrow the Army and the Marine Corps declared that they no longer needed - or wanted - Tanks, on Obama's Executive Order they could turn them over to the General Services Administration for proper disposal, and apply the funds appropriated for their maintenance back to the General Fund. Congress might have a fit, but there would be nothing they could do about it. An example of this is the Beret. Prior to President Kennedy prescribing by Executive Order the Beret for the Army's Special Forces Groups in 1963, and the spending funds otherwise allocated to other Military purposes for its addition to the Authorized Clothing Bag, the Beret was universally banned in the US Military. Ultimately, many other US Military personnel wear one today, and there has been no political rancor.

So let me get this straight. Your point is Article II of the Constition gives the President Executive Authority to spend taxpayer money with no constraints whatsoever, is that what you were implying?

[Xlkl9SFd]

It’s funny you should mention Libya, considering how Thomas Jefferson used Executive Action to fight a war in Libya. The “…to the shores of Tripoli…” portion of the Marine Corps Song refers to Jefferson’s anti-piracy war against Libya. Libya was historically known as Tripolitania. Jefferson didn’t wait for a declaration of war against Libya, but sent the US Navy to take the Libyan pirates on. The result was a draw, we declared victory and came home, and the rest is history. The point is that there are ample examples of most US Presidents using Executive Action instead of waiting for Legislative Action, and it IS legal and Constitutional. as (Constitutional) Professor and (US President) Woodrow Wilson noted: At the least, it is no doubt true that the ''loose and general expressions'' by which the powers and duties of the executive branch are denominated 15 place the President in a position in which “he has the right, in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can” and in which ''only his capacity will set the limit.'' 16

Footnotes

[Footnote 15] A. Upshur, A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government (Petersburg, Va.: 1840), 116.
[Footnote 16] W. Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States (New York: 1908), 202, 205.

Nice dodge! Care to share the website you cut -n- pasted this from?

[LymnInvinny]

Nice dodge! Care to share the website you cut -n- pasted this from?

I actually put that link in the posting that first listed the text you have excerpted.

However, here it is again:http://law.justia.com/constitution/u...ive-power.html

[ballingham]

I actually put that link in the posting that first listed the text you have excerpted.

However, here it is again:http://law.justia.com/constitution/u...ive-power.html

Oh, I'm sorry. There was nothing to lead me to believe that what you had posted in that second post was not your original work. Well, except for the fact that it was coming from you and had those footnotes.

[AnIInWon]

So let me get this straight. Your point is Article II of the Constition gives the President Executive Authority to spend taxpayer money with no constraints whatsoever, is that what you were implying?

Bro, you don't get it. Spending taxpayer money and starting wars with no constraint is only bad when "the enemy" is in office.

If Obama loses, be prepared to see the Dems revert back into the Blowback Party, and all the Reps blowing the dust off the war drums.

[fruttomma]

Bro, you don't get it. Spending taxpayer money and starting wars with no constraint is only bad when "the enemy" is in office.

If Obama loses, be prepared to see the Dems revert back into the Blowback Party, and all the Reps blowing the dust off the war drums.

Or at least the more fundamentalists libs like yourself might become more prominent once again, right now we only really have the Demicans, Republicrats, and the Tea Party

[Beedcardabeme]

Or at least the more fundamentalists libs like yourself might become more prominent once again, right now we only really have the Demicans, Republicrats, and the Tea Party

Or at least people on MTF will stop saying "Well, you always defend Obama"... uh... no I don't.

[squeerisott]

Or at least the more fundamentalists libs like yourself might become more prominent once again, right now we only really have the Demicans, Republicrats, and the Tea Party

Or at least people on MTF will stop saying "Well, you always defend Obama"... uh... no I don't.

[Affolfembonge]

Or at least people on MTF will stop saying "Well, you always defend Obama"... uh... no I don't.

Been a while since I've seen that accusation fly in your direction, although you clearly HATE AMERICA!

[ptolerezort]

Been a while since I've seen that accusation fly in your direction, although you clearly HATE AMERICA!

Oh yes, CLEARLY. In fact I've already booked the plane ticket to Saudi Arabia, and picked out 12 pre-pubescent wives. Hey wats up homies!

[RussellPG]

Oh yes, CLEARLY. In fact I've already booked the plane ticket to Saudi Arabia, and picked out 12 pre-pubescent wives.

Female ones this time?