Pens Underground: King Obama - Pens Underground

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

King Obama

#1 User is offline   JoePa 

  • Legend
  • Group: GLOBAL MODERATORS
  • Posts: 4,535
  • Joined: 27-September 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 February 2011 - 05:55 PM

Quote

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law eventually could lead to a constitutional crisis, as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law.

"First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people,” Gingrich says.

“Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody.

http://www.newsmax.c...02/25/id/387455

Quote

In my view, the basic problem with the Obama Administration’s position on the DOMA litigation is the same problem we had in the Bush Administration with its adoption of John Yoo’s theories of Article II. Recall that John Yoo’s theories of Article II power rested on a highly contested set of views about Article II power. By adopting a contested constitutional theory inside the Executive Branch, the Bush Administration could pursue its agenda without the restrictions that Congress had imposed. In effect, the simple act of picking a contested constitutional theory within the Executive branch gave power to the Executive Branch that none of the other branches thought the Exeutive Branch had (and which laws like FISA had been premised on the Administration not having). It was a power grab disguised as academic constitutional interpretation.

Now, I wouldn’t in a million years compare torture and wiretapping with gay rights. Obviously, the subject matter is totally and completely different. But there’s an interesting analytical similarity between the DOJ’s position on DOMA and the Bush Administration’s reliance on its Article II theories. If you look at AG Holder’s reasons for why DOJ won’t defend DOMA, it is premised on DOJ’s adoption of a contested theory of the constitutionality of laws regulating gay rights. The letter says that “the President and [the Attorney General] have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law then, from that perspective, there is no reasonable defense of DOMA.” This theory is not compelled by caselaw. Rather, it’s a possible result, one that is popular in some circles and not in others but that courts have not weighed in on much yet.

By taking that position, the Obama Administration has moved the goalposts of the usual role of the Executive branch in defending statutes. Instead of requiring DOJ to defend the constitutionality of all federal statutes if it has a reasonable basis to do so, the new approach invests within DOJ a power to conduct an independent constitutional review of the issues, to decide the main issues in the case — in this case, the degree of scrutiny for gay rights issues — and then, upon deciding the main issue, to decide if there is a reasonable basis for arguing the other side. If you take that view, the Executive Branch essentially has the power to decide what legislation it will defend based on whatever views of the Constitution are popular or associated with that Administration. It changes the role of the Executive branch in defending litigation from the traditional dutiful servant of Congress to major institutional player with a great deal of discretion.

If that approach becomes widely adopted, then it would seem to bring a considerable power shift to the Executive Branch. Here’s what I fear will happen. If Congress passes legislation on a largely party-line vote, the losing side just has to fashion some constitutional theories for why the legislation is unconstitutional and then wait for its side to win the Presidency. As soon as its side wins the Presidency, activists on its side can file constitutional challenges based on the theories; the Executive branch can adopt the theories and conclude that, based on the theories, the legislation is unconstitutional; and then the challenges to the legislation will go undefended. Winning the Presidency will come with a great deal of power to decide what legislation to defend, increasing Executive branch power at the expense of Congress’s power. Again, it will be a power grab disguised as academic constitutional interpretation.

Now, maybe you think that’s a good thing; maybe you think, as I do, that it’s a bad one. But either way I worry that it’s the likely impact of shifting the Executive Branch’s view on its role in determining whether to defend statutes. Are my concerns justified? What do you think? I look forward to your comments.

http://volokh.com/20...h+Conspiracy%29

Quote

Liberals: If you think declining to defend DOMA is the right decision, how will you feel when a Republican administration declines to defend in a school prayer case? Or an abortion case? Or on Obamacare itself?

