Charles Krauthamer observes the lawlessness of the Obama administration:
Remember how for months Democrats denounced Republicans for daring to vote to defund or postpone Obamacare? Saboteurs! Terrorists! How dare you alter “the law of the land.”
This was nonsense from the beginning. Every law is subject to revision and abolition if the people think it turned out to be a bad idea. Even constitutional amendments can be repealed — and have been (see Prohibition).
After indignant denunciation of Republicans for trying to amend “the law of the land” constitutionally (i.e. in Congress assembled), Democrats turn utterly silent when the president lawlessly tries to do so by executive fiat.
Nor is this the first time. The president wakes up one day and decides to unilaterally suspend the employer mandate, a naked invasion of Congress’s exclusive legislative prerogative, enshrined in Article I. Not a word from the Democrats. Nor now regarding the blatant usurpation of trying to restore canceled policies that violate explicit Obamacare coverage requirements.
And worse. When Congress tried to make Obama’s “fix” legal — i.e., through legislation — he opposed it. He even said he would veto it. Imagine: vetoing the very bill that would legally enact his own illegal fix.
At rallies, Obama routinely says he has important things to do and he’s not going to wait for Congress. Well, amending a statute after it’s been duly enacted is something a president may not do without Congress. It’s a gross violation of his Article II duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
A Senate with no rules. A president without boundaries. One day, when a few bottled-up judicial nominees and a malfunctioning health-care Web site are barely a memory, we will still be dealing with the toxic residue of this outbreak of authoritative lawlessness.
It goes so far beyond that which Krauthammer accurately described.
We are dealing with more than a train wreck. We are dealing with a man-made disaster.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
As I’ve been saying for the longest…
we are suffering though the Obamabanana Republic.
Headed by a gang of outlaws. And a willingness to lie and commit perjury seems to be “Job requirement No. 1” on the Obamic hiring guide.
It is a real Obama-Nation!
You misspelled dictator.
Obama has an I.Q. of a Tater?
And now you’re telling me he’s also a Little……..???
Great post. We need more of these terms: dangerous, reckless, destructive and especially cruel. Obama enjoys a bedrock of support based on a presumption of benevolence (abetted by the pathetic Romney and other RINOS with the “nice guy in over his head” meme). We know it’s false, and need to damage him with LIVs. Think back to how Paul Ryan was attacked for his budget proposals (grannies wheeled off cliffs). Now it’s actually happening: about cancer patients kicked off their insurance and left to die. Written off as the “lost leaders” and collateral damage of Utopian schemes. Why no ads about this? But forget about the Republican party. The rest of us need to play our part.
I am disappointed Dr.K did not use the word tyrant or tyrannical. He danced around it and forced the reader to infer it, but it would have been more powerful for him to have used it explicitly.
Part of the presumption from which obama benefits is based on his race. Ironically, he plays the race game with the worst of them, and, again, America is suffering because of that.
Wasn’t it Obama that had terrorism redefined as ‘man-caused disaster’? So can we officially declare Obamacare an act of terrorism?
We are dealing with a man-made disaster but it has been decades in the making. Radicals genuinely believe they can use political power to drive what they have consistently referred to as the Great Transition for decades. And there is a lust for transformation and the removal of all pesky barriers. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/multiple-recent-proclamations-laying-out-commitment-to-revolutionary-transformation-of-our-entire-society/ was written slightly more than a week ago so this is describing pursuits within the last two weeks. And bipartisan.
Because Thanksgiving week last year revealed the midnight drop of a transformational social studies framework to be quietly imposed on US classrooms, I was watching closely for a show to drop this year as well. Sure enough the writeup on a new civics ed curriculum to create a new concept of citizenship. It redefines patriotism as disdaining your personal interests on behalf of the greater good of the majority.
What is in the open like Obamacare waivers is bad enough but, oh, when you read the small print that is mostly out of sight, the real intentions become utterly transparent. And frightening because political power and a desire to gain submission to that power are all.
Well said, and thanks for the link. So much of this 21st century war (which began in the Progressive 20th century) is going on out of sight, and beyond the comprehension of the 19th century Republican mindset. Education has always been the key tool. As you say, what we’re experiencing now in and with and around Obama is the TOTALLY PREDICTABLE outcome of the cultural/educational Marxist push in the latter half of the last century.
William A. Jacobson: Charles Krauthamer observes the lawlessness of the Obama administration
Which court has found Obama is in violation of the law?
The court of public opinion.
Obama was recently reelected by a substantial majority. If he is in violation of the law, then the courts are the proper venue.
And with every week another asterisk gets against that reelection because of, yes, the lawlessness of this administration in using the IRS to suppress political opposition and playing fast and loose with the economic statistics coming out of the Commerce department.
A couple of problems with that.
1 I wouldn’t call it a majority of the public. Only about 124 million people cast ballots in 2012. There are about 250 million adults who were eligible to vote in 2012, so the total number of ballots didn’t even represent the majority.
2 Of that number who cast ballots, Obama only had a 3.477 million vote win. That is a very low margin, less than the population of Seattle.
3 Even so, the Constitution was put in place precisely to prevent the majority from exerting the tyrannical authority of the ballot box over the minority. That is the reason why the government has Constitutional restraints and safeguards.
divemedic: I wouldn’t call it a majority of the public.
Nor did we. We said he was reelected by a majority, which means a majority of votes cast.
divemedic: Of that number who cast ballots, Obama only had a 3.477 million vote win.
Five million.
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012presgeresults.pdf
divemedic: Even so, the Constitution was put in place precisely to prevent the majority from exerting the tyrannical authority of the ballot box over the minority.
Sure. Power is divided at many levels throughout society. But that’s not particularly relevant to NC Mountain Girl’s comment and our response.
Absent some court decision, saying the president is lawless is mere rhetoric.
Sure it’s rhetoric. So what. Claiming it’s rhetoric is immaterial to truth or falsehood.
Obama objectively violated the Constitution by amending a Congressional law by fiat. You dispute this?
In any case, the “rhetorical” assertion is where and how the legal process begins.
raven: Obama objectively violated the Constitution by amending a Congressional law by fiat. You dispute this?
The president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” However, under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, the Congress gave the executive discretion in setting up laws, while holding it accountable for carrying out Congress’s intentions. It’s clear the administration intends to execute the law, so any delay would likely be seen by the courts as a proper use of discretion, unless it were prolonged.
Yah, no. You are full of crap.
Your use of “discretion” here is Doublespeak for “rank political expedience”. And that is not LAWFUL.
Nor are the various and sundry OTHER misuses of “discretion”.
Obama has set out to make himself a demi-tyrant, and we all know it. Some of us deplore it. You support it. Which tells us all we need know about you.
“Scrath a Collectivist, find a totalitarian”. As a ALWAYS say.
Ragspierre: Your use of “discretion” here is Doublespeak for “rank political expedience”.
No, we are referring to the Administrative Procedure Act.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure/
So, Stalin is innocent? Thanks for the heads up.
Karen Sacandy: So, Stalin is innocent?
The U.S. has strong institutions supporting the rule of law. However, we have already granted that an actual court decision isn’t essential, but no one has provided any evidence of “lawlessness”.
Karen Sacandy: So, Stalin is innocent?
Zachriel: The U.S. has strong institutions supporting the rule of law. However, we have already granted that an actual court decision isn’t essential, but no one has provided any evidence of “lawlessness”.
“We have already…” Dude, I made my own points, and don’t accept anyone else’s premises.
As I said, glad to hear Stalin is an innocent man. Let’s erect a statue!
Karen Sacandy: glad to hear Stalin is an innocent man
No, he wasn’t.
“No, we are referring to the Administrative Procedure Act.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure/”
You’re being cute and duplicitous, citing cited a 50-page (or so) federal statute, and expecting *us* to find the specific provision that supports your ridiculous argument.
So I’ll ask you directly: Exactly WHICH provision of the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes the president — without legislative action, hearings, notice, publication in the Federal Register, or opportunity for public comment — to simply DECLARE that insurance policies becoming illegal on January 1, 2014 will NOT become illegal on January 2014???
I’ve now skimmed the entire Act you cited, but can’t find anything in it REMOTELY supporting your position.
Can you?
“- – – crickets – – -” from Zachriel.
Apparently, Soros gives Zachriel Saturdays off.
Either that or Zachriel really IS a complete fraud who cites statutes without having any idea what they say.
JPL17: You’re being cute and duplicitous, citing cited a 50-page (or so) federal statute, and expecting *us* to find the specific provision that supports your ridiculous argument.
Dura lex sed lex!
JPL17: So I’ll ask you directly: Exactly WHICH provision of the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes the president — without legislative action, hearings, notice, publication in the Federal Register, or opportunity for public comment — to simply DECLARE that insurance policies becoming illegal on January 1, 2014 will NOT become illegal on January 2014???
Well, we start with the Constitution, which requires that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Due to the nature of regulatory bodies, Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946, which gives agencies broad discretion in setting up laws, but makes them accountable for implementing Congress’s intentions. More particularly, the agency is required to promulgate rules to implement the law. Furthermore, the Administrative Procedure Act allows the courts to compel agencies to act when provisions have been “unreasonably delayed”. That implies there is such as thing as a reasonable delay.
What does that mean in practice? For that we turn to precedent. Temporary postponements are routine, and have been done by both Republican and Democratic administrations when a law’s deadlines actually inhibit the intent of Congress. The Bush Administration delayed Medicare Part D without a constitutional crisis.
So what is a reasonable delay. The Administrative Procedure Act authorizes the courts to make these decisions. The Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. F.C.C. found that the court must consider whether other important interests could be “prejudiced by the delay”, or whether the expedited action could affect “higher or competing” priorities. Certainly, if the delay helps implementation, then the courts would approve the delay.
Under Heckler v. Chaney the courts must generally defer to an agencies expertise of “the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities”. However, this doesn’t excuse the agency from its responsibilities under the law. If the administration announced it wasn’t going to enforce the law, then the courts could order the appropriate agencies to comply, or hold them in contempt. However, it is clear that the Obama Administration intends to implement the PPACA.
It’s possible the courts could intervene, and there is a court case working its way through the system. But if the delay is “reasonable”, the courts will probably just wait it out until the situation resolves itself, the case then becoming moot.
@Zachriel: Nice parroting of the argument made in the Atlantic last July, see http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/, but you didn’t answer my question.
Doing your OWN work this time, please advise WHICH provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act you’re relying on to support your argument that the President has authority to allow insurers to continue issuing non-compliant policies for another year, AND to impose additional conditions on those insurers, without legislation, notice to the public, public commentary, etc.?
JPL17: please advise WHICH provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act you’re relying on to support your argument that the President has authority to allow insurers to continue issuing non-compliant policies for another year, AND to impose additional conditions on those insurers, without legislation, notice to the public, public commentary, etc.?
