Iowa Caucus

[OldBrownsFan]

You'll have to bear with me, this whole monarchic system of rule isn't really something that exists here, so I'm not completely up to speed on it.

 

So Obama, or any other president, issues executive orders, and these can be challenged in the supreme court (which makes sense). So how many executive orders have been overturned in the supreme court? Apparently that 13 times defeated thing is bogus:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/29/bob-goodlatte/gop-leader-supreme-court-has-ruled-13-times-obama-/

 

USA Today Supreme Court shutouts reveal reckless decisions: Column

Ilya Somin 11:46 a.m. EDT July 23, 2013

When the White House loses cases 9-0, the president is going too far.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/22/supreme-court-losses-column/2576625/

[gftChris]

 

 

USA Today Supreme Court shutouts reveal reckless decisions: Column

Ilya Somin 11:46 a.m. EDT July 23, 2013

When the White House loses cases 9-0, the president is going too far.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/22/supreme-court-losses-column/2576625/

 

That wasn't an executive order though, right? I mean, that was department of agriculture vs a farmer - not exactly Obama in his ivory tower as you'd like to portray?

[OldBrownsFan]

That wasn't an executive order though, right? I mean, that was department of agriculture vs a farmer - not exactly Obama in his ivory tower as you'd like to portray?

 

In Horne v. Department of Agriculture, a decision issued in June, the justices unanimously rejected the Obama administration's argument that raisin farmers did not have the right to go to court to contest the seizure of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of raisins. The Fifth Amendment states that the government must pay "just compensation" whenever the government takes private property for "public use." But the administration claimed that farmers could not even raise the takings issue in court without first enduring lengthy delays and paying a $483,000 fine.

 

This is one of the cases which I was glad to see the Supremes rule 9-0 against Obama on as being unconstitutional.

 

The Supremes will soon be hearing the case about Obama's use of executive order in granting amnesty. Obama himself said he did not have this authority 25 times but he did it anyway.

[gftChris]

So, it wasn't an executive order? And not directly from Obama? OK, it's not looking like an executive order was defeated by the supreme court here.

[bbedward]

Obama has issues 227 executive orders so far.

 

W Bush issued 291

B Clinton issued 364

Bush Sr issued 166 (but only in 1 term)

Reagan issued 381

 

The most ever was FDR who issued 3,522

 

--

 

Stop acting like it's unusual and Obama is overriding congress and stepping above the boundaries of the law. It's a Retard and inaccurate attack line.

 

Two scenarios to overturn an executive order:

 

1) Congress can repeal executive orders if they're unconstitutional (This could be an issue that's settled in the supreme court - notice: not liking something doesn't make it "unconstitutional")

 

2) Congress can pass legislation that negates the executive order. President can veto said legislation. Congress can override the veto with 2/3 vote.

 

Obama is not overstepping the powers he has. People just read too much of the Blaze nonsense and don't actually think for themselves.

[jbluhm86]

[OldBrownsFan]

In the spring of 2012, President Obama issued an aggressive string of executive orders to combat what he viewed as hopelessly-deadlocked Congress. Some of his more controversial, and arguably unconstitutional executive orders are as follows:

1. Directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act;

2. Gave states waivers from federal mandates if they agreed to education overhauls;

3. Changed significant provisions of and the timing of Obamacare;

4. Declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional;

5. Reshaped immigration policy by ordering the federal government to halt deportation of certain illegal

immigrants

 

President Obama’s five executive orders above are clearly unconstitutional under the guidelines set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court because the five executive orders are not only merely “incompatible” with the expressed or implied will of Congress, they directly contravene, change, or alter acts of Congress in violation of the separation of powers and the U.S. Constitution. Congress set forth specific deadlines and enforcement laws with regard to the implementation of Obamacare and the president has changed them on his own authority because it was politically advantageous to do so. Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act and Obama’s executive order to stop defending it is directly contrary to the will and intent of Congress. He has declared certain laws “unconstitutional” – something that not even the most radical liberals have suggested is within the purview of the executive branch. He has also halted the enforcement of existing immigration policy enacted by Congress pursuant to their congressional authority on his own initiative because he simply didn’t like the law. Lastly, he has exempted a number of states from the No Child Left Behind Law which was duly passed by Congress. And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

 

On Monday, February 10, 2014, the Obama Administration announced yet another unconstitutional edict. This time the regime has reversed Congress once again, pronouncing that it will violate the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate for the second consecutive year - in direct violation of the law Congress voted on and passed. Obama's Treasury Department said it will delay the mandate's penalty another year for small businesses with 50 to 99 employees and will also adjust some of the requirements for larger employers. Under the Executive Branch's new legislation - passed without a single vote in Congress, businesses with 100 or more employees must offer coverage to at least 70% of full-time workers in 2015 and 95% in 2016. Congess didn't debate and pass this law and Obamacare provided quite differently. Our president just willed the new laws into existence. These are clearly unconstitutional proclamations committed for purely political reasons.