There are two very, very distinct issues here. One concerns gays and lesbians. The other concerns the proper relationship among the three branches of the federal government. One is about policy; the other is about procedure. Deciding a procedural question based on what it means for a one-time policy outcome is just bad governance. The questions we should be asking are -- How much power would this really give the president? Is this a particularly new power? (Arguably it's not.) And in any case, are we comfortable with the president having it, even if he or she has radically different views about policy?

http://www.cato-at-l...efense-of-doma/



We all know how this will turn out, Obama right, Bush Bad.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
0

#2 User is offline   freak 

  • 5K Club
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 6,544
  • Joined: 27-September 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 February 2011 - 08:53 AM

it is a strange thing for him to do

i love the idea of the House defunding the AG

#3 User is offline   freak 

  • 5K Club
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 6,544
  • Joined: 27-September 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 March 2011 - 06:14 AM

first calls for impeachment by a House member

http://www.wnd.com/i...w&pageId=270077


U.S. Rep. Trent Franks

A Republican congressman has told a left-leaning blog that if there is collective support, he would favor the impeachment of Barack Obama over his decision to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Scott Keyes of ThinkProgress.org asked U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.: "I know Newt Gingrich has came out (sic) and said if they don't reverse course here, we ought to be talking about possibly impeaching either Attorney General [Eric] Holder or even President Obama to try to get them to reverse course. Do you think that is something you would support?" Keyes asked.


Franks replied: "If it could gain the collective support, absolutely. I called for Eric Holder to repudiate the policy to try terrorists within our civil courts, or resign. So it just seems like that they have an uncanny ability to get it wrong on almost all fronts."

Keyes was referring to the announcement by Holder and Obama that they no longer would fulfill their official duties to defend the law of the United States when it came to the Defense of Marriage Act.

"While sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable," Holder explained in a statement announcing the conclusion he reached with Obama.

Holder said he and the president believe the law is unconstitutional.


"The president and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional," Holder said.


Keyes had asked, "What recourse does Congress have? Could you, for instance, defund the Department of Justice if they don't reverse course and start to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act?"


"What other laws do you think King Obama will choose not to defend in court?"

"This is a federal law and the federal government, including the Obama administration and the Department of Justice, has an obligation to defend this law," he said. "This law has been attacked before and has been upheld as constitutional."

"This is tyranny," he said.

A statement from Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association said, "As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he was against homosexual marriage. Many people at the time suspected he was intentionally being dishonest for political expediency, because he thought it would hurt his chances to beat John McCain if he said he was in favor of homosexual marriage. Now the truth is out. He was lying."






Kuhner continued, "He is slowly – piece by painful piece – erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there – yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above – one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go."





i was saying the same thing when he was just a candidate. it was pretty clear what direction he was going to take this country if only he could gather enough stupid morons to elect him

#4 User is offline   JoePa 

  • Legend
  • Group: GLOBAL MODERATORS
  • Posts: 4,535
  • Joined: 27-September 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 March 2011 - 10:36 AM

The problem is people will focus on the issue(Gay Marriage) and not the precedent it will create. Much like most of America thought perjury was "ok" because it was just a bj.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
0

#5 User is offline   freak 

  • 5K Club
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 6,544
  • Joined: 27-September 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 March 2011 - 10:59 AM

View PostJoePa, on 05 March 2011 - 10:36 AM, said:

The problem is people will focus on the issue(Gay Marriage) and not the precedent it will create. Much like most of America thought perjury was "ok" because it was just a bj.



youre right

#6 User is offline   Astro_Mikey 

  • *tap tap tap tap tap*
  • Group: ADMINISTRATORS
  • Posts: 9,684
  • Joined: 22-March 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
  • Interests:Astrophysics, astronomy, cars, sports, music.
    Go Pittsburgh Penguins!

Posted 05 March 2011 - 11:01 AM

View PostJoePa, on 05 March 2011 - 10:36 AM, said:

The problem is people will focus on the issue(Gay Marriage) and not the precedent it will create. Much like most of America thought perjury was "ok" because it was just a bj.

So what *is* the precedent it creates?
Mikey | RacingSouthWest.com | GO HOME FLYERS!

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

"Well believe me, Mike, I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid... and I went ahead anyway. "
- Crow T. Robot (Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie)
0

#7 User is offline   JoePa 

  • Legend
  • Group: GLOBAL MODERATORS
  • Posts: 4,535
  • Joined: 27-September 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 March 2011 - 11:07 AM

That the President/AG does not have to defend Federal law.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
0

#8 User is offline   freak 

  • 5K Club
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 6,544
  • Joined: 27-September 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 March 2011 - 11:09 AM

View PostJoePa, on 05 March 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

That the President/AG does not have to defend Federal law.