We answered your question, but you ignored the answer.
The administration is required to promulgate rules to implement the law. That includes reasonable delays in implementing provisions of the law. The courts are authorized to make judgments concerning these rules. Previous court decisions include Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. F.C.C. and Heckler v. Chaney.
“We answered your question, but you ignored the answer.”
If you think you answered my question, then your answer gets an “F”.
I asked you for specific provisions from a specific statute, i.e., the relevant *section numbers* of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) that you are relying on.
For example, do you rely on APA section 552? As I’m sure you know, it provides as follows:
§ 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:
(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public–
(A) descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions;
(B) statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available;
(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations;
(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and
(E) each amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing.
Not the right section? Then perhaps you were relying on APA section 553 instead? I’m sure you’re familiar with that section, too. It provides as follows:
§ 553. Rule making
(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that there is involved –
(1) a military or foreign affairs function of the United States; or
(2) a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.
(b) General notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal Register, unless persons subject thereto are named and either personally served or otherwise have actual notice thereof in accordance with law. The notice shall include –
(1) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public rule making proceedings;
(2) reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and
(3) either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.
Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, this subsection does not apply –
(A) to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; or
(B) when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
(c) After notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose. When rules are required by statute to be made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing, sections 556 and 557 of this title apply instead of this subsection.
(d) The required publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except –
(1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction;
(2) interpretative rules and statements of policy; or
(3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.
(e) Each agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
No, that isn’t the provision you’re relying on??? Well, then, maybe it’s section 554, which, as I’m sure you know, provides as follows:
§ 554. Adjudications
(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, in every case of adjudication required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing, except to the extent that there is involved
(1) a matter subject to a subsequent trial of the law and the facts de novo in a court;
(2) the selection or tenure of an employee, except a (FOOTNOTE 1) administrative law judge appointed under section 3105 of this title;
(FOOTNOTE 1) So in original.
(3) proceedings in which decisions rest solely on inspections, tests, or elections;
(4) the conduct of military or foreign affairs functions;
(5) cases in which an agency is acting as an agent for a court; or
(6) the certification of worker representatives.
(b) Persons entitled to notice of an agency hearing shall be timely informed of –
(1) the time, place, and nature of the hearing;
(2) the legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held; and
(3) the matters of fact and law asserted.
When private persons are the moving parties, other parties to the proceeding shall give prompt notice of issues controverted in fact or law; and in other instances agencies may by rule require responsive pleading. In fixing the time and place for hearings, due regard shall be had for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives.
(c) The agency shall give all interested parties opportunity for –
(1) the submission and consideration of facts, arguments, offers of settlement, or proposals of adjustment when time, the nature of the proceeding, and the public interest permit; and
(2) to the extent that the parties are unable so to determine a controversy by consent, hearing and decision on notice and in accordance with sections 556 and 557 of this title.
(d) The employee who presides at the reception of evidence pursuant to section 556 of this title shall make the recommended decision or initial decision required by section 557 of this title, unless he becomes unavailable to the agency. Except to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte matters as authorized by law, such an employee may not –
(1) consult a person or party on a fact in issue, unless on notice and opportunity for all parties to participate; or
(2) be responsible to or subject to the supervision or direction of an employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for an agency.
An employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for an agency in a case may not, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision, recommended decision, or agency review pursuant to section 557 of this title, except as witness or counsel in public proceedings. This subsection does not apply –
(A) in determining applications for initial licenses;
(B) to proceedings involving the validity or application of rates, facilities, or practices of public utilities or carriers; or
(C) to the agency or a member or members of the body comprising the agency.
(e) The agency, with like effect as in the case of other orders, and in its sound discretion, may issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty.
What? You mean that section doesn’t apply EITHER? Well then maybe you were relying on APA section 556, yes??? As I’m sure you’ll recall, that provision provides as follows:
§ 556. Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of proof; evidence; record as basis of decision
(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, to hearings required by section 553 or 554 of this title to be conducted in accordance with this section.
(b) There shall preside at the taking of evidence –
(1) the agency;
(2) one or more members of the body which comprises the agency; or
(3) one or more administrative law judges appointed under section 3105 of this title.
This subchapter does not supersede the conduct of specified classes of proceedings, in whole or in part, by or before boards or other employees specially provided for by or designated under statute. The functions of presiding employees and of employees participating in decisions in accordance with section 557 of this title shall be conducted in an impartial manner. A presiding or participating employee may at any time disqualify himself. On the filing in good faith of a timely and sufficient affidavit of personal bias or other disqualification of a presiding or participating employee, the agency shall determine the matter as a part of the record and decision in the case.
(c) Subject to published rules of the agency and within its powers, employees presiding at hearings may –
(1) administer oaths and affirmations;
(2) issue subpoenas authorized by law;
(3) rule on offers of proof and receive relevant evidence;
(4) take depositions or have depositions taken when the ends of justice would be served;
(5) regulate the course of the hearing;
(6) hold conferences for the settlement or simplification of the issues by consent of the parties or by the use of alternative means of dispute resolution as provided in subchapter IV of this chapter;
(7) inform the parties as to the availability of one or more alternative means of dispute resolution, and encourage use of such methods;
(8) require the attendance at any conference held pursuant to paragraph (6) of at least one representative of each party who has authority to negotiate concerning resolution of issues in controversy;
(9) dispose of procedural requests or similar matters;
(10) make or recommend decisions in accordance with section 557 of this title; and
(11) take other action authorized by agency rule consistent with this subchapter.
(d) Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the agency as a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. A sanction may not be imposed or rule or order issued except on consideration of the whole record or those parts thereof cited by a party and supported by and in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. The agency may, to the extent consistent with the interests of justice and the policy of the underlying statutes administered by the agency, consider a violation of section 557(d) of this title sufficient grounds for a decision adverse to a party who has knowingly committed such violation or knowingly caused such violation to occur. A party is entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. In rule making or determining claims for money or benefits or applications for initial licenses an agency may, when a party will not be prejudiced thereby, adopt procedures for the submission of all or part of the evidence in written form.
(e) The transcript of testimony and exhibits, together with all papers and requests filed in the proceeding, constitutes the exclusive record for decision in accordance with section 557 of this title and, on payment of lawfully prescribed costs, shall be made available to the parties. When an agency decision rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the contrary.
In other words, I asked YOU for specific sections of the 50-page APA that you were relying on; whereas YOU only gave me general legal principles lifted from a column in the Atlantic.
I can only conclude that you don’t actually *know* what the Administrative Procedure Act says, and that your citation to it — like nearly everything else you post here — was basically a snowjob.
JPL17: I asked you for specific provisions from a specific statute
Chapter 5 is on rulemaking, particularly § 553.
Chapter 7 is on judicial review, particularly § 706.
We also directed you to case law.
You may want to familiarize yourself with the string of 9-0 Supreme Court decisions. An excellent blog that you sometimes read has written about it:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/the-supreme-courts-9-0-rulings-against-obama-reveal-disregard-for-the-constitution/
You mean Obama ignored Supreme Court rulings? My Goodness!
So…
A President could with impunity ignore Roe v. Wade in the future.
Kuhl…
Ragspierre: A President could with impunity ignore Roe v. Wade in the future.
Um, not sure where you got that.
No. You asked what court has found Obama in violation of the law. I supplied an answer. The answer is the U.S. Supreme Court. It has ruled unanimously – on numerous occasions – that Obama and his administration have violated the supreme law of the land. It is a consistent pattern of unconstitutional executive overreach. Even the left-wing ideological justices he appointed refuse to condone it.
MaggotAtBroadAndWall: You asked what court has found Obama in violation of the law. I supplied an answer.
Fair enough, but that doesn’t support a claim that the president is lawless. Otherwise, every other person or business who has ever gone to court is lawless.
Try reading the article above. Laws are broken before the judicial process or political will catches up the lawlessness. It’s called cause and effect. Was Nixon convicted in any court prior to impeachment proceedings? Also, try using your own independent mind rather than a collective meme.
But you’re only instantiating Krauthammer’s point. Obama is doing EVERYTHING (abusing the Constitution, trampling on individual rights in the war on terror, enacting or ignoring laws by executive fiat), which the Left projected George Bush would do but which were never done or even contemplated. Why did the Left project — why do they always project? Because, of course, they fear others are like them; they paranoically fear themselves. They knew they would do this very thing once in power and wished to avert its infliction on them.
raven: Laws are broken before the judicial process or political will catches up the lawlessness.
Executive orders are standard fare. There’s nothing hidden about what is being claimed. If Obama has exceeded his authority, then courts are the proper venue.
You implied Obama couldn’t be in a state of lawlessness before a court found him in violation of the law. You inverted cause and effect. Now you say you want to wait to know what a court says about executive orders that alter the intricate and interacting parts of a law passed by congress before one can assert such imperial decrees of alteration are illegal? Fine, let’s begin the legal and judicious process and find out.
I’m curious if you ever would have exercised such generous legalistic pedantry on behalf of George Bush?
raven: You implied Obama couldn’t be in a state of lawlessness before a court found him in violation of the law.
We said it was just rhetoric. There is no valid case to be made that the president is “lawless”.
raven: Now you say you want to wait to know what a court says about executive orders that alter the intricate and interacting parts of a law passed by congress before one can assert such imperial decrees of alteration are illegal?
Even that wouldn’t make the president lawless, as long as he abides by the court’s decision.
raven: Fine, let’s begin the legal and judicious process and find out.
Go for it. The courts are the proper venue for decisions concerning executive orders. There’s even an expedited process available.
>>”If Obama has exceeded his authority, then courts are the proper venue.”
Not necessarily. Impeachment is a political process.
Go for it.
Ah. Down to brass tacks finally.
>>”Executive orders are standard fare.”
Sometimes. Sometimes not. That’s the point. It’s a matter of degree; of the proper and improper use of power.
Nixon’s abuse of the IRS, for which he was impeached, was much less significant than obama’s ongoing use of the IRS to attack his enemies. It is astounding that obama persists with that even though it is open and notorious.
Just for historic accuracy…Nixon was never impeached.
You are correct. I slipped into the vernacular, which in this instance is explicitly incorrect.
Well, you are sort of right, and largely disingenuous.
Where you are right is in your observation that the courts are the proper venue.
You are multiply disingenuous…or very badly informed…in implying that the Obamabanana Republic is not frequently spanked in courts.
They are. I have also lost count of the contempt holdings of Obami in Federal courts all over the U.S.
You will find pieces by legal scholars all over the place saying that Obama operates in flagrant disregard of the laws. His AG…for the first time in history, I think…has been held in contempt of Congress. Holder is a featured player, of course, since he is charged with enforcing the laws, and can be relied upon NOT to.
