Obama Makes Decisions Unconstitutionally and Willy Nilly

[Robo]

Any sane and honest person should know that G.W. Bush’s war in Iraq was unconstitutional because it was never constitutionally authorized by a congressional declaration of war. Likewise the Obama military actions in the middle east are also unconstitutional. There’s no authority in the Constitution for a President to kill people anywhere with drone strikes.

That brings me to not only the unconstitutional acts of Obama, but to his irrational and absurd method for deciding who to kill with drone strikes. As Republicans have noted, Obama doesn’t even identify by name the enemy he’s striking with the drones.

So, the question for Obama’s loyalist is, “since Obama can’t identify by name the enemy he strikes with drones, by what criteria is Obama using to make his decisions for who to strike with drones?” He doesn’t like the way they part their hair, right? He hates middle eastern brown people, correct? He does what Hillary Clinton tells him to do?

 

[Rune]

Good Questions.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

our government has been doing things unconstitutional for decades, nobody really cares about most of it anymore. very sad.

 

[Legion Troll]

our government has been doing things unconstitutional for decades, nobody really cares about most of it anymore. very sad.

I guess you and Bobo need to rise up. Don't forget the snacks.

 

[anatta]

“since Obama can’t identify by name the enemy he strikes with drones, by what criteria is Obama using to make his decisions for who to strike with drones?” He doesn’t like the way they part their hair, right? He hates middle eastern brown people, correct? He does what Hillary Clinton tells him to do?

those are signature strikes -named because the target carries the signature ( behavior) of a terrorist/enemy combatant.
They are particularly bad news. We use the all the time in Pakistan and the CIA admitted having really no idea who it was we were targeting..

They are all Constitutional in terms of a Unitary (war powers)president ;the fig leaf was the AUMF after 9-11

 

[SmarterthanYou]

They are all Constitutional in terms of a Unitary (war powers)president

can you point out the part of the constitution that lets one branch of our federal creation hand over their responsibility to another branch of our federal creation?

 

[anatta]

can you point out the part of the constitution that lets one branch of our federal creation hand over their responsibility to another branch of our federal creation?

It's checks and balances. when Congress abandons it's war powers -the executive gloms them up.
Much like anytime Congress doesn't do anything to check the executive -the executive will use it's powers.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It's checks and balances. when Congress abandons it's war powers -the executive gloms them up.
Much like anytime Congress doesn't do anything to check the executive -the executive will use it's powers.

how does that work with a constitution designed to LIMIT and RESTRICT the branches, not empower them to assume others responsibilities?

 

[anatta]

how does that work with a constitution designed to LIMIT and RESTRICT the branches, not empower them to assume others responsibilities?

The branches have to exercise their powers in order for separation of powers to exist.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The branches have to exercise their powers in order for separation of powers to exist.

they have assigned powers. not being able to exercise some powers is part of that checks and balances, is it not?

 

[anatta]

they have assigned powers. not being able to exercise some powers is part of that checks and balances, is it not?

but the power of the executive is to carryout the laws, and much more under Article 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artic...s_Constitution#Section_2:_Presidential_powers

Take the Iran nuke deal. by all measurements it is a Treaty and subject to "advise and consent" and a 2/3 vote to pass.
But what does Obama do but take it out of the realm of a treaty by calling it an international executive agreement

Congress should have fought back -but Congress is a bunch of fractured small minded, quarreling politicians
who work to serve their individual interests instead of the grand institutional interest.

So it becomes law unless it is overridden as an Congressional action on a presidential veto.
2/3 majority to stop it instead of 1/3+1 "nay" votes to not pass it as a treaty.

That's just one ex. of the Unitary POTUS

BTW: I applaude your interest in this..it's not sexy, it's dry and procedural unlike the daily politics that make the news.
But it's where the rubber meets the road in terms of US powers.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

but the power of the executive is to carryout the laws, and much more under Article 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artic...s_Constitution#Section_2:_Presidential_powers

Take the Iran nuke deal. by all measurements it is a Treaty and subject to "advise and consent" and a 2/3 vote to pass.
But what does Obama do but take it out of the realm of a treaty by calling it an international executive agreement

Congress should have fought back -but Congress is a bunch of fractured small minded, quarreling politicians
who work to serve their individual interests instead of the grand institutional interest.

So it becomes law unless it is overridden as an Congressional action on a presidential veto.
2/3 majority to stop it instead of 1/3+1 "nay" votes to not pass it as a treaty.

That's just one ex. of the Unitary POTUS

BTW: I applaude your interest in this..it's not sexy, it's dry and procedural unlike the daily politics that make the news.
But it's where the rubber meets the road in terms of US powers.

while many may view it as 'law', any law that is contrary to the constitution is null and void. and yes, congress is broken, but so is all of our government.

 

[anatta]

while many may view it as 'law', any law that is contrary to the constitution is null and void. and yes, congress is broken, but so is all of our government.

agreed. now watch how HRClinton runs the government by executive order

 

[Robo]

those are signature strikes -named because the target carries the signature ( behavior) of a terrorist/enemy combatant.
They are particularly bad news. We use the all the time in Pakistan and the CIA admitted having really no idea who it was we were targeting..

They are all Constitutional in terms of a Unitary (war powers)president ;the fig leaf was the AUMF after 9-11

Where in our Constitution do we find authority for Congress to pass a resolution turning over the sole power of the Congress to declare war to a President, thereby coping out and giving proxy of the Congress and the responsibility and duty of the Congress to a President? The war powers acts are unconstitutional.

 

[Robo]

It's checks and balances. when Congress abandons it's war powers -the executive gloms them up.
Much like anytime Congress doesn't do anything to check the executive -the executive will use it's powers.

Fuck the Constitution, just ignore and violate it, right?

 

[Robo]

The branches have to exercise their powers in order for separation of powers to exist.

The powers of each branch is enumerated in the Constitution. Where's the part that authorizes any branch to assume the powers of another branch?

 

[Rune]

those are signature strikes -named because the target carries the signature ( behavior) of a terrorist/enemy combatant.
They are particularly bad news. We use the all the time in Pakistan and the CIA admitted having really no idea who it was we were targeting..

They are all Constitutional in terms of a Unitary (war powers)president ;the fig leaf was the AUMF after 9-11

No they are not.

 

[dnsmith1935]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If only the government had not usurped the constitution.