Yup

That a sitting President can arbitrarily decide they do not like a law upheld as Constitutional - and simply stop enforcing it


it is very King/Dictator like

#9 User is offline   Astro_Mikey 

  • *tap tap tap tap tap*
  • Group: ADMINISTRATORS
  • Posts: 9,684
  • Joined: 22-March 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
  • Interests:Astrophysics, astronomy, cars, sports, music.
    Go Pittsburgh Penguins!

Posted 05 March 2011 - 11:18 AM

View Postfreak, on 05 March 2011 - 11:09 AM, said:

Yup

That a sitting President can arbitrarily decide they do not like a law upheld as Constitutional - and simply stop enforcing it


it is very King/Dictator like



Devil's advocate:
What about the Patriot act and how it authorized some things that some believe are unconstitutional (and some parts were ruled unconstitutional)?

On one side, you ignore/quit enforcing a law. On the other, you enact laws that trample personal freedom.

Maybe I'm just not seeing this right. It's been a long week. ;)
Mikey | RacingSouthWest.com | GO HOME FLYERS!

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

"Well believe me, Mike, I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid... and I went ahead anyway. "
- Crow T. Robot (Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie)
0

#10 User is offline   freak 

  • 5K Club
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 6,544
  • Joined: 27-September 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 March 2011 - 11:36 AM

View Post66dvlbrd68, on 05 March 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

Devil's advocate:
What about the Patriot act and how it authorized some things that some believe are unconstitutional (and some parts were ruled unconstitutional)?

On one side, you ignore/quit enforcing a law. On the other, you enact laws that trample personal freedom.

Maybe I'm just not seeing this right. It's been a long week. ;)



the difference is, determining the constitutionality of a law is the Courts job. Its a complete violation of his powers to arbitrarily make this decision on his own.

they can, however challenge it again - but the courts have already ruled and theyd likely lose

and the argument being made his he took an oath to uphold the Constitution - not cherry pick what he likes and does not like

the best analogy would be President Sara Palin (shutters) deciding abortion and Row V Wade are illegal - despite the Courts rulings

slippery slope has now been set

#11 User is offline   freak 

  • 5K Club
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 6,544
  • Joined: 27-September 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 March 2011 - 11:29 AM

President Obama’s Trivial Pursuits


http://www.whitehous...ial-pursuits-2/

The Middle East is afire with rebellion, Japan is imploding from an earthquake, and the battle of the budget is on in the United States, but none of this seems to be deterring President Obama from a heavy schedule of childish distractions.

The newly installed tandem of White House Chief of Staff William Daley and Senior Adviser David Plouffe were supposed to impart a new sense of discipline and purpose to the White House. Instead, they are permitting him to showcase himself as a poorly focused leader who has his priorities backward.

This morning, as Japan’s nuclear crisis enters a potentially catastrophic phase, we are told that Obama is videotaping his NCAA tournament picks and that we’ll be able to tune into ESPN Wednesday to find out who he likes.

Saturday, he made his 61st outing to the golf course as president, and got back to the White House with just enough time for a quick shower before heading out to party with Washington’s elite journalists at the annual Gridiron Dinner.

With various urgencies swirling about him, Saturday’s weekly videotaped presidential address focusing on “Women’s History Month” seemed bizarrely out of touch.

Obama Friday took time out to honor the 2009-10 Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks. Thursday was a White House conference on bullying – not a bad idea perhaps, but not quite Leader of the Free World stuff either.

Obama appeared a little sleepy as he weighed in against the bullies, perhaps because he’d spent the night before partying with lawmakers as they took in a Chicago Bulls vs. Charlotte Bobcats game.

Meanwhile, the president has been studying for weeks whether to establish a No Fly Zone over Libya, delaying action while the point becomes increasingly moot as Qaddafi begins to defeat and slaughter his opponents. And lawmakers from both Parties are wondering why he seems to be AWOL in the deficit reduction debate.

The Libya indecision follows an inconsistent response to the protests that ousted former Egyptian President Mubarak and seemed to catch the White House off guard. The perfunctory response from the White House Monday to Saudi Arabia’s dispatch of troops to Bahrain suggested the administration wasn’t prepared for that one either.