The uninformed supporters of our president blindly defend this usurpation of executive power by noting that “all presidents issue executive orders”, but there has never been a president in history who has so brazenly sidestepped Congress’ powers and usurped the role of lawmaker. It is now also clear that the nation’s attorney general is of absolutely no help in giving our president guidance on this subject. In responding to questions at a Senate hearing recently, Eric Holder was asked to explain to Congress why he thought Barack Obama was within his constitutional limits when he reversed Congress by issuing an executive order to delay Obamacare’s employer mandate. After Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) read to him the above Supreme Court’s rulings on the matter, Holder replied:

I’ll be honest with you, I have not seen — I don’t remember looking at or having seen the analysis in some time, so I’m not sure where along the spectrum that would come.”

Armed with his radical pen, President Obama has fulfilled the words of humorist Will Rogers, who observed that Congress doesn't make laws anymore, "they just wave at the bills as they go by." It is no wonder that many members of Congress are truly wondering if they really are the nation’s lawmakers any more.

 

http://www.mequonnow.com/blogs/communityblogs/244794131.html

[bbedward]

If they were unconstitutional then the congress wouldn't just bitch about it they would do something about it - as is within their power.

[OldBrownsFan]

If they were unconstitutional then the congress wouldn't just bitch about it they would do something about it - as is within their power.

 

You probably think more highly of congress than I do. John Boehner recently stepped down as majority leader in congress but yes he would just cry about it.

[calfoxwc]

sigh. It isn't the number of exec orders, it's the INTENT and SCOPE of the exec order.

 

A tweak is different than inventing law that doesn't exist because you're a dissheet leftist

extremist and that's the only way you can implement your libereral assholeness.

 

And too many in c0ngress are fearful of incurring the left's wrath. The left is in it for all or nothing,

and they will cheapshot with malicious intent.

 

Meanwhile, the dems had control, and they gave the finger to the reps, and voted in Obamaocare

as a gigantic political accomplishment.

 

The left are like nazis, if it benefits the nazi party, it's a good thing. Now, look at the crap obamao and higgardly

have done, look at the coverups....

 

leftism is the new liberal god, because it gets them free stuff.

 

Which is how hitler came to power, he promised all sorts of great things.

[OldBrownsFan]

You are right Cal it is not the number of executive orders it is the kinds of executive orders I have a problem with Obama about. When executive orders are actually making new law that is wrong. A president cannot or should not anyway over ride congress to get his agenda accomplished. That is the reason for our checks and balances. The people spoke and elected a republican House and Senate and wanted divided government to force Obama to work and compromise for his agenda. He was not elected because he had a cell phone and an ink pen and act like a king.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Unless it is an act of war spurred on by a surprise attack, I am never comfortable with Presidents using executive orders to do what they want. Why even elect legislators at that point?

[gftChris]

Unless it is an act of war spurred on by a surprise attack, I am never comfortable with Presidents using executive orders to do what they want. Why even elect legislators at that point?

Agree.

[bbedward]

No, Cal/OBF you may disagree with the content of the executive orders - but they aren't unconstitutional. I'm sure many democrats/leftists disagreed with the content of a lot of Bush's executive orders.

 

Nazi/Hitler argument is used by both the left and right and it's incredibly Retarded and appeals to small-minded people. "I disagree" does not mean "Literally Hitler" I hate seeing that argument from either side - the left and right both use it.

 

Technically, in the US

 

The left is more like globalist crony capitalists (Hillary) or globalist socialists (Bernie)

 

The right is more about nationalism and crony capitalism - except the establishment are probably more like globalists - as evidenced by things like the TPP.

 

"Make America Great Again" versus "Be Fair so Everybody Can Be Great"

 

Nazi Germany was built on hardcore nationalism combined with socialist economy. A small minority of people in the US would identify that way - therefore I find calling the left or right nazis and Hitler is inaccurate and misinformed.

[OldBrownsFan]

Hitler comparisons are probably not good generally speaking but I do have problems with some of the hard left who seem to have little regard for the constitution. Recently at Missouri University we had a college professor try to remove a student from filming a protest. The student told her he had every right under the first amendment to film the protest and her response was to tell the crowd "we need some muscle over here". The student knew more about the first amendment than the professor. Maybe not all on the left but for sure there are a number of them that need to learn what our constitution is about and the wisdom of the founders of this country.

[gftChris]

Donald J. TrumpVerified account‏@realDonaldTrump

Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!

[bbedward]

His campaign told everyone Carson dropped out. His campaign manager tweeted it and talked about how he'd make a great VP candidate for Cruz right around primary time - then has since deleted them.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/267996-carson-rips-dishonest-culture-of-cruz-campaign

[OldBrownsFan]

Iowa needs to jump into the 21st century anyway as Hillary Clinton only beat Sanders because she won 6 consecutive coin flips. Lucky her. The democrats need to move up to rock-paper-scissors to decide presidential primaries.

[gftChris]

Iowa needs to jump into the 21st century anyway as Hillary Clinton only beat Sanders because she won 6 consecutive coin flips. Lucky her. The democrats need to move up to rock-paper-scissors to decide presidential primaries.

