Jump to content

Does Obama Understand Federal And States Rights?


t-pain
 Share

Recommended Posts

White House Says Marijuana Policy Is States' Rights Issue

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/14/marijuana-policy-white-house-states-rights_n_5586188.html

 

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration believes marijuana policy is a states' rights issue, the White House said Monday in opposing Republican-led legislation that would prevent Washington, D.C., from using local funds to decriminalize marijuana possession.

 

 

because honestly , i dont think he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a quote from the article

 

“It is great to see the White House accepting that a majority of Americans want marijuana law reform and defending the right of D.C. and states to set their own marijuana policy,” Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, said about the White House statement on Monday. “The tide has clearly shifted against the failed war on drugs and it’s only a matter of time before federal law is changed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congress has to pass legalization.

 

Obama can merely de-prioritize enforcement,... which he has done to a degree. And which the Republicans have now filed a lawsuit against him for not properly enforcing the drug law etc.

 

Heh.

 

Obama is being sued for not enforcing the drug laws,.... I suppose he does deserve some credit aye?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, they're talking about suing him over health care reform implementation, I couldn't anything about drug enforcement. The problem with writing that kind of stuff is, not everyone will check it out, and then it gets repeated everywhere, and people in the know, won't take the person parroting, seriously, about anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, they're talking about suing him over health care reform implementation, I couldn't anything about drug enforcement. The problem with writing that kind of stuff is, not everyone will check it out, and then it gets repeated everywhere, and people in the know, won't take the person parroting, seriously, about anything.

Obama’s critics argue that, in addition to Obamacare, the president has refused to enforce the immigration laws against a large group of aliens who arrived in this country as children, and in this way unilaterally implemented a piece of legislation—the DREAM Act—that died in Congress. He has issued waivers to states freeing them from compliance with the test score requirements of No Child Left Behind. He released prisoners from Guantánamo Bay as part of a prisoner swap without giving Congress the statutorily prescribed 30-day notice. He refused to enforce federal drug laws against some users of marijuana in states that have legalized marijuana. He refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court. He used military force in Libya in defiance of the War Powers Act. He has ordered the assassination of American citizens abroad, through drone killings, without granting them due process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will agree to parroting what the Republicans who are currently suing Obama said since March.  They just finally narrowed it to one thing; but the verdict would effect all of those things and the way the President, any President, would enforce the law.

 

 Heck, now they even want to impeach him for not enforcing the drug laws, Obamacare, etc etc etc....

 

 Those Republicans are so warm and fuzzy<sarc>.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder what the actual lawsuit looks like rather than someone's self-serving opinion?

 

Anyone got a link? Has a lawsuit been filed yet?

 

Immigration?

 

Executive changes to a law passed by congress?

 

In the end, as Hilary posited in the Benghazi incident, what difference does it make?

 

Anyone calculated the US debt-to-gdp ration lately?

 

Anyone looked at the mounting levels of unfunded liabilities?

 

Anyone ever wonder what happens if the dollar no longer serves as the world's reserve currency?

 

Anyone care about their children's children's future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the memo Boehner sent to his colleagues:

 

MEMO

To: House Colleagues

From: Speaker Boehner

Re: “[T]hat the Laws Be Faithfully Executed. . .”

Date: June 25, 2014

For years Americans have watched with concern as President Barack Obama has declined to faithfully execute the laws of our country – ignoring some statutes completely, selectively enforcing others, and at times, creating laws of his own.

Article II, Section III of the Constitution of the United States dictates that the president, as head of the Executive Branch of our government, “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” even if the president does not agree with the purpose of that law. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers principle, only the Legislative Branch has the power to legislate.

On one matter after another during his presidency, President Obama has circumvented the Congress through executive action, creating his own laws and excusing himself from executing statutes he is sworn to enforce – at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the America people to stop him. On matters ranging from health care and energy to foreign policy and education, President Obama has repeatedly run an end-around on the American people and their elected legislators, straining the boundaries of the solemn oath he took on Inauguration Day.

Presidents have traditionally been granted a degree of latitude with respect to the enforcement of the law, and tension between the branches of our government is hardly new. But at various points in our history when the Executive Branch has attempted to claim for itself the ability to make law, the Legislative Branch has responded, and it is only through such responses that the balance of power envisioned by the Framers has been maintained.

President Obama’s aggressive unilateralism has significant implications for our system of government, and presents a clear challenge to our institution and its ability to effectively represent the people.

If the current president can selectively enforce, change or create laws as he chooses with impunity, without the involvement of the Legislative Branch, his successors will be able to do the same. This shifts the balance of power decisively and dangerously in favor of the presidency, giving the president king-like authority at the expense of the American people and their elected legislators.

It also has consequences for our economy and its ability to grow and create jobs. It’s

bad enough when Washington politicians force laws upon the people that make it difficult for private-sector employers to meet payrolls, invest in new initiatives and create jobs. It’s even worse when those same laws are arbitrarily enforced on the whims of the individual entrusted with the responsibility of carrying them out, adding uncertainty for private-sector job creators and families on top of the challenges they already face week-to-week.