But the fun stuff won’t end anytime soon. On Thursday, the Taoiseach of Ireland will be in town to help the president celebrate St. Patrick’s Day. And then Friday it’s off to Brazil for the start of a three-country Latin American tour.

Oddly, he’ll be missing Carnival, which went down last week.

#12 User is offline   FanSince74 

  • purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
  • Group: GLOBAL MODERATORS
  • Posts: 15,570
  • Joined: 17-February 09
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Frazer Twp
  • Interests:Hockey
    DVDs
    RPG games

Posted 15 March 2011 - 11:36 AM

If a Republican did that he/she would be raked through the coals and then tarred and feathered.
Posted Image
0

#13 User is offline   freak 

  • 5K Club
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 6,544
  • Joined: 27-September 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 March 2011 - 12:21 PM

They gave W hell for going to his ranch to clear brush

i wonder if King Obama ever had a callous in his life?

#14 User is offline   coach bob 

  • coach bob
  • Group: GLOBAL MODERATORS
  • Posts: 3,972
  • Joined: 27-September 07
  • Location:Pelham NH
  • Interests:Basically any sport. Love the outdoors and playing my guitar when I can. Wrestling!! (Not the fake stuff).

Posted 15 March 2011 - 01:15 PM

View Postfreak, on 15 March 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

They gave W hell for going to his ranch to clear brush

i wonder if King Obama ever had a callous in his life?



Only on his knees!!
0

#15 User is offline   FanSince74 

  • purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
  • Group: GLOBAL MODERATORS
  • Posts: 15,570
  • Joined: 17-February 09
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Frazer Twp
  • Interests:Hockey
    DVDs
    RPG games

Posted 15 March 2011 - 02:37 PM

View Postcoach bob, on 15 March 2011 - 01:15 PM, said:

Only on his knees!!


:wub:
Posted Image
0

#16 User is offline   Craalkin84 

  • Ugh
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 928
  • Joined: 07-October 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Outside Philly - blah

Posted 15 March 2011 - 02:51 PM

View Postcoach bob, on 15 March 2011 - 01:15 PM, said:

Only on his knees!!



:wub:

WIN
Montreal blows
0

#17 User is offline   JoePa 

  • Legend
  • Group: GLOBAL MODERATORS
  • Posts: 4,535
  • Joined: 27-September 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 March 2011 - 12:14 PM

Quote

Saturday, he made his 61st outing to the golf course as president


George Bush quit playing golf in 2003(?) because he thought it was bad form for the Commander in Chief to be out playing games while our men and woman were fighting terrorism.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
0

#18 User is offline   billvill 

  • Bitch grind no work, brain hurts
  • Group: ADMINISTRATORS
  • Posts: 33,684
  • Joined: 27-September 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:42.6017° N, 71.2207° W
  • Interests:Interesting stuff

Posted 19 March 2011 - 03:37 PM

Disaster in Japan
Pandemonium in Libya
Gas prices going through the roof at home.

....and where is our president?

Brazil!! ;)
"Get to your game, boys"
"Coach, our game isn't working"
"Well, grind some bitches, then"

Posted Image

Man, that sixth one stung...

Posted Image
0

#19 User is offline   Robert Goulet 

  • Says it all.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 13,062
  • Joined: 20-October 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Creeping in Anakin's profile.
  • Interests:Liking stuff.

Posted 19 March 2011 - 06:56 PM

I happen to support his decision on Libya.

Military force is all these dictators like Qhdaffi understand.

We'll see how well this thing is handled, however.
"I am serious, and don't call me Shirley."

Proud member of the Anti-Ballsma Club since 2010.

The thoughts expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of this board.
0

#20 User is offline   JoePa 

  • Legend
  • Group: GLOBAL MODERATORS
  • Posts: 4,535
  • Joined: 27-September 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 March 2011 - 07:03 PM

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=13174246

Quote

More than 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles struck over 20 targets inside Libya today in the opening phase of an international military operation the Pentagon said was aimed at stopping attacks led by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and enforcing a U.N.-backed no-fly zone.


Quote

"I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it's not a choice I make lightly," Obama said. "But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy."


That's why we dance in Brazil!

What an embarrassment.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
0

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users