Yeah, that's the most fucked up thing ever. If a single delegate is tied then sure, coin toss, but if multiple are tied, distribute them according to polling. Hillary 3, Bernie 3.

[bbedward]

I saw this and thought it was funny

 

Things I trust more than I trust Hillary Clinton:

Mexican tap water.

A rattlesnake with a "pet me" sign.

OJ Simpson showing me his knife collection.

Farting when I have diarrhea.

An elevator ride with Ray Rice.

Having a drink offered by Bill Cosby.

Michael Jackson's Doctor.

An Obama Nuclear deal with Iran.

A Palestinian on a motorcycle.

Gas station Sushi.

A Nazi plumber.

A Jimmy Carter economic plan.

A government worker telling me that he wants to help me.

Brian Williams news reports.

Prayers for peace from Al Sharpton.

Playing Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic pistol.

An email from a Nigerian prince.

The Heimlich Maneuver from Barney Frank.

A condom made in China.

A prostate exam done by Captain Hook.

Bill Clinton at a Girl Scout convention.

[BaconHound]

Hitler comparisons are probably not good generally speaking but I do have problems with some of the hard left who seem to have little regard for the constitution. Recently at Missouri University we had a college professor try to remove a student from filming a protest. The student told her he had every right under the first amendment to film the protest and her response was to tell the crowd "we need some muscle over here". The student knew more about the first amendment than the professor. Maybe not all on the left but for sure there are a number of them that need to learn what our constitution is about and the wisdom of the founders of this country.

 

 

You're interpretation of the Constitution. Trump had "Anti-Trump" protesters removed from his rally, you ready to start a new thread.

 

[bbedward]

He removes anti Trump protesters from every rally

[BaconHound]

He removes anti Trump protesters from every rally

 

 

And "my" interpretation of the 1st Amendment is anything that doesn't incite violence or cause violence is protected speech. So if you make it into a political rally you're speech should be protected.

[bbedward]

 

 

And "my" interpretation of the 1st Amendment is anything that doesn't incite violence or cause violence is protected speech. So if you make it into a political rally you're speech should be protected.

Yelling and causing a disturbance in a private event isn't protected under the first amendment. They're just disturbing all the people who waited however many hours to legitimately hear the event.

 

If they were outside the private venue, then yes they'd be fine.

 

If you went into a McDonalds and started yelling "McDonalds is evil" that's not protected under the first amendment, they'll kick your ass out

[DieHardBrownsFan]

 

 

You're interpretation of the Constitution. Trump had "Anti-Trump" protesters removed from his rally, you ready to start a new thread.

 

Like any real mid Western Americans care what some New England fag thinks?

[OldBrownsFan]

 

 

You're interpretation of the Constitution. Trump had "Anti-Trump" protesters removed from his rally, you ready to start a new thread.

 

 

No it is not just my interpretation as this professor got criminal charges over this:

 

Missouri Professor Who Called for ‘Some Muscle’ at Protest Is Charged

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/melissa-click-missouri-professor-who-called-for-some-muscle-at-protest-is-charged.html

[BaconHound]

Yelling and causing a disturbance in a private event isn't protected under the first amendment. They're just disturbing all the people who waited however many hours to legitimately hear the event.

 

If they were outside the private venue, then yes they'd be fine.

 

If you went into a McDonalds and started yelling "McDonalds is evil" that's not protected under the first amendment, they'll kick your ass out

 

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

While I don't disagree with you as we can see with the language of the First Amendment it strictly is talking about the power of Congress and the creation of law. Every situation that determines what speech is allowed and which isn't is strictly "our" interpretation of what was intended by the First Amendment.

[BaconHound]

 

No it is not just my interpretation as this professor got criminal charges over this:

 

Missouri Professor Who Called for ‘Some Muscle’ at Protest Is Charged

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/melissa-click-missouri-professor-who-called-for-some-muscle-at-protest-is-charged.html

 

I'm sure you actually read the link you posted. The misdemeanor assault charge is for striking the person and threatening harm, not saying "get the fuck out of here"...

[OldBrownsFan]

Melissa A. Click, assaulted a videographer “by grabbing at his camera with her hand and attempting to knock it from his grasp” and “by calling out and asking for other people in the area at the time to forcefully remove him.”

[BaconHound]

Melissa A. Click, assaulted a videographer “by grabbing at his camera with her hand and attempting to knock it from his grasp” and “by calling out and asking for other people in the area at the time to forcefully remove him.”

 

 

Misdemeanor assault, also referred to as a simple assault, generally means an act of violence against another person but can actually include any physical contact made without consent. Even a threat of bodily harm made with an apparent ability to cause the harm is considered assault. The threat must cause a reasonable fear of injury, otherwise there is no assault.

 

Pretty simple definition. You have to have the ability to do harm for a verbal threat to be considered assault. If I'm in line at the movies and yell out, "will somebody punch this person" the plaintiff has to prove that I had the ability to persuade someone to punch the person. If I walk up and grab the person the misdemeanor assault case is already made.