PDA

View Full Version : Obama threatens vetoes of bills requiring him to follow the law



jimnyc
03-13-2014, 09:55 AM
President Obama is threatening to veto a law that would allow Congress to sue him in federal courts for arbitrarily changing or refusing to enforce federal laws because it "violates the separation of powers" by encroaching on his presidential authority.

"[T]he power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the President over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed exceeds constitutional limitations," the White House Office of Management and Budget said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy. "Congress may not assign such power to itself, nor may it assign to the courts the task of resolving such generalized political disputes."

The lead sponsor of the measure, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said it was designed to curb Obama's abuse of presidential authority, most notably in his frequent changes to Obamacare.

"We have pursued certain remedies afforded to Congress to address executive overreach but these efforts have been thwarted," Gowdy said. "This bill is necessary; it will give Congress the authority to defend this branch of government as the Framers and our fellow citizens would expect."

Obama also threatened to veto another bill by Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., which would require the administration to explain decisions not to enforce laws when those decisions are rooted in policy concerns rather than just constitutional concerns (which the Justice Department is already required to do).

"The American people deserve to know exactly which laws the Obama administration is refusing to enforce and why," DeSantis said when introducing his bill.

OMB said DeSantis' law is too burdensome. "The bill would inordinately expand current law, which already requires reports to Congress when non-enforcement of federal law is based on constitutional grounds," Obama's team said in a statement of administration policy.

"Federal agencies are continually engaged in the process of determining how to concentrate limited enforcement resources most effectively. ... The vastly expanded reporting scheme required by the bill would be unduly burdensome and would place the Attorney General in the unprecedented position of having to be kept informed of and report on enforcement decisions made by every other Federal agency," the statement continued.

The House is scheduled to vote on both bills Wednesday.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-threatens-vetoes-of-bills-requiring-him-to-follow-the-law/article/2545545

fj1200
03-13-2014, 10:17 AM
^Um, why do you need a new bill for that? :confused:

jimnyc
03-13-2014, 10:24 AM
^Um, why do you need a new bill for that? :confused:

Because apparently what we have now isn't stopping him from doing as he pleases.

Gaffer
03-14-2014, 10:10 AM
They are looking to strip him of some of his dictatorial powers and he's refusing. Anyone surprised?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
03-14-2014, 06:16 PM
^Um, why do you need a new bill for that? :confused: Because the socialist muslim loving piece of shat simply does as he pleases and sticks up his scrawny middle finger to Congress , our Constitution and our freedoms. That's why. I am quite simply amazed that you have to ask amigo. :poke:--Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
03-14-2014, 06:26 PM
They are looking to strip him of some of his dictatorial powers and he's refusing. Anyone surprised?




You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice. Damn shame that..-Tyr

fj1200
03-14-2014, 09:23 PM
Because the socialist muslim loving piece of shat simply does as he pleases and sticks up his scrawny middle finger to Congress , our Constitution and our freedoms. That's why. I am quite simply amazed that you have to ask amigo. :poke:--Tyr

You mean he's going to pay attention to a silly law when he doesn't pay attention to anything else. By Jove I think you've got something there. :rolleyes:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
03-14-2014, 09:49 PM
[
QUOTE=fj1200;685636]You mean he's going to pay attention to a silly law when he doesn't pay attention to anything else. By Jove I think you've got something there. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] No, the point is just possibly the damn nation will pay attention or even God forbid the damn courts!! My God what do you propose? Do nothing , say nothing --just bend over and ask for more! Hell , the traitorous son of a bitch should be in prison!! Should have been long ago.. If he is not a damn traitor such a thing has never existed.. -Tyr

NightTrain
03-15-2014, 02:53 AM
You mean he's going to pay attention to a silly law when he doesn't pay attention to anything else. By Jove I think you've got something there. :rolleyes:


I know that you know this, but I just have to don my Captain Obvious cape.

The President does NOT get to decide what laws get observed.

The President does NOT get to pick and choose which laws are enforced.

The President does NOT get to implement a law and then decide to change parts of it as it suits him.



This President has done all of these things. He is completely inept and is a menace to this country... it's going to take many years to undo the damage that this clown has done.

fj1200
03-15-2014, 10:18 AM
No, the point is just possibly the damn nation will pay attention or even God forbid the damn courts!! My God what do you propose? Do nothing , say nothing --just bend over and ask for more! Hell , the traitorous son of a bitch should be in prison!! Should have been long ago.. If he is not a damn traitor such a thing has never existed.. -Tyr

I tend to go with the hair-not-on-fire approach. :poke: If Congress doesn't care about its own function in a Constitutional Republic then another law isn't going to do a whit.


I know that you know this, but I just have to don my Captain Obvious cape.

The President does NOT get to decide what laws get observed.

The President does NOT get to pick and choose which laws are enforced.

The President does NOT get to implement a law and then decide to change parts of it as it suits him.

This President has done all of these things. He is completely inept and is a menace to this country... it's going to take many years to undo the damage that this clown has done.

Well I certainly don't disagree with the bold but the POTUS does get to decide some things. Of course all the ACA stuff borders on the ridiculous and is a perfect argument for repeal, if the POTUS has to continually change the law at whim to make it work then the whole thing needs to be tossed.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
03-15-2014, 11:40 AM
I tend to go with the hair-not-on-fire approach. :poke: If Congress doesn't care about its own function in a Constitutional Republic then another law isn't going to do a whit.


Had not a single clue that you were a barber/hairstylist amigo. -:poke:


Sure Congress should stand up for itself but the Senate has the corrupt traitor Reid controlling it and impeachment is off the table as long as that scum is in control. As is any meaningful corrective measures used to stop Obama. The House refuses to waste time doing so when the Senate will not do its job and go with such punitive corrective measures.

Thus the little Stalin gets his damn way and the entire nation suffers!! Yet any person claiming that he has done nothing worthy of impeachment is a damn ignorant ass fool IMHO. -Tyr

fj1200
03-15-2014, 02:25 PM
I tend to go with the hair-not-on-fire approach.

:shrug:

gabosaurus
03-15-2014, 04:46 PM
Sure Congress should stand up for itself but the Senate has the corrupt traitor Reid controlling it and impeachment is off the table as long as that scum is in control. As is any meaningful corrective measures used to stop Obama. The House refuses to waste time doing so when the Senate will not do its job and go with such punitive corrective measures.

Thus the little Stalin gets his damn way and the entire nation suffers!! Yet any person claiming that he has done nothing worthy of impeachment is a damn ignorant ass fool IMHO. -Tyr

We never got to impeach Dubya. Why should you get to impeach Obama? Presidents throughout history have never been held accountable for their misdeeds. Whether it be Reagan meddling in the affairs of foreign countries or Clinton meddling in the affairs of American women, it is always allowed to pass by. You can't say one is worse than the other. Unless you want to turn a blind eye to one side of history.

tailfins
03-15-2014, 07:05 PM
We never got to impeach Dubya. Why should you get to impeach Obama? Presidents throughout history have never been held accountable for their misdeeds. Whether it be Reagan meddling in the affairs of foreign countries or Clinton meddling in the affairs of American women, it is always allowed to pass by. You can't say one is worse than the other. Unless you want to turn a blind eye to one side of history.

Using the IRS as a political hit squad is reason enough all by itself to impeach the occupier of the White House. Some have posted a huge list of high misdemeanors. I think going for a few serious charges is stronger than a huge list of charges.