close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

" `O`dangerous change in the powers of the president"

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by LASTRESORT20, Oct 12, 2012.

  1. LASTRESORT20

    LASTRESORT20 LongTerm-Guy

    19,273
    27,492
    Aug 10, 2010
    NC
    :eagle:
    "This month’s debates between President Obama and Mitt Romney are focusing on the central position of the presidency in our political system.The president is the leader of his political party, his views on the issues of the day come first, even in areas where he has little power, and he is the center of the 24-hour news cycle.
    But what is equally important is the role of the president set out in the Constitution. Although it might not come up in the debates, Obama has pursued a dangerous change in the powers of his office that disregards the Constitution’s careful separation of power between the branches of the federal government. The Constitution imposes on the president two clear duties – to protect the national security and to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Obama is the first chief executive since Richard Nixon to ignore a duly-enacted law simply because he disagrees with it, in clear defiance of his constitutional duty.
    Obama put his radical vision of executive power clearly on display this summer when he announced that he would refuse to deport up to a million illegal aliens, as required by the immigration laws. According to the Department of Homeland Security, they will not be deported if they came"...(More)

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/12/obama-has-pursued-dangerous-change-in-powers-president/
     
  2. LASTRESORT20

    LASTRESORT20 LongTerm-Guy

    19,273
    27,492
    Aug 10, 2010
    NC
    `Obama’s supporters, of course, may well argue that Obama’s immigration proclamation is no worse than President Bush’s claim that Congress cannot limit the executive’s efforts to intercept Al Qaeda communications during wartime. But there is a constitutional world of difference in refusing to enforce laws that violate the president’s own constitutional powers, and ignoring laws that a president simply dislikes. There is a world of difference between putting aside laws that interfere with an executive response to an attack on the country, as in Sept. 11, 2001, and ignoring laws to appeal to a constituency vital to re-election. The former recognizes the president’s primary duty to protect the national security. The latter, unfortunately, represents a twisting of the Constitution’s fabric for partisan ends. `
     

  3. Sporaticus

    Sporaticus Aw sheet main

    1,013
    141
    Feb 28, 2003
    Finally made 1000 posts
  4. LASTRESORT20

    LASTRESORT20 LongTerm-Guy

    19,273
    27,492
    Aug 10, 2010
    NC
  5. GAFinch

    GAFinch

    5,928
    33
    Feb 23, 2009
    Georgia
    Don't forget DOMA.
     
  6. LASTRESORT20

    LASTRESORT20 LongTerm-Guy

    19,273
    27,492
    Aug 10, 2010
    NC
    `Brothers...We wont forget alot of things about `O` and his implanted Lemmings....:)
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2012