If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   Area man passionate defender of what he imagines Constitution to be   (breitbart.com) divider line 62
    More: Dumbass, U.S. Constitution, mock trial, Rob Ford, Mr. Ford, James Monroe, signing statements, embarrassments  
•       •       •

2036 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Nov 2013 at 12:56 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-22 12:10:16 PM
FTFA: by Charles Hurt.

Middle name: Butt.
 
2013-11-22 12:22:37 PM
Alright, since I'm bored, let's take a look at some of his "arguments."

"the legislature writes laws, which then go to the president for either his signature or veto." Two sentences later: "Presidents do not get to refuse to negotiate with Congress on financial matters because the president doesn't like what Congress has been urgently instructed to do by voters."

Umm, Congress doesn't need to negotiate with the President at all, but he'll veto any bill without his OK, so yeah, he doesn't have to negotiate, that's just a courtesy/facilitation of getting things done.

"What is not debatable is whether Mr. Obama can take a properly passed law such as the Defense of Marriage Act, and simply refuse to enforce it. He is not allowed to wave his hand and determine that millions of illegal immigrants now in the U.S. are suddenly legal."

Two words: prosecutorial discretion

"Nor is he allowed to single-handedly gut hard-fought welfare reform laws that were constitutionally enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress and a Democratic president."

Okay, I honestly don't even know what he's referring to here.

"He has already rewritten the health care law so many times that it has become commonplace. Is there no aspect of that law - or any law - that he does not believe a president can simply rewrite?"

Uh, I thought Congress wrote the healthcare law, and isn't that their job?

Another truly thought inspiring work from Breitbart.
 
2013-11-22 12:25:09 PM
It's just a goddam piece of paper.
 
2013-11-22 12:28:16 PM

nmrsnr: "Nor is he allowed to single-handedly gut hard-fought welfare reform laws that were constitutionally enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress and a Democratic president."

Okay, I honestly don't even know what he's referring to here.


Something about him waiving work requirements.  In actuality, he was approving waivers from the states to allow more leniency for vocational training, or something along those lines.  I forget the details, but conservatives yelled about it for a week or two, but if memory serves, it had no sticking power because they had no idea what they were talking about.
 
2013-11-22 12:29:31 PM
There's an active attempt by the right to generate a narrative that by performing his executive duties in ways the GOP doesn't like, Obama is a dictator. They argue what he's doing is unconstitutional but that's what courts are for, to determine the constitutionality of his actions.

This whining is getting old. Obama did not end the filibuster on his executive appointments, and Harry Reid did not break the law in doing so. Your party has been more than willing to abuse its power when in office, so don't be surprised if the Democrats do you one better.

In other words: You'll get over it.
 
2013-11-22 12:32:50 PM

Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA: by Charles Hurt.

Middle name: Butt.


*snrt!*
 
2013-11-22 12:33:12 PM

Doctor Funkenstein: FTFA: by Charles Hurt.

Middle name: Butt.


So f*cking done in one.
 
2013-11-22 12:34:11 PM

nmrsnr: Two words: prosecutorial discretion


Not only that, but the Courts have ruled that a president who concludes a law isn't constitutional isn't obligated to enforce it - within limits, of course, but DOMA definitely qualifies.
 
2013-11-22 12:35:11 PM
The comments are so full of nuggets of wisdom,
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-22 12:35:16 PM

bdub77: In other words: You'll get over it.


www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-11-22 12:36:36 PM
These appointments will still need 3/5th approval in the Senate, yes? If so, it's not like the minority is cut out of the process; 41 Senators could still band together to vote the nominee down, but they just can't stop the appointments from coming to a vote.

The filibuster made a whole lot more sense when the Senate represented state interests and wasn't just a smaller version of the House.
 
2013-11-22 12:37:35 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: These appointments will still need 3/5th approval in the Senate, yes?


No
 
2013-11-22 12:39:15 PM
i39.tinypic.com
 
2013-11-22 12:39:25 PM
Presidents do not get to write laws. They do not get to ignore laws they do not like or make up new ones on a whim...But do you know what is not debatable? What is not debatable is whether Mr. Obama can take a properly passed law such as the Defense of Marriage Act, and simply refuse to enforce it.

"
First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in  Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in  Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional."  Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring);  see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a statutory command)."

Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General, Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statues,November 2, 1994,  http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm

"The President's authority to issue executive orders and proclamations is neither explicitly stated in the Constitution nor in statute. However, it is generally accepted that the President derives his authority to act from Article II of the Constitution. The President's authority is primarily based upon the following language of Article II: 'the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States," "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," and "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...'  Briefly stated, these three categories include executive orders and proclamations issued pursuant to: (1) an express or implied authorization of Congress (presidential authority is at its maximum); (2) are incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, and thus rely solely upon his constitutional authority (presidential power is at its lowest ebb); and (3) undefined powers that lay in a "zone of twilight" (presidential power is uncertain). The judiciary has also expanded its examination of executive orders and proclamations to include a review of legislative history when necessary.Other than relying upon the judiciary to determine the validity of executive orders and proclamations, Congress may also play a role. Congress may effectively oversee presidential action by amending or repealing legislation, retroactively, which authorizes the President to issue executive orders or proclamations. Congress may propose a constitutional amendment which would remove a particular power from the President. Finally, where Congress is silent, and the President has acted, Congress may legislate to either support or derail such action unless that action is firmly based on exclusive constitutional authority."

John Contrubis, Executive Orders and Proclamations, 1999, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress No. 95-722 A,  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Orders_and_Proclamations#1

Presidents do not get to refuse to negotiate with Congress on financial matters because the president doesn't like what Congress has been urgently instructed to do by voters. He doesn't get to make end runs around Congress...He is not allowed to wave his hand and determine that millions of illegal immigrants now in the U.S. are suddenly legal. (This also continues to expand upon and address the above italicized claim, as well.)

"In modern times, the ''executive communication'' has become a prolific source of legislative proposals. The communication is usually in the form of a message or letter from a member of the President's Cabinet, the head of an independent agency, or the President himself, transmitting a draft of a proposed bill to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate. Despite the structure of separation of powers, Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution imposes an obligation on the President to report to Congress from time to time on the ''State of the Union'' and to recommend for consideration such measures as the President considers necessary and expedient. Many of these executive communications follow on the President's message to Congress on the state of the Union. The communication is then referred to the standing committee or committees having jurisdiction of the subject matter of the proposal. The chairman or the ranking minority member of the relevant committee often introduces the bill, either in the form in which it was received or with desired changes. This practice is usually followed even when the majority of the House and the President are not of the same political party, although there is no constitutional or statutory requirement that a bill be introduced to effectuate the recommendations. The most important of the regular executive communications is the annual message from the President transmitting the proposed budget to Congress. The President's budget proposal, together with testimony by officials of the various branches of the government before the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate, is the basis of the several appropriation bills that are drafted by the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate."

-John V. Sullivan, How Our Laws Are Made, July 24, 2007,  http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/sourceofleg.html
 
2013-11-22 12:49:25 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: These appointments will still need 3/5th approval in the Senate, yes?

No


OK, 2/3rds for treaties, it looks like, but theoretically the Senate could change its rules on the matter, bringing it up to 2/3rds or 3/5ths, should it choose to.
 
2013-11-22 12:54:51 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: These appointments will still need 3/5th approval in the Senate, yes? If so, it's not like the minority is cut out of the process; 41 Senators could still band together to vote the nominee down, but they just can't stop the appointments from coming to a vote.

The filibuster made a whole lot more sense when the Senate represented state interests and wasn't just a smaller version of the House.


No. Just a majority.
 
2013-11-22 12:59:45 PM
scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-11-22 01:01:21 PM
People get paid to write this stuff.
 
2013-11-22 01:01:44 PM
Sorry, Briettey...no clicky for you.  Not in the mood to have my neurons jump ship in protest....
 
2013-11-22 01:02:17 PM
My favorite line about this was from Senator Lamar Alexander:

"[This is the] most dangerous and consequential change in the rules since Thomas Jefferson wrote them."

This man is a sitting United States Senator who thinks (i) that the filibuster was written into the constitution (its not) and (ii) that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution (he didn't) or perhaps the Senate rules (he didn't).

What the fark, idiot.
 
2013-11-22 01:02:29 PM
over in one.
 
2013-11-22 01:02:40 PM
Hahahahah.  I can't think of a more perfect fark headline to describe that article.
 
2013-11-22 01:03:10 PM

nmrsnr: Alright, since I'm bored, let's take a look at some of his "arguments."

"the legislature writes laws, which then go to the president for either his signature or veto." Two sentences later: "Presidents do not get to refuse to negotiate with Congress on financial matters because the president doesn't like what Congress has been urgently instructed to do by voters."

Umm, Congress doesn't need to negotiate with the President at all, but he'll veto any bill without his OK, so yeah, he doesn't have to negotiate, that's just a courtesy/facilitation of getting things done.

"What is not debatable is whether Mr. Obama can take a properly passed law such as the Defense of Marriage Act, and simply refuse to enforce it. He is not allowed to wave his hand and determine that millions of illegal immigrants now in the U.S. are suddenly legal."

Two words: prosecutorial discretion

"Nor is he allowed to single-handedly gut hard-fought welfare reform laws that were constitutionally enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress and a Democratic president."