Ragspierre: Where you are right is in your observation that the courts are the proper venue.
Sure.
Ragspierre: in implying that the Obamabanana Republic is not frequently spanked in courts.
Never said one way or the other. But as long as he abides by the court’s decision, then he is not “lawless”. There are exceptions, but this discussion is about public executive orders.
But as long as he abides by the court’s decision, then he is not “lawless”.
——————–
You found it expedient to ignore the contempt citations, huh?
Not surprising. Not at all.
You are also a fundamental liar. A law is broken when it is broken. Not when all the steps in the process of a trial are satisfied (since, very often, they NEVER are, independent of the reality of the law having been violated).
Ragspierre: A law is broken when it is broken.
So if a president ever has an executive order overturned by the courts, then he is “lawless”. Is that correct?
No, stupid.
Don’t play that fallacious game with me.
Obama IS lawless, as his minions are lawless, as established by a PATTERN and PRACTICE over years.
So “no”, but “yes”.
No, troll.
I understand…as you’ve amply demonstrated…that you have trouble with reality.
Reality is that Obama and his myrmidons (you would be one) have a clear track record of disdain for the law.
The very idea you hang all your “argument” on is that an outlaw is only an outlaw if they are tried and convicted of outlawry. People have always known better. People understand when the “discretion” afforded the President is being exceeded for rank political expedience, or in a manner that effectively VIOLATES or NULLIFIES the law.
But you are OK with it. Like I said, we know your type.
Ragspierre: The very idea you hang all your “argument” on is that an outlaw is only an outlaw if they are tried and convicted of outlawry.
Not necessarily, but you certainly haven’t provided any evidence of “lawlessness”.
There is ample evidence, troll.
You chose to “hand-wave” it away, trollishly.
OK. We like you stupid.
Ragspierre: There is ample evidence
We’ve seen cites to administrative decisions that were adjudicated by the courts. That doesn’t justify a claim of “lawlessness”.
Still finding it convenient to PRETEND all those CONTEMPT citations away.
Got it.
Ragspierre: Still finding it convenient to PRETEND all those CONTEMPT citations away.
Do you have a specific example? And the penalty the court imposed?
Educate yourself, troll.
I have.
Bing is your friend.
So, “no”.
So, YES.
But I’m not charged to pour information into your crap-packed skull.
Learn or stay stupid. All good with me.
Heh!
Ragspierre: Learn
You made a claim. We asked for a specific for the purposes of discussion. You can’t answer. We can only assume you have none.
I made a statement as fact.
Refute it.
Or learn how stupid you are.
Most of us know that answer already. It would be a growth experience for you, apparently.
Ragspierre: I made a statement as fact.
Which you have refused to support.
No, liar. I DECLINE to play your game.
You refute my factually true and readily confirmed statement.
Others here will. Then they will join me in laughing at you.
If you were half as informed as you PRETEND to be, you would already know what I said is true.
Ragspierre: I DECLINE to play your game.
You made a claim, then refused to support it. Good luck with that.
“Settled laws” direct the Prezzy and his toadies to comply, and he twice vowed to “faithfully execute”. Explicit deadlines included. (As most of us are required to file tax rerurns on tume, for exanple, under threat of ultimate prosecution.)
Now if he simply doesn’t feel like complying with some clear provision of a law, or inconvenient to to him personally or his party politically, he simply grants himself a generous waiver.
Obamacare waivers to political supporters and deadline slide-overs seem obvious examples. And the multiple materially fraudulent public assertions to even get this beast jammed through Congress, continued also to be stated to protect his reelection prospects.
These smell to me to be the most obvious elements to a Congressional impeachment action. Add in Benghazi lies & cover-up, IRS suppressions, Fast& Furious deceptions, … and more.
#ImpeachObama
Disco Stu_: Now if he simply doesn’t feel like complying with some clear provision of a law, or inconvenient to to him personally or his party politically, he simply grants himself a generous waiver.
The president has great discretion to execute new laws. Are you saying he doesn’t intend to implement the PPACA?
>>”The president has great discretion to execute new laws. Are you saying he doesn’t intend to implement the PPACA?”
Disingenuous. The option to not implement it is absurd and nugatory; the President does NOT have the discretion to tamper with the internal, interdependent components of laws passed by Congress for his political benefit.
raven: The option to not implement it is absurd and nugatory
That’s the standard Congress set. So it does matter whether the executive order is temporary, and whether it is intended to further implementation, or rather to stymie the will of congress. Courts are given to decide whether the executive order is “arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion”.
>>”Which court has found Obama is in violation of the law?”
Here’s one.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47905937/Health-Care-Ruling-by-Judge-Vinson
raven: Here’s one.
Was it appealed? Under the ruling, was the administration allowed to continue implementing the law? What was the result?
Of course it was appealed. Vinson shot down the entire law. But Vinson, deferring to the good-faith of the executive, did not issue a separate injunction. What was the public relations response from the White House? Contemptuously discrediting Vinson personally as a republican appointee incapable of actual justice and asserting they had no intention of suspending the implementation. Because, you know, they have so much respect for our system of laws.
Just more evidence of lawlessness (in its rhetorical connotations). Lawlessness, I’ll remind you, is also an attitude.
raven: Of course it was appealed.
And what happened on appeal?
raven: Vinson shot down the entire law. But Vinson, deferring to the good-faith of the executive, did not issue a separate injunction.
So the courts said that the president could continue to implement the law, the very court you cited.
Not exactly. Vinson specifically did not issue a separate injunction to stop the law’s implementation because he relied on the ruling itself and on a good faith deference to the executive. He was gravely wrong in his presumption.
But I love the legal punctiluousness. It is so rich with a a sense of citizenry! Where were you when Bush was president? Were you defending him with such legalistic rigor?
What happened on appeal?
The Commerce Clause predicate was soundly thumped by a (if memory serves) unanimous Supreme Court.
The law as then re-written by Roberts to shoe-horn a fig-leaf to make it “legal”.
Or did you miss that part, troll…???
raven: The Commerce Clause predicate was soundly thumped by a (if memory serves) unanimous Supreme Court.
That’s right, but the core of the law was upheld. And the rule of law prevailed, for better or for worse.
No, liar.
The “core” of the law was transmogrified in a total affront to “the rule of law” by the actions of Roberts.
That is a disgraceful affront to any notion of democracy, as anyone but a knee-jerk (emphasize “JERK”) Collectivist knows and hates.
raven: The “core” of the law was transmogrified in a total affront to “the rule of law” by the actions of Roberts.
So the Supreme Court is “lawless”?
Sometimes.
Emphatically, YES!
What? You think the Court IS the law…???
Wow. You really are showing some industrial stupid.
raven: You think the Court IS the law…???
Just one branch.
The opposite of lawless is lawful, not law. So you are saying Roberts Court is lawless?
Whooosh…!!!
The ruling on the Affordable Care WRECK was decidedly lawless.
Did you miss that part when you were trying to play games here?
Ragspierre: The ruling on the Affordable Care WRECK was decidedly lawless.
The law was passed by a majority in the House, a supermajority in the Senate, signed by the President, and upheld as Constitutional by the Supreme Court. You must use a different definition of “lawful” than the usual one.
Well, yes.
See, AFTER the Senate took as bill passed by the House, shelled it out completely, injected the alien spawn of ObamaDoggle, passed it ONLY on the corruption of the Cornhusker Kick-back, the Louisianna Purchase, and other such crap, THEN everyone who voted FOR it did so expressly against the will of the majority of Americans AND voted on a bill NONE of them had read…
I DO hold that to be NO law. I consider that a monstrous crime to any notion of REPUBLICAN DEMOCRACY.
I also hold that Roberts departed from ANY Constitutional norms in his opinion, and that a law violative of the Constitution is no law.
It was NOT “duly enacted”. It was not reviewed under any Constitution standard. It WAS the subject…and still IS…of a fabric of outright lies by those who have spawned it.
Like I said…OK with you, but you are a Collectivist.
raven: I DO hold that to be NO law.
That’s nice. The Supreme Court disagrees. Perhaps it will be overturned by a future court, or repealed through the legislative process.
It will be, before those other things, the subject of mass civil disobedience.
We will not comply.
Remember Prohibition? Each of us is the final arbiter of the law to which we obey.
Ragspierre: We will not comply.
So it’s not a question of whether the administration is lawful, then, but whether you approve the law. That’s a different topic entirely.
Yes. Which you introduced.
Troll.
No president has “discretion” to suspend the law for political or electoral gain.
If you say otherwise, I will simply call you the liar you are.
If you say, “pwoove it” (or your variation “adjudicate”)…again…I will simply call you the Collectivist tool you have demonstrated here you are. I can do this as long as you can, and better.
Pres. ScamWOW, in addition to being a liar and fraud, is an outlaw. He leads an outlaw gang, and he actively assists them in their outlawry.
A huge problem is that the Republicans have not attacked obama because of his lawlessness. Unfortunately, that allows for arguments such as those made by Zachriel.
obama’s non-recess recess appointments were blatantly lawless.
Exactly. The terrible price of nonfeasance and of passively letting nature takes its course (“let’s just sit back and allow Obamacare to implode.”). Nature, as determined by the socially engineering Left, will only take the course they decide.
Have you noticed that there is zero moral component or dimension to his arguments?
The claim is one of “lawlessness”.
And your definition is so pinched and parochial, so indifferent to the palpable reality around you and the good-faith burden imposed upon the Executive branch of our government, so obviously uninterested of the tissues of our public faith in government being incinerated all around us.
Keep up the mantra that a court hasn’t found him guilty of violating a law. As I said, you may find some passing comfort in your legalistic sanctuary. But time is not on your side. The millstones of justice grind slowly but exceedingly fine.
raven: Keep up the mantra that a court hasn’t found him guilty of violating a law.
We’re not quite making that point, but the thread concerns public executive orders, which are subject to judicial review.
There may be other areas where the administration either skirts U.S. or international law where your case might be stronger.
>>”We’re not quite making that point, but the thread concerns public executive orders,”
No it doesn’t. That’s your hobbyhorse. The thread concerns lawlessness.
—————————————————–
Let’s be honest, Republicans have not done much either.
I am not a lawyer, but as a citizen and taxpayer I think impeachment is long overdue.
Impeachment is overdue but it won’t happen. An impeachment would be tried in the Senate. Do you honestly think they could get the 2/3’s vote they need with this senate?
We need to replace this Senate, but who can wait until 2014 to start?
Republicans should be making a bigger effort in denouncing Obama’s abuse of power. Voters should be demanding that their Senators do the right thing and stop the Madman in Chief.
MSM will not do it.
Exiliado I currently see one resonable option available to us. We need to aggressively attack the 2014 elections and change the majority in the senate while keeping the House. With this counterbalance we can limit his destruction.