Everywhere I go in America outside of Washington, D.C., I’m asked: when will the House stand up on behalf of the people to stop the encroachment of executive power under President Obama? We elected a president, Americans note; we didn’t elect a monarch or king.

Every Member of the People’s House took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is only through strong action by the House in response to provocative executive action by the Executive Branch in the past that the separation of powers intended by the Framers has been preserved. For the integrity of our laws and the sake of our country’s future, the House must act now.

I intend to bring to the floor in July legislation that would authorize the House of Representatives – through the House General Counsel and at the direction of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) – to file suit in the coming weeks in an effort to compel the president to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country. The legislation would follow regular order and be considered by the Rules Committee following its introduction, prior to its consideration by the full House.

Under our system of government, the Judicial Branch has the power to resolve disputes between the Executive and Legislative Branches. When there is a failure on the part of the president to faithfully execute the law, the House has the authority to challenge this failure in the Judicial Branch by filing suit in Federal Court in situations in which:

  • There is no one else who can challenge the president’s failure, and harm is being done to the general welfare and trust in faithful execution of our laws;
  • There is no legislative remedy; and
  • There is explicit House authorization for the lawsuit, through a vote authorizing the litigation against the president’s failure.

I believe the House must act as an institution to defend the constitutional principles at stake and to protect our system of government and our economy from continued executive abuse. The president has an obligation to faithfully execute the laws of our country. When this legislation is introduced in the coming weeks, I ask that you review it and join me in supporting it when it goes before the House.

 

 

Then here is the draft of the resolution in the House:

 

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/RU/RU00/20140716/102507/BILLS-113pih-HRes___.pdf?Source=GovD

 

Failure to implement the law. 

 

The topic was narrowed in the last couple weeks,.... but the drug laws were in the top 5 reasons for the lawsuit originally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder what the actual lawsuit looks like rather than someone's self-serving opinion?

 

Anyone got a link? Has a lawsuit been filed yet?

 

Immigration?

 

Executive changes to a law passed by congress?

 

In the end, as Hilary posited in the Benghazi incident, what difference does it make?

 

Anyone calculated the US debt-to-gdp ration lately?

 

Anyone looked at the mounting levels of unfunded liabilities?

 

Anyone ever wonder what happens if the dollar no longer serves as the world's reserve currency?

 

Anyone care about their children's children's future?

Anyone wonder where all the "trickle down" money went over the past 30 years?

 

Anyone wonder how much money we could recoup if the top ten percenters paid more taxes for the next 30 years?

 

Anyone wonder why the Republicans are always willing to spend unlimited amounts of money on their pet projects, but always scream "Liberalism" when the Democrats want to spend? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrats= tax and spend

Republicans= tax cut and spend

 

Democrats attempt to pay, republicans attempt to pay off.

 

 I mean, I know we all hear this nonsense about medicare taxes not going to cover costs etc.  Currently, Medicare tax is 2.9% of the payroll tax.  If we raised that to 3.9% and made the most minor adjustments to slow the cost curve, medicare is fully sustainable through the baby boomer generation, and then once the baby boomer bubble dies off(finally),  there will once again be surpluses because of the population balance.

 

 But heaven forbid we raise taxes! Heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the republicans is that that basic math shows that if you pay your bills off faster you will pay less interest in the future. We pay over 25% of each tax dollar to interest on the national debt.  So if we raised taxes and actually used the funds to pay off that debt in the long run it would be good. But our politicians have no incentive for long term planning. It is like people who take an extra job to pay off their credit card debt. It sucks but then when they pay them off they get a huge yoke off their necks. If we paid off that debt we could really afford to lower taxes or fix our roads educate the kids etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder what the actual lawsuit looks like rather than someone's self-serving opinion?

 

Anyone got a link? Has a lawsuit been filed yet?

 

Immigration?

 

Executive changes to a law passed by congress?

 

In the end, as Hilary posited in the Benghazi incident, what difference does it make?

 

Anyone calculated the US debt-to-gdp ration lately?

 

Anyone looked at the mounting levels of unfunded liabilities?

 

Anyone ever wonder what happens if the dollar no longer serves as the world's reserve currency?

 

Anyone care about their children's children's future?

the u.s dollar will always be the worlds currency, if not it would have changed long ago, the oil would be sold in lbs or uruoes!  where the most oil wells are the people are still paying a quater of a dollar or less for gasoline, I dont get how every one says we raid countrys for their oil yet our gas prices are higher than where we import oil from and even from our own wells, and I realy dont understand why we are saving our oil? are we waiting for every one else to run out? bawahahahaha none of our kids, kids kids kids. will be around for that!

 

we are the so called world super power and police, do you realy think we would let them change the world currency, if so iran has some chemical weapons we need to find and also we need to blow up their nuke program, unless the jews do it before obama leaves office, obama pays hamas and isreal and half the u.s is owned by jews!  call lee in bethleham and call sam in serdot they will tell ya lol!

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some other presidents that have been sued.

 

1974: United States v. Nixon

 

In the latter stages of Watergate, special prosecutor Leon Jaworski obtained a subpoena ordering Richard Nixon to turn over certain tapes and papers. Nixon refused and went to the Supreme Court to argue against handing them over. The judges unanimously ruled against Nixon. This crucial decision rejected Nixon’s claim of “absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." Fifteen days after the ruling, Nixon resigned. It was a landmark moment in defining the powers of the president.

