Obama: Pass a bill or I’ll rip up the Constitution

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

George Washington University law Professor Jonathan Turley is an Obama voter who is appalled. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Turley charged that partisan “division is no license to 'go it alone’ as the president has suggested. You have only two choices in our system when facing political adversaries: You can either seek to convince them or to replace them. This is obviously frustrating for presidents (and their supporters) who want to see real changes and to transcend gridlock. However, there is nothing noble in circumventing the Constitution. The claim of any one person that they can 'get the job done’ unilaterally is the very Siren’s Call that our Framers warned us to resist.”

The Constitution charges the president to “take care that the law be faithfully executed”; Obamaland contends it is simply engaging in executive discretion. But Judge Hanen countered, “Exercising prosecutorial discretion and/or refusing to enforce a statute does not also entail bestowing benefits” — like Social Security cards, work permits and the ability to travel.

In supporting the president’s imperious go-it-alone approach, Democratic leaders have acquiesced to what Turley calls “their own institutional obsolescence.” They’ve handed a tool of mischief to the next chief executive.

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Obama-Pass-a-bill-or-I-ll-rip-up-the-6088359.php

[asisflyer 47]

FUTURE EXECUTIVE ACTIONS POSSIBLE if we think this way about the constitution:

1. National Security Act - Indefinite internment of 100% of ALL persons from, having visited, or born in Syria, Yemen, and Somalia.

2. Bulk Amnesty of ALL Federal Felons convicted of B Felony or Lower. Order HHS and FEMA emergency funds redirected to give 25,000 in assistance to each and every one of them.

3. Nuclear weapons release on Uruguay after a bad dream about tasteless chimichuri. War Powers Act.

4. Order Secretary HHS to Change GH guidelines to remove Short Stature Children. Then order AG to ARREST all SHORT STATURE children the next morning.

5. Temporary Protected Status issued to ALL COUNTRIES of the WORLD. Anyone can fly to Mexico or Canada and walk in and get TPS Work Card, Medicaid, TNAF, WIC, and all immediately. Plus IRS tax refund with $1 earning on EITC.

6. FEMA funds ordered re-directed to DACA call center by labeling DACA situation a national emergency.

7. Declare 100% of ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES to be national security sensitive positions and then OPERATE THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT A BUDGET the remainder of the term.

Democracy only works because the branches of government want it to work.

Remember Al Gore not staying the course because he believed more in the continuity of government than being President !!!

It's dangerous when any party pushes the executive envelop too far.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Perhaps if Republicans were a little more open to actually governing and not acting like a bunch of toddlers who seem to think that only their needs are important, then Obama perhaps might not feel that executive actions were his only option to get anything done?

[Darnell 8,478]

Banal Barry will get stopped, in the end, or perhaps middle.

It's the Constitution, y'all !

[Umka36 781]

Perhaps if Republicans were a little more open to actually governing and not acting like a bunch of toddlers who seem to think that only their needs are important, then Obama perhaps might not feel that executive actions were his only option to get anything done?

It works both ways; neither side are innocent.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The government that governs least governs best.

[GandD 5,966]

As a liberal, I'm against the constitution.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

As a liberal, I'm against the constitution.

Wait. Were many inalienable rights "discovered" in the US Constitution in the last century? Do not the "liberals" hope SCOTUS will find a new right for people to marry without regard to gender or sexual preference?

Edited February 19, 2015 by I AM NOT THAT GUY

[GandD 5,966]

Wait. Were many inalienable rights "discovered" in the US Constitution in the last century? Do not the "liberals" hope SCOTUS will find a new right for people to marry without regard to gender or sexual preference?

You must be thinking about a different group. Us liberals hate America, especially it's precious constitution. That's why we purposely voted for someone that will shred it. And we're not too fond of voting either. Edited February 19, 2015 by GandD

[Darnell 8,478]

As a liberal, I'm against the constitution.

Suddenly I have this vision

of you taking a printed constitution, bought at the dollar store, made in China,

and wadding it up

and using it as toilet paper.

No No, this isn't a personal attack, I really did have this vision, moments ago, and thought to share.

[GandD 5,966]

Suddenly I have this vision

of you taking a printed constitution, bought at the dollar store, made in China,

and wadding it up

and using it as toilet paper.

No No, this isn't a personal attack, I really did have this vision, moments ago, and thought to share.

It's not a vision. It's what I did earlier today.

[Teddy B 17,252]

It's not a vision. It's what I did earlier today.

I use mine as a placemat on the dinner table. The ketchup stains give it a kind of bloody affect, just the way the Muricans like it.

[Darnell 8,478]

man, i am laughing my @ss off. I was funny today, I was ! I swear !

G - thanks for the laugh.

Teddy - ya ya - try some curry stains next time...

[JohnR! 5,495]

You must be a new librul. Any seasoned true America-hating librul will tell you that as a librul you must vote many, many times in each election.

You must be thinking about a different group. Us liberals hate America, especially it's precious constitution. That's why we purposely voted for someone that will shred it. And we're not too fond of voting either.

[JohnR! 5,495]

As if! Who needs the Constitution and the SCOTUS when we have the bible and white Jesus on our side?!?!?!?!

Murkha!!!!

Wait. Were many inalienable rights "discovered" in the US Constitution in the last century? Do not the "liberals" hope SCOTUS will find a new right for people to marry without regard to gender or sexual preference?