Okay, I honestly don't even know what he's referring to here.

"He has already rewritten the health care law so many times that it has become commonplace. Is there no aspect of that law - or any law - that he does not believe a president can simply rewrite?"

Uh, I thought Congress wrote the healthcare law, and isn't that their job?

Another truly thought inspiring work from Breitbart.


I came here to say something very similar.
 
2013-11-22 01:05:26 PM
i.imgur.com

This is a picture of what I can only imagine is Charles Hurt's face when he shiats out another article.
 
2013-11-22 01:06:46 PM
 
2013-11-22 01:08:19 PM

DiarrheaVanFrank: http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what - he-imagines-c,2849/

we're recycling Onion headlines?


I can't tell if you're being serious with this post or not.
 
2013-11-22 01:09:00 PM

make me some tea: nmrsnr: Alright, since I'm bored, let's take a look at some of his "arguments."

"the legislature writes laws, which then go to the president for either his signature or veto." Two sentences later: "Presidents do not get to refuse to negotiate with Congress on financial matters because the president doesn't like what Congress has been urgently instructed to do by voters."

Umm, Congress doesn't need to negotiate with the President at all, but he'll veto any bill without his OK, so yeah, he doesn't have to negotiate, that's just a courtesy/facilitation of getting things done.

"What is not debatable is whether Mr. Obama can take a properly passed law such as the Defense of Marriage Act, and simply refuse to enforce it. He is not allowed to wave his hand and determine that millions of illegal immigrants now in the U.S. are suddenly legal."

Two words: prosecutorial discretion

"Nor is he allowed to single-handedly gut hard-fought welfare reform laws that were constitutionally enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress and a Democratic president."

Okay, I honestly don't even know what he's referring to here.

"He has already rewritten the health care law so many times that it has become commonplace. Is there no aspect of that law - or any law - that he does not believe a president can simply rewrite?"

Uh, I thought Congress wrote the healthcare law, and isn't that their job?

Another truly thought inspiring work from Breitbart.

I came here to say something very similar.


Also - I knew this category 5 butthurt storm would come fast and furious, and Brietbart was on it immediately.  I love how the whining in that article essentially amounts to, "waaah - Obama's not a republican!  And even worse, now he's sort of fighting back against the mountain of bullshiat the Republicans have been throwing at him, instead of his former practice of rolling over and legitimizing Republican obstructionism!"
 
2013-11-22 01:09:40 PM
Regardless of his arguments, he is right: any President of the United States is more of a threat to Americans than the mayor of Toronto, Canada.
 
2013-11-22 01:09:47 PM

DiarrheaVanFrank: http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what - he-imagines-c,2849/

we're recycling Onion headlines?



that'sthejoke.jpg.
 
2013-11-22 01:10:48 PM

Arkanaut: Regardless of his arguments, he is right: any President of the United States is more of a threat to Americans than the mayor of Toronto, Canada.



You make a good point.  Also, therefore Obama must be impeached and the ACA stripped from the history books.
 
2013-11-22 01:14:17 PM
DiarrheaVanFrank:

we're recycling Onion headlines?

We're already posting stuff we saw on Reddit yesterday, so why not?
 
2013-11-22 01:14:57 PM
"What is not debatable is whether Mr. Obama can take a properly passed law such as the Defense of Marriage Act, and simply refuse to enforce it."

Good thing Obama enforced the Defense of Marriage Act until it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, huh? The Justice Department declined to defend the law and court as they did not believe they could make a good-faith argument to the constitutionality of Section 3. Find one example of a homosexual couple applying for and legally receiving government marriage benefits (ignoring transgender cases, because that has been a mess for the courts in trying to decide which cases they have to ban in states that ban gay marriage.)

Also, Section 2 is still in force if you haven't noticed.
 
2013-11-22 01:17:21 PM

DamnYankees: My favorite line about this was from Senator Lamar Alexander:

"[This is the] most dangerous and consequential change in the rules since Thomas Jefferson wrote them."

This man is a sitting United States Senator who thinks (i) that the filibuster was written into the constitution (its not) and (ii) that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution (he didn't) or perhaps the Senate rules (he didn't).

What the fark, idiot.


And it's not like Jefferson was overly concerned about constitutional limits on executive power anyway - at least, not once he sat down in the big chair.
 
2013-11-22 01:21:06 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: It's just a goddam piece of paperparchment.

 
2013-11-22 01:21:09 PM

Chummer45: Arkanaut: Regardless of his arguments, he is right: any President of the United States is more of a threat to Americans than the mayor of Toronto, Canada.


You make a good point.  Also, therefore Obama must be impeached and the ACA stripped from the history books.


i.imgur.com

This is what happens when Toronto's mayors go unchecked.
 