You quite possibly would if you could show that Obama actually broke the law.
We’ve asserted it and amply shown it. But according to whose satisfaction? And in what venues? Many of us wish to prove it in court or before a Senate trial. We cannot do so given the corrupt and flawed nature of our politicians. Those are simple realities and we understand. And you can take comfort for the time being in our fearful and legalistic casuistry. For the time being.
raven: We’ve asserted it and amply shown it.
You haven’t shown anything of the sort. Using the courts to decide disputes doesn’t make one lawless.
I think it’s clear that we have. You’re assertion is that we haven’t legitimized it through a legal process. That will come. Just because the media doesn’t report it, the Republicans don’t proselytize it, the lawyers don’t prosecute it, doesn’t mean Obama hasn’t done it and we haven’t shown it.
raven: That will come.
Let us know when it does. Thanks!
“You quite possibly would if you could show that Obama actually broke the law.”
Out of curiousity, how do you account for administration references to Snowden as a ‘lawbreaker’ when the courts have not pronounced on him?
“I received a call from an embassy staffer when I was on the train to the airport around 3.45 p.m. He said that Ambassador [Michael] McFaul wanted to pass on to me the official position of the US authorities re: Snowden not being a human rights defender but a law breaker who had to be held accountable,” Lokshina said in an email. – http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/human-rights/310773-obama-administration-urges-human-rights-groups-to-abandon-snowden
PersonFromPorlock: Out of curiousity, how do you account for administration references to Snowden as a ‘lawbreaker’ when the courts have not pronounced on him?
The government has the official authority to make such accusations. If Snowden returns, he can face those accusations in a court of law.
You can personally call the president lawless, but you might find that others ask for some measure of proof.
“The government has the official authority to make such accusations.”
It’s not an accusation, it’s a statement as of fact: again, what court has produced a verdict that makes it a fact?
PersonFromPorlock: It’s not an accusation, it’s a statement as of fact
That’s what an accusation is. It’s an everyday occurrence.
A couple of days ago, an Obama astroturf group was demanding that he rule as a dictator in San Francisco and unilaterally grant citizenship to illegal aliens. Today a professor at NYU was calling in an editorial for the repeal, or ignoring, of presidential term limits so Obama could have a third term [as a prelude, presumably to a 4th, 5th, and a regency]. We are already living under a rule of whim. What the president wants, he does with no respect for the law, the Constitution, or even the forms of law [an announcement on a White House blog, or a statement at a press conference is not the same as an Executive Order].
While Zachriel may be overjoyed at being so ruled, there are those of us who wonder at the implications. If we are citizens, and not serfs, we are ruled by consent of the governed. Our consent was to a system of Constitutional law. If we are not ruled by Constitutional law, we are not governed by our consent, and therefore our duty of obedience is gone. If obedience is solely by force, threat, and coercion ….
Subotai Bahadur
Subotai Bahadur: While Zachriel may be overjoyed at being so ruled, there are those of us who wonder at the implications.
You are welcome to your government.
Subotai Bahadur: Our consent was to a system of Constitutional law. If we are not ruled by Constitutional law, we are not governed by our consent, and therefore our duty of obedience is gone.
And nothing about the executive orders constitutes a constitutional problem. Congress has given the president a great deal of discretion on setting up new laws. Are you really suggesting that the president is not trying his best to implement the PPACA? Because that is what you would have to argue in court.
Of course obama is not trying to implement obamacare. He is selectively enforcing or delaying portions of the outrageous legislation for political and ideological purposes.
You forget “ONLY”. There is no legitimate “discretionary” reason for Obama’s crassly political actions.
Rick: Of course obama is not trying to implement obamacare. He is selectively enforcing or delaying portions of the outrageous legislation for political and ideological purposes.
Great! That’s exactly the sort of policy that the courts were authorized to adjudicate. Where are we with that process?
Dear Mr. Zachriel,
It’s obvious that you’re here to troll, that’s okay. It’s also okay to make to try and protect the Hollywood created current president. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, though Pres. Reagan did say something about making up their own facts. The presidential oath of office simply states:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Since his sworn duty is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, which it’s obvious, due to his limited aptitude, and purposeful corruption of all things American, including the Constitution, he has subverted the contents of the Constitution.
Zachriel, you’ll be one of the first likely to cry foul when communism doesn’t deliver for you personally. In the meantime, the rest of us know right from wrong. Period.
Lady Penguin: It’s obvious that you’re here to troll
No, we’re here to address the topic.
Lady Penguin: Since his sworn duty is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, which it’s obvious, due to his limited aptitude, and purposeful corruption of all things American, including the Constitution, he has subverted the contents of the Constitution.
Well, that’s the claim, but it’s hardly been supported on this thread.
I disagree. I didn’t consent to the Constitution, the amendments or any other part of it. I certainly have not consented to any of the U.S. Code.
It was all barely tolerable… Then came Obama, and as far as I’m concerned, Obama is a bridge too far, and as far as I’m concerned, all of you whom claim to have consented to these laws, are much too agreeable to having your inalienable rights strangled.
Obama doesn’t have my agreement to put a gun in my face, and make me buy medical insurance.
He can kiss, and all the rest, can kiss my ass.
And Reid, being in league with him, won’t impeach.
I’ve considered our federal government illegitimate for at least 2 decades. Glad someone is catching up.
Why are you guys arguing with Zachriel? Like most Democrats, he’s for sale. He’ll do anything or agree with anything, as long as he thinks he’ll get government money or benefits out of it.
Someone forgot the Troll-B-Gon™.
And actually, Geo. Bush II, Wm. Clinton, and Bush I, were all too far.
And Reagan just gave in too easily. SBA was never dismantled, the education department was never dismantled, government was still spending money on the NEA, et cetera.
This government is nothing but a pillage machine.
Carter was a piece of sanctimonious crap, and G. Ford had those awful W.I.N. buttons. What juvenile tripe! Nixon had Bretton Woods.
I mean, come on, somebody, speak up for actually limited government! No one has for decades!!!!!!! Perhaps a century!
This troll, like most, is a one-trick pony. He argues with amoral monotony that no court has adjudicated or declared “lawlessness.” Though not even true, he seems satisfied with repeating it. Yet the persistence suggests some dissatisfaction or insecurity. In any case, he is ignoring the entirety and truth of the American condition around him. Obama’s political world is unraveling — this is what happens when enough people understand that the law hasn’t caught up or doesn’t seem able to catch up with the lawlessness. A palpable lawlessness on dozens of fronts and increasingly visible to the naked eyes of millions of Americans (as measured in part by the unprecedented number of 9-0 Supreme Court rebukes of this administration for overreach, i.e., lawlessness). Or the unheard of number of contempt citations (aka lawlessness, which he still won’t address). Or the preponderant lawlessness implicit in each of the horrific scandals of this administration – privacy violations of reporters, using IRS to terrorize political opponents, abandoning US overseas personnel in a firefight and brazenly lying about the causes of their murders.
Nevermind. It’s an old leftist sleight of hand — legalisms on one hand and lawlessness on the other. They’re able to do this primarily because the media keeps all these stories from congealing into a public narrative. It has worked, until now. Our dilatory system isn’t designed to anticipate or respond quickly to high political crime. But time is not on their side. Too much is happening too fast now, the brushfires are spreading; Obama’s goal from the beginning was shock-and-awe lawlessness and abuse of power intended to overwhelm a system ill-prepared for it and an opponent political party psychologically unequipped to deal with it. But it’s getting beyond his and the media’s control; It’s always the problem, as Orwell said, when you play with fire.
Exactly. The idea is to push your agenda as far as you can, as fast as you can, and see if the law catches up to you.
raven: He argues with amoral monotony that no court has adjudicated or declared “lawlessness.” Though not even true, he seems satisfied with repeating it.
Actually, we granted that such a ruling is a necessity, but in this case, it would certainly be expected as the executive orders were publicly made, there is a system of adjudication set up by Congress. Nothing presented in this thread has yet supported the contention of “lawlessness”.
raven: Or the unheard of number of contempt citations (aka lawlessness, which he still won’t address).
Do you have a specific citation in mind?
Zachriel’s only utility is as…as with all trolls…to use as a foil.
If you go to his/its blog, you will find it a joyful user of the term “teabagger”, and a profligate liar.
His two tools…”hand-wave” and “pwoove it” are all he has to hew with, and he will NEVER, EVER concede that his poor, broken child idol is the outlaw we all know him to be.
All as you’d expect from a Collectivist bung-sucker.
Lawless, hopeless, hapless. -Less is more, and more and more.
Zachriel: What exactly would you accept as evidence of lawlessness?
Henry Hawkins: What exactly would you accept as evidence of lawlessness?
All sorts of things. Using the IRS or FBI to target political opponents, or ignoring a valid court order; but not the issuing executive orders as long as those orders are meant to help implement a duly enacted law.
“Karen Sacandy: glad to hear Stalin is an innocent man
Zachriel : No, he wasn’t.”
Actually Zachriel using your arguement that Obama is not lawless and applying it to Stalin makes him innocent. Your arguement could be used to prove Hitler’s innocence as well because he was never convicted of a crime in court. Not being convicted and being lawful are two completely different things. You don’t need to be convicted of a crime to be lawless, living and acting like you are above the law makes you lawless.
gmac124: Actually Zachriel using your arguement that Obama is not lawless and applying it to Stalin makes him innocent.
Stalin wasn’t in a society with a balance of power, including an independent judiciary. Nor is our argument that someone can’t be lawless short of a judicial finding, though when it comes to executive orders, we would certainly expect some sort of judicial finding. Lawless, then, would be refusing to abide by that finding.
Nothing provided thus far in this thread implies any lawlessness on the administration’s part. One commenter goes so far as to say the Supreme Court is lawless.
Zachriel: Stalin wasn’t in a society with a balance of power
All societies have a balance of power. The balance is what the people will allow. The higher up the ladder you get the more you can get away with and the harder you fall when you go to far. Even if Obama is never punished during his time in office, history will be his true judge. The real question is will he have more in common with Joseph Stalin or Bill Clinton when history judges him?
Then why OPPOSE and threaten a veto of the very same idea as proposed by the Legislative Branch?
Which WOULD be legal, and would allow businesses and people to have something solid to rely upon, instead of the whim of a demi-tyrant.
You are such a funny bung-sucker for your broken child…the outlaw.
Ragspierre: Then why OPPOSE and threaten a veto of the very same idea as proposed by the Legislative Branch?
It was an obvious ploy to undermine the law, not strengthen it.
Oh, MUCH LESS an obvious ploy than having your poor, broken child unilaterally SUSPEND whole swaths of the “law” for cynical political, electoral advantage.