 

1997: Jones v. Clinton

A former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones filed a sexual harassment suit against Bill Clinton. This was another landmark case, establishing that presidents have no immunity from civil litigation -- and that presidents can be sued for actions unrelated to and before their time in office. Following a four and a half year case, Clinton reached an out-of-court settlement with Jones, paying her $850,000. Numerous embarrassing allegations were also made public about the president’s sex life.

("Presidue" left behind on a dress!)

 

 

1984: Phelps v. Reagan

The former head of the Westboro Baptist Church Fred Phelps sued Ronald Reagan for his appointment of a U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, arguing it breached the divide between church and state. Phelps filed the case in the U.S. District Court in Topeka, Kan., where the church was based. The suit was thrown out by Judge Richard Rogers who said Phelps “lacked standing” and ruled that Reagan hadn’t violated the First Amendment.

 

 

 

2000: Bush v. Gore

After the Florida hung in the balance following the 2000 presidential election, the state’s Supreme Court ordered a state wide manual recount. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-1 to stop the recount -- stating it was unconstitutional -- which meant Bush’s 0.5% majority in Florida was held. The ruling essentially named George W. Bush as the 43rd president.

 

1962: Bailey v. Kennedy

John F. Kennedy was sued during his time in office by Mississippi Senator Hugh Lee Bailey for injuries he sustained in a car accident two years earlier. Although Kennedy wasn't directly involved, Bailey claimed that injuries caused by Kennedy's driver left him unable to ride his donkey. Kennedy settled for $17,500.

 

2011: Kucinich v. Obama

Boehner isn't the first member of Congress to try to sue Obama. Two years ago, former House member Dennis Kucinich and eight other House members filed a lawsuit against Obama, arguing he'd violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution by taking military action in Libya without consulting Congress. A federal judge shot down the case, stating the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.

 

 

 

2013: Saleh v. Bush

Although he's out of office, former president George W. Bush is facing litigation relating to his presidency. He is being sued, along with several members of his administration, by a single Iraqi mother for crimes of aggression against the Iraqi people and for violating the Nuremberg Principles. The Obama administration has tried to protect the defendants by attempting to bring down the case twice, unsuccessfully. Saleh filed her second amended complaint on Jun 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we paid off that debt we could really afford to lower taxes or fix our roads educate the kids etc.

 

The Federal debt will never be paid off, it's intrinsic in the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve Bank (which has no affiliation with the Federal Government) prints Federal Reserve Notes (IOU"s) which they then sell to the Federal Government.

 

The U.S. government authorizes the Federal Reserve Bank to create money out of thin air and then borrows it from them.

 

For example, if you were the only source of money and you loaned me a dollar at 10% interest I would have to pay you $1.10 back for the loan. Since you are the only source of cash where will I get the additional 10 cents to pay the interest? From you of course!

 

Now I owe you 10 cents and will have to borrow another dollar so I can pay you the interest I owe you. You loan me another dollar and I pay you the 10 cents I owe you.

 

But now I owe you $1.10 and only have 90 cents left, where will I get the money? I'll borrow two dollars from you so I can pay you back. Then I'll owe you $2.20 for which I'll need a loan to pay you back. On and on and on.

 

This wonderful system of turning our economy over to privately owned banks was introduced in 1913, coincidentally the same year the income tax was introduced. Until that time the Government operated just fine without any income tax.

 

But don't worry, the folks who came up with the plan assured everyone the tax would never go over 1%. And think how happy it makes the bankers!

 

(You didn't really think all that money went to welfare Moms did you?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republican strategy is to run up the dept by cutting taxes. To the point that there just has to be new taxes. Then they make sure that the new taxes are applied in ways to make the rich richer. It's working right now in America. The gap between the poor and the rich is widening. Rich are richer than ever. What I can't understand is how the rich get the 'not so rich' to believe they are going to get there someday. It's a political pyramid scheme. Those rich guys at the top don't want you there with them so quit voting them into riches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republican strategy is to run up the dept by cutting taxes. To the point that there just has to be new taxes. Then they make sure that the new taxes are applied in ways to make the rich richer. It's working right now in America. The gap between the poor and the rich is widening. Rich are richer than ever. What I can't understand is how the rich get the 'not so rich' to believe they are going to get there someday. It's a political pyramid scheme. Those rich guys at the top don't want you there with them so quit voting them into riches.

Thanks to the Reagan Revolution, and its endgame of socialism for the rich, we all may end up on the public dole, scrambling for droppings from a too heavily laden nationalized table. Socialism for the rich is not the way to go.,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.” lucy parsons

It happened all through the 90's. The gap between the rich and poor was shrinking. More and more people were getting decent health care. More and more people had better lives. The rich lost a zero at the end of their bank accounts. I went to a few exclusive places and spent my new found riches, just a flash in the pan really. I noticed the looks of the 'old money'. They hated the 90's. What we have now is the revenge of the rich for what we did to them in the 90's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...