2013-11-22 01:24:49 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: These appointments will still need 3/5th approval in the Senate, yes?


Nope, appointments are confirmed on a majority vote basis, unless something else has changed about the rules.
 
2013-11-22 01:26:23 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Chummer45: Arkanaut: Regardless of his arguments, he is right: any President of the United States is more of a threat to Americans than the mayor of Toronto, Canada.


You make a good point.  Also, therefore Obama must be impeached and the ACA stripped from the history books.

[i.imgur.com image 733x507]

This is what happens when Toronto's mayors go unchecked.


My biggest complaint with that is they burned down the Capitol building when it was EMPTY.
The pansies should have locked it from the outside and then set it on fire.
 
2013-11-22 01:26:53 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: nmrsnr: "Nor is he allowed to single-handedly gut hard-fought welfare reform laws that were constitutionally enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress and a Democratic president."

Okay, I honestly don't even know what he's referring to here.

Something about him waiving work requirements.  In actuality, he was approving waivers from the states to allow more leniency for vocational training, or something along those lines.  I forget the details, but conservatives yelled about it for a week or two, but if memory serves, it had no sticking power because they had no idea what they were talking about.


Yep.  There was a Romney/Ryan attack ad about it, that was completely full of shiat:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform /
 
2013-11-22 01:30:14 PM
Well then, it appears President Jackson was wrong and we have to give Georgia back to the Indians.
 
2013-11-22 01:32:25 PM

DamnYankees: My favorite line about this was from Senator Lamar Alexander:

"[This is the] most dangerous and consequential change in the rules since Thomas Jefferson wrote them."

This man is a sitting United States Senator who thinks (i) that the filibuster was written into the constitution (its not) and (ii) that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution (he didn't) or perhaps the Senate rules (he didn't).

What the fark, idiot.


Not only that, but this is what Jefferson wrote on the matter:


"No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. ... The voice of the majority decides. For the  lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, &c. where not otherwise expressly provided."

- Thomas Jefferson, Manual of Parliamentary Procedure


Not only does he decry people speaking superfluously or tediously, he explicitly states that simple majority rule (lex majoris partis) should be used for everything not specifically defined as needing a supermajority.
 
2013-11-22 01:38:47 PM
Meh, he'd have better luck complaining about the lack of a budget for the past few years.
 
2013-11-22 01:52:10 PM

Grungehamster: ignoring transgender cases, because that has been a mess for the courts in trying to decide which cases they have to ban in states that ban gay marriage


A coworker of my wife got gender reassignment surgery, but Louisiana won't change the birth certificate, so she was able to marry her girlfriend though Louisiana doesn't recognize same sex marriages.  I'm sure someone in the state government is having a conniption.
 
2013-11-22 01:55:53 PM

Print'sNotDead: Well then, it appears President Jackson was wrong and we have to give Georgia back to the Indians.


Eh. Okay.
 
2013-11-22 02:10:30 PM

palelizard: Grungehamster: ignoring transgender cases, because that has been a mess for the courts in trying to decide which cases they have to ban in states that ban gay marriage

A coworker of my wife got gender reassignment surgery, but Louisiana won't change the birth certificate, so she was able to marry her girlfriend though Louisiana doesn't recognize same sex marriages.  I'm sure someone in the state government is having a conniption.


Also fun: people who get married and later get SRS in a state that recognizes it.
 
2013-11-22 02:11:06 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: These appointments will still need 3/5th approval in the Senate, yes?


It would if all of the Senators were black.
 
2013-11-22 02:17:14 PM

DiarrheaVanFrank: http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what - he-imagines-c,2849/

we're recycling Onion headlines?


It is called a "reference."  The title evokes a memory of a past commonly-known event to place the article in context in a humorous manner.

Welcome to earf.
 
2013-11-22 02:25:26 PM
Will this be a problem when President Ted Cruz or President Rand Paul begin to exercise these new established and recognized constitutional powers afforded to the executive branch?
 
2013-11-22 02:35:27 PM

Tyee: Will this be a problem when President Ted Cruz or President Rand Paul begin to exercise these new established and recognized constitutional powers afforded to the executive branch?


Anything is possible in a fantasy world.  Seriously though, the filibuster would have lasted 10 seconds under the next elected Senate lead by GOP assholes you have today.
 
2013-11-22 02:35:47 PM

Tyee: Will this be a problem when President Ted Cruz or President Rand Paul begin to exercise these new established and recognized constitutional powers afforded to the executive branch?


Nominating judges and not a have a crazy amount of filibusters? Wasn't it how it worked before January 2009?

Also those guys will never be president except in teabagger dreams.
 
2013-11-22 02:38:45 PM
Did you guys read the beginning of article?
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report