Thus the outlawry part. He does NOT have discretion to do that.
Just as he did not have “discretion” to suspend enforcement of other ACTUALLY Constitution laws at his whim.
Face it, Collectivist tool. Your poor, broken child is simply an outlaw, presiding over other outlaws. And we all know it, but you condone it.
How many discretions does it take to make a lawless?
Honest question from legal know-nothing with endearingly large, innocently blinking eyes.
LukeHandCool: How many discretions does it take to make a lawless?
Lawless means unconstrained by law. The presidency is constrained in many ways, though has vast powers in certain realms. Some of those powers were granted by Congress, such as for the implementation of regulatory schemes, and others are constitutional, such as the president’s role as commander-in-chief.
Nixon could be said to be lawless, claiming “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.”
Thanks for the reply, sincerely, but I was asking for an answer to my question, not a cop out dictionary definition.
My question remains unanswered.
One more question: If you had to choose, which do you believe is more important, the “letter” or the “spirit” of the law?
LukeHandCool (who is a bit embarrassed by his complete lack of knowledge of law. Well, he did wield the term “pro bono” in a recent post in another thread, only after looking it up to see if it was some legal association’s advocacy for the singer and his leftist views, or if Luke had just dreamed that)
LukeHandCool: How many discretions does it take to make a lawless?
The term is not quantitative, but qualitative. But we’d be happy to start with a specific example. You would have to explain why it has never been adjudicated.
LukeHandCool: If you had to choose, which do you believe is more important, the “letter” or the “spirit” of the law?
There are laws higher than the written law, but the claim that Obama is lawless, on a blog about the law, clearly is meant to apply to the written law. There’s no other reasonable way to interpret what is in the original post.
Again, thanks for the reply to a complete layman.
“The term is not quantitative, but qualitative.”
“Discretions” in the plural implies quantitative. What I was trying to get at, in my admittedly clumsy, layman’s way, was, is there a point or threshold whereby a sheer number of discretions could represent a change not in degree, but in kind?
“There are laws higher than the written law, but the claim that Obama is lawless, on a blog about the law, clearly is meant to apply to the written law. There’s no other reasonable way to interpret what is in the original post.”
Your favorite baseball team is the Dodgers, right?
If you could just answer the question as I posed it, I’d appreciate it.
I love to educate people about things I’m knowledgeable about. I hope you are the same. Thanks in advance.
LukeHandCool: What I was trying to get at, in my admittedly clumsy, layman’s way, was, is there a point or threshold whereby a sheer number of discretions could represent a change not in degree, but in kind?
We provided the example of Nixon.
Certainly, the president’s actions should be consistent with the law, but especially in terms of national security, the presidency has always claimed more power than the congress would normally allow. At some point we may call it lawless, but that gray zone is always subject to debate.
LukeHandCool: If you had to choose, which do you believe is more important, the “letter” or the “spirit” of the law?
Spiritual law is more important. But that’s not your question.
As for the written law, the meaning of the law is always subject to interpretation, and legislators are not always of one mind. Consequently, there’s no simple answer. The law as written typically has to be considered definitive, but when written broadly (such as the use of the term “reasonable”), then intent becomes important. With regulatory schemes, the executive is given wide latitude by the constitution and by statute. The key is whether he is attempting to implement the law, or stymie it.
“We provided the example of Nixon.”
All you provided was a statement by Nixon: “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.”
That’s not an example. And I would add I’m sure Obama sees things that way, too. Nixon surely wasn’t talking about rape.
It seems to me (bear with me, I’m from legal Hooterville) that you are pretty much saying that discretion and gratitude granted the president pretty much precludes lawlessness, e.g., in what Obama has been doing with the ACA, right?
Now, would intentionally misleading the public about certain serious aspects of this law be a form of discretion?
“latitude,” not “gratitude.”
And by the way, for whom else are you speaking when you say “We provided the Nixon example”?
Luke at times speaks of himself in the third person singular, but he can’t muster “we.”
OFF-TOPIC
LukeCoolHand: And by the way, for whom else are you speaking when you say “We provided the Nixon example”?
A number of theories have been proposed concerning our use of nosism. If Zachriel were legion,
Thank you for asking that – Zach keeps using “we” in his/her/its answers – who is the we he/she/it is speaking for?
LukeHandCool: All you provided was a statement by Nixon: “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.”
LukeHandCool: What I was trying to get at, in my admittedly clumsy, layman’s way, was, is there a point or threshold whereby a sheer number of discretions could represent a change not in degree, but in kind?
The term is qualitative, not quantitative, but there’s a reasonable person rule you might apply. While people have the right to use the courts to resolve disputes, it is possible for someone to file multiple frivolous lawsuits as an abuse of process. Not sure if that is what you are getting at. We could suppose a president might take many executive actions in order to overwhelm the normal check on his power.
LukeHandCool: It seems to me (bear with me, I’m from legal Hooterville) that you are pretty much saying that discretion and gratitude granted the president pretty much precludes lawlessness, e.g., in what Obama has been doing with the ACA, right?
Not in the least. The Administrative Procedure Act has very specific provisions of enforcement, including court review. That’s why making a claim of lawlessness concerning implementation of the PPACA without such a court record is just rhetoric. Even then, it’s just a dispute they lost unless the administration ignores the court.
Outstanding debate.
Personally, I’m thankful for Zeke’s participation. Make that Zack, sorry.
He forces the deeper question: What is (legitimate) law?
There are laws higher than the written law, but the claim that Obama is lawless, on a blog about the law, clearly is meant to apply to the written law. There’s no other reasonable way to interpret what is in the original post.
Ah, but there are many reasonable ways to interpret the original post.
You, Zeke, Zak (sorry again)–choose a very narrow, even obtuse interpretation. Which, in my view, is a good thing, for purposes of debate. Keeping us on our toes, thinking deeply.
Oh, by the way Zeke….you used a very interesting word.
interpretation.
Browndog, I respectfully, but completely disagree with you.
Anyone who wastes my time with talk of how many angels dance on the head of a pin, wastes my time, and I don’t care for them. It would be far better to spend our time on a productive topic, and/or a topic that supports our culture and world view.
He’s all about undermining it. Pencil-necked egg heads bore me.
Well, I sorta disagree with you.
I found this exercise in liberal word games and tortured semantics to be quite useful, as it appears “our side” was ill-equipped to counter…outside Rags’ pithy “You think the Court IS the law…???”
Zeke’s argument speaks to a higher concept of “lawless laws”, which I have always found fascinating.
Dear Browndog,
I’m happy you have a fascination, as they are always fascinating. I have some of my own.
But me personally, have no use for the type of discussions that happen at 2 a.m. in dorm rooms by people without any responsibility for keeping anyone other than themselves alive and safe.
On the other hand, I have a great deal of interest in how to rein in the U.S. Supreme Court, that definitely flatters itself by handing down decisions whose ultimate premises always seem to be:
In the United States of America, cost is never an object, and we shall spend every dollar, engage in every procedural safeguard regardless of how many decades it delays justice, and bless every bureaucratic decision. By so doing, we show that WE, the blessed NINE, are too noble to engage in the common, grubby practice of considering the effects upon the day to day life of our citizens, nor the cost of our decisions upon citizens, nor the burdens. For no cost is too high for other Americans to bear, so that WE NINE may morally preen.*
*P.S. However, anyone that kills a federal employee, they get the chair in 5. :^)
Again, I think these discussions are necessary. A prelude, if you will, to one’s self defense.
Or maybe you haven’t noticed: This government, this Obama character and his legion, are turning you into the outlaw. You, me, the Founders themselves, are the Patriots of yesterday, outlaws, scofflaws, enemies of the State tomorrow.
Dear Browndog,
Not true. Obama isn’t turning me into a lawbreaker. I’m a vet, actually, signed up with the V.A., so no need to worry.
As I wrote previously, all of these administrations have been anti-limited government. Obama just keeps taking it further. The one good thing about this piece of political garbage is, he’s woken people up to what’s been going on. It’s been frustrating to me for 20-30 years, waiting for folks to wake up.
The NEA takes taxpayer money and literally gives it to someone for urine. The education department crams subject matter and procedures down parents’ throats, all of which idolizes government and isn’t a fit education for a free people. The federal reserve debases our currency, and tells us policies which encourage savings are bad for us. Such pablum to save the fed. govt’s bacon from its insane debt and obligation levels.
The lawbreaking began decades ago. Rethink the notion Obama’s the beginning of it. Most Americans are socialists. Obama is just a socialist bridge too far for you. Ronald Reagan was a bridge too far for me. Never repealed a damn department. All hat, no cattle.
I offer this read as to the perils of “written law”:
…and interpretations, depending of the meaning of the word “is”
expressio unius est exclusio alterius
http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Winter09/rights.cfm
No answer.
Moshi Moshi?
I thought I recognized that style.
Moshi has been trolling Townhall for years.
You will never, and I mean never give an answer Moshi will accept.
Once saw “it” go for almost a week on the shape of the Earth
Actually, “Moshi moshi” is how you answer the phone in Japan(ese).
It’s also used to check if the person is still on the line.
Now, if you were to mispronounce it as “Mushi mushi,” you’d be saying “Insects, insects.” Pretty innocuous.
Mispronouncing “suwaritai?” as “sawaritai?” turns “Would you like to sit here?” into “Would you like to touch me here?”
More serious mistake. Don’t ask me how I know this.
One of the founding fathers said the government as constructed in the constitution, et al., was created for a religious or moral society, and would be wholly inadequate for any other. Zachriel shows us an example of this.
Our law relies to a large extent upon the decency of its officeholders. Get someone like Obama, and our government has insufficient chains to hold him. For example, get a driver’s license or a passport, show a birth certificate.
But Obama? He’s had his own lawyer (in a New Jersey election case) claim to be Mickey Mouse and could still be on the ballot, no birth certificate needed.
I mean seriously, our laws were intended for someone as shameless a lawbreaker as Obama.
The fact is, THE FACT IS, at the time of the founding fathers, western civilization had extremely well entrenced traditions of honor, and it would be very rare for anyone to try the things he enjoys doing. Yes, he’s thoroughly enjoying screwing the law in our face. AFter all, somebody sent his Daddy home, and that really hurt his feelings. Just like Norm Mineta and his baseball bat, which is why we all now have to be groped to get on a plane. We have to PAY for their childhoods.
Excuse me: Our laws were NOT intended for someone as shameless a lawbreaker as Obama.
I don’t proofread. Sorry.
And as far as Zachriel and his type: Notice that they don’t mind at all undermining what’s obviously the case, and by extension our culture, and we, being imbued with the basic instincts of western civilization, try to treat him in a civilized manner.
I say, treat him in whatever – WHATEVER–manner you wish. After all, until there’s a court case, with a final resolution 30 years down the road, there’s no lawlessness.
How apt.
Where did he go? I only had a few more questions, as I’m quite busy today and don’t have too much time to get to the truth.
When I saw 138 responses I thought – great I will go get myself some marmalade toast & tea & enjoy.
Instead I got psycho Zacko.
There will be zackos marching across the nation behind Obama flags soon enough . Waves & waves & waves of them.
They will either win out or be taken out.
Well, this is interesting.
Haven’t seen anything like this here in a while. (Is this newspeak part of the recent PR re-branding effort for BO? Sounds like someone’s freaking out.)
“Lawless” means “contrary to law”. Getting caught, let alone being charged or sued before the Statute of Limitations expires, or officially being convicted or just losing in court, are nowhere required by the definition.
E.g. Obama’s history of illegal drug use. The guy himself was “lawless” long before he started doing other kinds of lawless things while in office.
The reason I asked what exactly he would accept as evidence was because I knew he could not provide it, doesn’t know himself, though he doesn’t know that. True believer disease.
It is the president’s duty, as dictated by the constitution, to execute the laws of the country, something he has failed to do with immigration law and his own Obamacare law. This is hardly arguable.
Until a troll can state exactly what he would accept as evidence, there is little point in trying to provide it.
You can explain things to people, but you can’t make them understand or accept it.
Henry Hawkins: The reason I asked what exactly he would accept as evidence was because I knew he could not provide it, doesn’t know himself, though he doesn’t know that.
We gave you very specific examples; evidence the president was using the IRS or FBI to target political opponents, or ignoring a valid court order.
Henry Hawkins: It is the president’s duty, as dictated by the constitution, to execute the laws of the country,
That is also an obligation of the president.
Henry Hawkins: something he has failed to do with immigration law and his own Obamacare law.
Both of those so-called failures are subject to judicial review. How is that case coming along?
Again, what exactly would you accept as evidence of Obaman lawlessness?
Asked rhetorically, because I know you cannot answer.
Henry Hawkins: Again, what exactly would you accept as evidence of Obaman lawlessness?
We provided a couple of examples. Not sure what you’re looking for. If you mean particular evidence, that could be documentary, physical, or testimonial evidence of wrongdoing. The type of evidence would depend on the supposed crimes and events. If Obama killed Vince Foster for the Clintons, his fingerprints might be found on the gun. Or maybe he left footprints on the grassy knoll. If the administration promulgated faulty rules for the PPACA, that would be something that would be decided in civil courts. As long as they abided by the court’s decision, it wouldn’t be considered lawless.
It’s hard to be more specific, because your question is so general. You might check out Criminology: Theories, Patterns and Typologies, 11th edition, Wadsworth 2012.
He’s baaaack!
>>Zachriel | November 29, 2013 at 3:27 pm
“Do you have a specific citation in mind?”
“In January, a unanimous Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held that the president violated the Constitution by making “recess appointments” when the Senate was not, in fact, in recess. The Court of Appeals flatly declared that the president’s interpretation of the Recess Appointments Clause “would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/05/president-obamas-deep-contempt-for-rule-law/
“When the Supreme Court recognized the free speech rights of corporations in Citizens United v. FEC , Obama first resorted to public humiliation of the justices on national TV. He later prepared an executive order that sought to coerce corporations from making political contributions under pain of forfeiting government contracts. It was only when news of the pending order leaked out that the administration quietly dropped the whole thing.”
Some other delectations:
• First President to Violate the War Powers Act (Unilaterally Executing American Military Operations in Libya Without Informing Congress In the Required Time Period – Source: Huffington Post)
• First President to Triple the Number of Warrantless Wiretaps of U.S. Citizens (Source: ACLU)
• First President to Sign into Law a Bill That Permits the Government to “Hold Anyone Suspected of Being Associated With Terrorism Indefinitely, Without Any Form of Due Process. No Indictment. No Judge or Jury. No Evidence. No Trial. Just an Indefinite Jail Sentence” (NDAA Bill – Source: Business Insider)
• First President to Unlawfully Seize Telephone Records of More than 100 Reporters to Intimidate and/or Bully Them (Source: Associated Press)
• First President to Witness a Single Cabinet Secretary Commit Multiple Hatch Act Violations Without Acting, Speaking Out, Disciplining or Firing That Person (Source: New York Times)
• First President to Have His Attorney General Held in Criminal Contempt of Congress For His Efforts to Cover Up Operation Fast and Furious, That Killed Over 300 Individuals (Source: Politico)
• First President to claim Executive Privilege to shield a sitting Attorney General from a Contempt of Congress finding for perjury and withholding evidence from lawful subpoenas (Source: Business Insider)
• First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case (Source: Gawker)
• First President to “Order a Secret Amnesty Program that Stopped the Deportations of Illegal Immigrants Across the U.S., Including Those With Criminal Convictions” (Source: DHS documents uncovered by Judicial Watch)
• First President to Refuse to Comply With a House Oversight Committee Subpoena (Source: Heritage Foundation)
• First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It (Defense of Marriage Act – Source: ABC News)
• First President to Openly Use the Department of Justice to Intimidate Political Opponents and Threaten Companies to Donate to His Campaign (Source: Peter Schweizer, Extortion)
• First President to Direct His Census Dept. to Make Up Favorable Employment Data In Run-Up to His Reelection Campaign (Source: New York Post)
• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (Source: Politico)
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/06/president-barack-obamas-complete-list.html
A partial list. Enjoy.
“- – – more crickets – – -” from Zachriel.
Again demonstrating either (a) that Soros gives Zachriel Saturdays off, OR (b) that Zachriel really IS a complete fraud who will tell any lie as long as it diverts attention from Obama’s utter contempt for the rule of law.
Let’s take the first one.
raven (quoting): In January, a unanimous Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held that the president violated the Constitution by making “recess appointments” when the Senate was not, in fact, in recess.
Don’t see a contempt citation. (Sorry, but a partisan paper using the word “contempt” in a headline isn’t a contempt citation.) A dispute was taken to court. The DC Circuit made a finding. The administration is appealing to a higher court, which heard arguments just the other day. There’s nothing lawless about that. Indeed, that’s the very heart of the legal process; disputes between parties are settled by courts ruling on the law and the constitution.
“There’s nothing lawless about that. Indeed, that’s the very heart of the legal process; disputes between parties are settled by courts ruling on the law and the constitution.”
That’s a lie, and you’re a liar.
It is tantamount to saying that Ken Lay was smooth and groovy at Enron. He was just setting up a “dispute between parties” to be settled by a court ruling.
Of course, that is as fatuous as saying Barracula only WILL do something outlawish IF he’s first slapped by a court, and THEN violates the slapping (which, btw, he does regularly).
There is…as with fraud…a clear line WRT recess appointments. Barracula has legions of lawyers, and he KNOWS he was acting outside the law.
His hubris and Collectivism tell him none of that matters.
Just like you.
Ragspierre: It is tantamount to saying that Ken Lay was smooth and groovy at Enron.
There was no contempt citation against the administration, as was claimed. It’s a standard type of case that will be decided by the courts. If the administration ignores the Supreme Court, we can revisit this particular instance.
Again, you are simply a liar.
The contempt was by Obmama. He violated his oath of office, just as Lay violated the trust of his investors.
Both of them outlaws.
Ragspierre: The contempt was by Obmama.
Well, perhaps you mean Ragspierre has contempt for Obama. That’s not quite the same as contempt of court, or “lawlessness”.
The definition of “lawless” does not require a particular subset type of lawlessness, i.e. failing to follow a court order, i.e. a “contempt citation”.
Well, Ragspierre is certainly contemptuous of those who are outlaws, like your poor, broken child demi-tyrant.
I also openly confess to HATING liars, like yourself.
No president has “discretion” to act in rank disdain for the laws he is sworn to faithfully execute.
Which, of course, Obama has done from BEFORE he took office.
Didn’t like that list, did you? I can imagine why. Your messiah is a serially lawless liar. He makes Nixon and Clinton look like pikers. Can’t deal with it? Then suck on it. It’s only getting worse.
We asked for citations to contempt of court. You provided a list of one, which a higher court determined was not, in fact, contempt.
raven (quoting): First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (Source: Politico)
The president wasn’t found in civil contempt, but the Department of Interior. The Fifth Circuit found that the Interior was improperly held in contempt. See Hornbeck Offshore Servs., L.L.C. v. Salazar.
Again, you lie BIG while telling a small “truth”.
Salazar was found to have acted contemptuously. Because he was, just like his Obamic master wanted him to, and according of his outlaw example.
The 5th reversed or vacated the contempt only because the trial judge, it found, had not been sufficiently explicit in his order.
We also remember how Salazar lied to Congress and the American people all though this incident. Another Obamic trait.
Just like you.
Ragspierre: Salazar was found to have acted contemptuously.
The contempt citation against Interior was tossed because they found Interior was not, in fact, in contempt.
Again, people can read.
They already see you are a liar.
Reading the finding by the 5th will reinforce that.
Salazar…like his Obamic master…exhibited contempt for the court, for the rule of law, for the American people, the rights of people and their businesses, for science, and for the truth.
Like you. Collectivist troll.
Ragspierre: Again, people can read.
Sure they can.
The court found that Interior was not, in fact, in contempt.
Repeating you lie just makes you stupid, and a liar.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/11/11-30936-CV0.wpd.pdf
I invite all to read from page 8 thru 13.
“Our decision is a narrow one…”. Just as I said, liar.
Salazar certainly DID act contemptuously, as I said. He lied, cheated, and stole from the people of the Gulf, and the United States.
Read also Elrod’s dissent.
Ragspierre (quoting): Our decision is a narrow one.
The contempt citation against Interior was tossed because they found Interior was not, in fact, in contempt.
The 5th reversed or vacated the contempt only because the trial judge, it found, had not been sufficiently explicit in his order.
Salazar…like his Obamic master…exhibited contempt for the court, for the rule of law, for the American people, the rights of people and their businesses, for science, and for the truth.
Like you. Collectivist troll.
I can do this all day, liar.
Ragspierre: Salazar…like his Obamic master…exhibited contempt for the court,
Not according to the higher court which found that there was no violation of the court order.
The 5th reversed or vacated the contempt only because the trial judge, it found, had not been sufficiently explicit in his order.
Salazar…like his Obamic master…exhibited contempt for the court, for the rule of law, for the American people, the rights of people and their businesses, for science, and for the truth.
Like you. Collectivist troll.
The truth is that Salazar…acting under the direction of Barracula…IMMEDIATELY sought to violate the injunction by a Federal District Court. And he did.
And you know it.
I can do this all day, liar.
Ragspierre: The 5th reversed or vacated the contempt only because the trial judge, it found, had not been sufficiently explicit in his order.
That means Interior wasn’t in violation, as the higher court found.
Ragspierre: Salazar…like his Obamic master…exhibited contempt for the court,
The court disagreed. They are the arbiter of “contempt of court”. Your personal contempt is another matter, and you are free to sneer, smear, or snicker at liberty.
Ohhhh…!!!
I see your problem…!!!
(Actually, it is apparent all through this thread.)
You are TOO stooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooopid to discern CONTEMPTUOUS conduct from the gnat-straining that the 5th employs regarding CIVIL CONTEMPT.
Which is remarkably stupid. Kinda like when you were giving John Edwards a tongue-bath.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/ Ah, good times…good times…
Again…
The 5th reversed or vacated the contempt only because the trial judge, it found, had not been sufficiently explicit in his order.
Salazar…like his Obamic master…exhibited contempt for the court, for the rule of law, for the American people, the rights of people and their businesses, for science, and for the truth.
Like you. Collectivist troll.
The truth is that Salazar…acting under the direction of Barracula…IMMEDIATELY sought to violate the injunction by a Federal District Court. And he did.
And you know it.
Ragspierre: discern CONTEMPTUOUS conduct from the gnat-straining that the 5th employs regarding CIVIL CONTEMPT.
Actually, we drew the comparison more than once.
Our comments have been directed to the original post’s contention concerning the “lawlessness” of the Obama administration.
Is this “we” you keep referring to you and your blow-up doll of John Edwards?
Do you have one for Barracula, too?
You know…the outlaw? The one who violates the law as a matter of course, and as a matter of his ruling PATTERN AND PRACTICE.
First President to be born before Selma March in 63 but be born because of it .
Like Hillary named after Edmund Hillary years before he got to the top of mt Everest . He was in training in the Scottish fells .
So Obama can also be pronounced guilty before any jcourt convenes . Hillary also .
Both Obama & Hillary are time travellers not subject to linear considerations .
Zacko – they have put themselves in that special realm.
Soooooo apropo………!
I had a Catholic friend who, when we were kids, told me that he was taught that nothing is wrong until you are caught. Hmmm.
Sounds a lot like a cetain argument I have been reading above and have been hearing from most of the Obama administration as they testify before Congress.
Your friend was taught…poorly.
What is the point of our democracy if one person ramrods arbitrary laws and rules with demagoguery down the throats of Americans? And, Obama has told us that he is doing so at the whim of “fundamentally transforming the nation.” Shouldn’t “we the people” be involved in deciding what “transformation” takes place?
Obama’s antinomianism is a characteristic of the moral relativists of the Left who pronounce “the ends justify the means.” The ends do NOT justify the means and especially when the means and the ends are tyrannically enforced on unknowing and unwilling Americans.
Moreover, Obama knows that he has no fully justifiable legal, moral and intellectual grounds for doing what he does apart from Congress and “we the people.” He is a maverick greater than any McCain. He is a loose cannon.
Sally Paradise: What is the point of our democracy if one person ramrods arbitrary laws and rules with demagoguery down the throats of Americans?
Well, the solution to that is to repeal the Administrative Procedure Act.
Here’s more for your reading pleasure.
• First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government (Source: Reuters)
• First President to Bypass Congress and Implement the DREAM Act Through Executive Fiat (Source: Christian Science Monitor)
• First President to Move America Past the Dependency Tipping Point, In Which 51% of Households Now Pay No Income Taxes (Source: Center for Individual Freedom)
• First President to Increase Food Stamp Spending By More Than 100% in Less Than Four Years (Source: Sen. Jeff Sessions)
• First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on ‘Shovel-Ready’ Jobs — and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs (Source: President Obama during an early meeting of his ‘Jobs Council’)
• First President to Threaten Insurance Companies After They Publicly Spoke out on How Obamacare Helped Cause their Rate Increases (Source: The Hill)
• First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of Companies to His Union Supporters (Source: Wall Street Journal)
• First President to Propose Budgets So Unreasonable That Not a Single Representative From Either Party Would Cast a Vote in Favor (Sources: The Hill, Open Market)
• First President Whose Economic Policies Have the Number of Americans on Disability Exceed the Population of New York (Source: CNS News)
• First President to Sign a Law Requiring All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party (Source: Wall Street Journal)
• First President to Sue States For Enforcing Immigration Laws Passed by Congress (Source: The Arizona Republic newspaper)
• First President to redistribute $26.5 billion of the taxpayers’ funds to his union supporters in the UAW (Source: Heritage Foundation)
• First President to Threaten an Auto Company (Ford) After It Publicly Mocked Bailouts of GM and Chrysler (Source: Detroit News)
• First President to Run a Record 5 Straight Years of Deficits for the Disability Trust Fund (Source: CNS)
• First President to Attempt to Bully a Major Manufacturing Company Into Not Opening a Factory in a Right-to-Work State (Boeing’s facility in South Carolina – Source: Wall Street Journal)
• First President to Endanger the Stability of the Electric Grid by Shutting Down Hundreds of Coal-Fired Plants Without Adequate Replacement Technologies (Source: National Electric Reliability Corporation – PDF)
• First President to Have His EPA Repudiated by a Federal Judge for “Overstepping Its Powers” When They Attempted to Shut Down Coal Operations in Appalachia (Source: Huffington Post)
• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (Source: Politico)
• First President to Lie Repeatedly to the American People About the Murder of a U.S. Ambassador and Three Other Diplomatic Personnel for Purely Political Reasons, Rewriting a “Talking Points” Memo No Fewer Than a Dozen Times to Avoid Referencing a Pre-Planned Terror Attack (Source: ABC News)
• First President to Openly Defy a Congressional Order Not To Share Sensitive Nuclear Defense Secrets With the Russian Government (Sources: ABC News, Rep. Michael Turner)
• First President to Leak Highly Classified Military and Intelligence Secrets to Hollywood In Order to Promote a Movie That Could Help His Reelection Campaign (Source: Judicial Watch)
• First President to Renounce the Monroe Doctrine of National Security in the Western Hemisphere (Source: Wall Street Journal)
• First Nobel Peace Prize Winner to State “I’m Really Good At Killing People” (Regarding His Drone Strikes) (Source: Business Insider)
• First President to Snub the Vatican by Closing U.S. Embassy (Source: Washington Times, “Obama’s call to close Vatican embassy is ‘slap in the face’ to Roman Catholics”)
• First President to Terminate America’s Ability to Put a Man into Space (Sources: USA Today, ABC News)
• First President to press for a “treaty giving a U.N. body veto power over the use of our territorial waters and rights to half of all offshore oil revenue” (The Law Of The Sea Treaty, Source: Investors Business Daily)
• First President to send $200 million to a terrorist organization (Hamas) after Congress had explicitly frozen the money for fear it would fund attacks against civilians (Sources: American Thinker, The Independent [UK])
raven: Here’s more for your reading pleasure.
Presumably, Obama is under indictment for hundreds of “crimes”, per your reading of the record.
And the stupid jus’ keepa’ comin’…!!!
Once again we return to the imponderable of crime and punishment.
Most of us here are Constitutionally informed and politically aware citizens of the modern world. We realize that the political and judicial structures of our time are completely unprepared for a criminal of the scope and audacity of Barack Obama. “Citations”? Each of us as citizens of a Constitutional Republic puts forward our own citations, based on our civic consciences, intellects, moral reasoning and the palpable reality around us. It seems the case that the educational process has failed you in this respect, as you make procedural fine but morally voided and covertly worshipful arguments on behalf of a racketeer who would sell you out in a second if it suited him. It’s so unfortunate, but there is always hope. Right –Hope and Change?
raven: We realize that the political and judicial structures of our time are completely unprepared for a criminal of the scope and audacity of Barack Obama.
There are certainly many gray areas of the law which presidents intrude, but rules promulgated for the PPACA are not good examples of this process. Nor are these intrusions something new to the Obama Administration.
Sure they are, and you’re just lying about it.
There is no “discretion” to suspend the statute for pure political purposes.
And you know it and lie about it.
Typical Collectivist.
Ragspierre: There is no “discretion” to suspend the statute for pure political purposes.
Many of the law’s provisions have already been enacted. As for those that were delayed, there is a judicial remedy written right into the Administrative Procedure Act.
So, you admit that Barracula has violated the whole ambit of “discretion”.
Your whole argument is not about whether he is an outlaw (we all know he IS), but only “OK, whatcha gonna do about it…???
Huh….???”
Which is morally, legally, and civically bankrupt.
But typical of a goose-stepper like you.
Ragspierre: So, you admit that Barracula has violated the whole ambit of “discretion”.
Court review is part of the process under the law. Even if the administration is found to have exceeded their discretion, it doesn’t make them lawless as long as they abide by the court’s decision.
Sure it does, liar.
When you knowingly break the law, you are an outlaw.
You know, like Barracula, your poor, broken child demi-tyrant.
You goose-stepping Collectivist.
Whoever you are “We,” perhaps all the above, nice to meet you.
Now Sybil, I’m the layman here, so it should be easy, theoretically, for you to give me a straight answer to a simply worded question. I’m trying to figure out where you’re coming from here (I think that’s called “discovery”).
What boundaries, if any, corral this discretion? If a president were to exercise his discretion repeatedly administering a law to the point that, over time, the sum of these discretions acted to create not a difference in degree, but actually in kind, such that the law could reasonably be said by reasonable people (including historically underrepresented multiple-personality law students of a reasonable bent) to have become somewhat unrecognizable compared to its original form, without the president having broken any law with each particular individual discretion, is there a threshold for what then has become essentially more “rule by man” rather than “rule by law”?
Please, if you (both second person singular and plural … Luke … he just isn’t given to saying “You all”) will, answer my question, don’t just skirt it.
I’m starting to feel like the layman Charlie Brown alone up on stage when he cries out, “Is there anyone here who can tell me the meaning of Christmas?!?!.
LukeHandCool: What boundaries, if any, corral this discretion?
The law, including the Administrative Procedure Act, and legal precedent. See our previous comment above.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2013/11/an-increasingly-dangerous-presidency/comment-page-1/#comment-489152
LukeHandCool: If a president were to exercise his discretion repeatedly administering a law to the point that, over time, the sum of these discretions acted to create not a difference in degree, but actually in kind, such that the law could reasonably be said by reasonable people (including historically underrepresented multiple-personality law students of a reasonable bent) to have become somewhat unrecognizable compared to its original form, without the president having broken any law with each particular individual discretion, is there a threshold for what then has become essentially more “rule by man” rather than “rule by law”?
Sure, and the courts are authorized by the Administrative Procedure Act to make those decisions and issue orders as required. Promulgating a rule that is found to be “arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion” would result in such a court order. Ignoring that court order could be considered “lawless”.
Do you, Zachriel, consider hiding or intentionally misrepresenting aspects or effects of a law to be an abuse of discretion?
I’m interested in Zachriel’s take, not what a court(s) might potentially rule.
LukeHandCool: Do you, Zachriel, consider hiding or intentionally misrepresenting aspects or effects of a law to be an abuse of discretion?
That’s not what is meant by executive discretion. However, Obama is being politically pummeled for the perception that he was less than truthful.
To you it’s just a “perception”?
That’s kind of a lawless interpretation of what happened, isn’t it?
Moving on, does discretion also allow purely politically motivated changes in the law? I want to know your “perception,” not what the courts might possibly rule.
Also, would you be at all appeased if commenters here were to use the phrase “less lawful” rather than “lawless”?
LukeHandCool: Moving on, does discretion also allow purely politically motivated changes in the law?
The president has to faithfully execute the law, which includes the statute, other statutes such as the Administrative Procedure Act, and court rulings.
LukeHandCool: Also, would you be at all appeased if commenters here were to use the phrase “less lawful” rather than “lawless”?
No one here has made a case for any violation of the law. As for the PPACA, it’s clear the president intends to implement the law.
P.S.
“Promulgating a rule that is found to be “arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion” would result in such a court order.”
That’s why I stipulated, “… without the president having broken any law with each particular individual discretion …”
Are you a lawyer or just slippery?
LukeHandCool: If a president were to exercise his discretion repeatedly administering a law to the point that, over time, the sum of these discretions acted to create not a difference in degree, but actually in kind, such that the law could reasonably be said by reasonable people (including historically underrepresented multiple-personality law students of a reasonable bent) to have become somewhat unrecognizable compared to its original form, without the president having broken any law with each particular individual discretion, is there a threshold for what then has become essentially more “rule by man” rather than “rule by law”?
Constantly promulgating rules that are overturned by the courts could be due to an attempt to stretch executive power, but as long as president abides by the resulting court decisions, then it is rule by law.
I see, but if facts on the ground change and entrench as time goes on while the courts plod and plod and issue orders rendered academic by the sheer volume of skirtations (not a real word, but I like it) of the law that are by that time distant, brazen “discretions,” a kind of ongoing, reverse lawfare if you will, in practical terms somewhere in reality, don’t we have “rule by man” (who just keeps getting a slap on the hand while his teammates eat all the cookies?)
LHC (who thinks Google should not only have a language translator, but also a legal translator to turn passages like that into legalese with the push of a button. Maybe then common folk like Luke could communicate with their legal-background betters and rulers)
LukeHandCool: I see, but if facts on the ground change and entrench as time goes on while the courts plod and plod and issue orders rendered academic by the sheer volume of skirtations (not a real word, but I like it) of the law that are by that time distant, brazen “discretions,” a kind of ongoing, reverse lawfare if you will, in practical terms somewhere in reality, don’t we have “rule by man” (who just keeps getting a slap on the hand while his teammates eat all the cookies?)
Abuse of process is certainly possible; however, there is no evidence of that. Maybe they should fill those seats on the D.C. District Court, just to make sure.
Do you think incompetence would increase or decrease the likelihood of a president abusing his discretion?
Either-or question.
A) Increase likelihood of abuse.
B) Decrease likelihood of abuse.
LukeHandCool: Do you think incompetence would increase or decrease the likelihood of a president abusing his discretion?
They would seem to orthogonal. You could have a competent or incompetent president abusing authority, or a competent or incompetent president not abusing authority. Not sure there is any direct connection.
An incompetent president may be more likely to step outside the lines by accident, but the courts would reign that in quickly. A shrewder, more competent president intent on abusing authority, could presumably avoid direct confrontation with the courts. Of course, one of the shrewdest presidents, Richard Nixon, ran afoul of the law. The very thing that made him effective in so many ways, also led to his downfall.
What do you think?
I’m glad you brought that up. You got ahead of me.
I think a shrewd and incompetent president would far and away be most likely to abuse it.
In this land of discretion, may I indiscreetly offer that a man who says “We’re finding out buying insurance is hard” at this point in the game is grossly incompetent?
Surely you agree?
Say “Yes,” and I won’t call you Shirley.
LukeHandCool: I think a shrewd and incompetent president would far and away be most likely to abuse it.
Being shrewd normally implies a high level of competence.
Merriam-Webster: shrewd, having or showing an ability to understand things and to make good judgments : mentally sharp
So people who are shrewd in some ways are never incompetent in other ways?
LukeHandCool: I think a shrewd and incompetent president would far and away be most likely to abuse it.
LukeHandCool: So people who are shrewd in some ways are never incompetent in other ways?
Sure, but your comment hardly allowed for that. Perhaps you could restate your position.
LHC, Zach appears to be calling either for a review and revisiting of the constitutionality of the FDR-era Administrative Procedures Act, or for a legislative repeal or revision of this statute, now that we have an administration that has shown itself willing to skirt the line for political expediency by using legalistic technicalities and hairsplitting, avoiding public condemnation because of a syncophant press, and successfully threatening potential litigants (necessary for “judicial review) with coincidental troubles such as IRS audits.
Equal protection of the law, inter alia, effectively is being thwarted. The presumption of good faith in the exercise of discretion by bureacratic agencies of the president no longer holds. Zach’s contributions here have been a good, no, excellent, example of the dangers of the cumulative effect of having permitted myriad tiny incursions chipping away at the constitution. On a case by case basis, what is “arbitrary” or “capricious” etc. will be in the eye of the beholder-judicial-appointee.
By imperfect analogy, the difficulty in nabbing this president is not dissimilar to the difficulties prosecutors had in convicting mobsters until passage of RICO laws (without even getting into the problems of bribed judges and threatened witnesses.)
Zach has pointed us clearly and, I think, effectively, to at least one root cause of the current problems, and for that I thank “them”.
janitor,
Charlie Brown thanks you. I wish Zachriel could give me a thoughtful, substantive answer like that.
I just wanna sit here in Hooterville in Sam Drucker’s general store around the cracker barrel and have a discussion bereft of BS.
LHC (who, in all honesty, was waiting in line to buy a one-gallon pine tree at the local plant nursery when he was in middle school, and who should cut to the front of the line, turn and face the queue with a glare daring anyone to balk but Eddie Albert, holding a pitchfork he told the owner to put on his tab. Luke thought about launching into his excellent Mr. Chaney impression, but Eddie didn’t look too friendly)
janitor: Zach appears to be calling either for a review and revisiting of the constitutionality of the FDR-era Administrative Procedures Act, or for a legislative repeal or revision of this statute,
We didn’t call for a review. We just pointed out that if you don’t like a law, then you have to either repeal or revise the law through the legislative process.
janitor: Equal protection of the law, inter alia, effectively is being thwarted.
That’s hardly been shown, but equal protection is a constitutional provision, so it would supersede statute, including the Administrative Procedure Act.
janitor: and successfully threatening potential litigants (necessary for “judicial review) with coincidental troubles such as IRS audits.
Using the IRS for political retribution is a crime, and fully prosecutable.
janitor: On a case by case basis, what is “arbitrary” or “capricious” etc. will be in the eye of the beholder-judicial-appointee.
The Supreme Court has a majority of Republican appointees. Yet, they upheld the core of the PPACA.
“Yet, they upheld the core of the PPACA.”
Again, you simply lie.
The Roberts opinion had nothing whatever to do with the “core” of ObamaDoggle, which HAD been the Commerce Clause.
“We [my John Edwards and Barracula blow-up dolls and i] just pointed out that if you don’t like a law, then you have to either repeal or revise the law through the legislative process.”
Unless, of course you are an outlaw in the Obami or Barracula himself.
Then you ignore the law if you find it the least inconvenient, and defy anyone to do anything about it.
Zachriel: Yet, they upheld the core of the PPACA.
Ragspierre: Again, you simply lie.
They struck down the mandate for the state Medicaid expansion, but upheld the balance of the law.
Yeah, stupid. I know what Roberts did.
He had to re-write the freaking law, and Barracula had to overtly have his SG LIE in arguments.
Or did you miss that…???
Ragspierre: I know what Roberts did.
Then you know that he upheld the core of the law, just as we said, but you had disputed.
You can repeat THAT lie all you want. Just like your others here.
I will call you the liar you are every time you do.
The “core” of ObamaDoggle was STRUCK DOWN by the Court.
Ragspierre: The “core” of ObamaDoggle was STRUCK DOWN by the Court.
That’s not what a majority of the Supreme Court said, but what do they know.
Yeah, stupid. I know what Roberts did.
He had to re-write the freaking law, and Barracula had to overtly have his SG LIE in arguments.
Or did you miss that…???
Who is “We”?
The ones we’ve been waiting for?
Noticed the royal “we” for quite some time….
raven | November 30, 2013 at 12:13 pm
Once again we return to the imponderable of crime and punishment.
Most of us here are Constitutionally informed and politically aware citizens of the modern world. We realize that the political and judicial structures of our time are completely unprepared for a criminal of the scope and audacity of Barack Obama. “Citations”? Each of us as citizens of a Constitutional Republic puts forward our own citations, based on our civic consciences, intellects, moral reasoning and the palpable reality around us. It seems the case that the educational process has failed you in this respect, as you make procedural fine but morally voided and covertly worshipful arguments on behalf of a racketeer who would sell you out in a second if it suited him. It’s so unfortunate, but there is always hope. Right –Hope and Change?
Yours above, Raven, is excellent.
Citizens’ individualized ability to act as you wrote requires a coherent value system. American citizens’ value system has been developed over generations, but it is being torn apart, intentionally, through our failed education system (see, e.g., articles in CI), and through the massive, unrestrained, and government-encouraged flood of illegal immigrants, most of whom come without the American value system. With no values against which to judge him, obama simply does what he wants to do to further his ideology. America has been fortunate never before to have had such a malevolent president. We will see if our once-great country can endure his efforts to destroy it.
Charlie Brown’s layman’s distillation of the current climate of the law:
Audacity is 9/10 of the law.
Well Zacko I read that GWBUSH was guilty of many many crimes .
But I don’t see any convictions nor any cases pending.
So I hereby declare GWBUSH totally innocent of any & every unproven legal transgressing. Domestic & international.
BannedbytheGuardian: I read that GWBUSH was guilty of many many crimes. But I don’t see any convictions nor any cases pending.
As discussed above, someone can be guilty of a crime without being legally convicted. If you were to accuse Bush of a crime, you should be able to point to some specific evidence, including why he has not been charged, much less convicted.
Zach, the Obamacare mandate wasn’t actually declared to be a valid tax. That issue was not before the Court, and awaits a plaintiff with standing and an adequate briefing.
That’s not a ruling on the validity of the tax itself. That issue was not before the Court, and awaits a plaintiff with standing and an adequate briefing.