Obama to take Executive Action regarding Gun Control

[PaleoConPrep]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the president when, as a candidate for the office of presidency, criticized GWB for executive actions?
Isn’t this the president who campaigned on a promise to not circumvent Congress and govern by executive privilege?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRfrcit05M

Yes to both. However, if Congress won't work with you in general, especially on something that the majority of Americans of both parties say they want (e.g., background checks) then you use the tools you have to achieve what you can.

I'm sorry, were you trying to create a "Read my lips, no new taxes!" moment?

Some of us take a slightly more realistic view of our politics.

So, in other words, if a president does not get what he wants, he issues executive actions?
That’s not the way our government is designed.
Obama has not worked with Congress. His MO has been - outline what he wants and if he doesn’t get it, he finds a way around the law. Even if it’s unconstitutional.

You are absolutely right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the president when, as a candidate for the office of presidency, criticized GWB for executive actions?
Isn’t this the president who campaigned on a promise to not circumvent Congress and govern by executive privilege?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRfrcit05M

Yes to both. However, if Congress won't work with you in general, especially on something that the majority of Americans of both parties say they want (e.g., background checks) then you use the tools you have to achieve what you can.

I'm sorry, were you trying to create a "Read my lips, no new taxes!" moment?

Some of us take a slightly more realistic view of our politics.

So, in other words, if a president does not get what he wants, he issues executive actions?
That’s not the way our government is designed.
Obama has not worked with Congress. His MO has been - outline what he wants and if he doesn’t get it, he finds a way around the law. Even if it’s unconstitutional.

Buzz. Thank you for playing "I don't understand how my government works!"

The President wants to achieve X. He proposed it to Congress. If Congress won't cooperate with him, then he still has the power to issue Executive Orders, which govern how the Executive Branch of the government operates. Thus, he can issue an EO that says, "The Federal government will operate in accordance with X."

Congress has a couple of options at that point. They can add a provision to a bill that the President really wants to pass saying that no executive agency can spend any of its budget implementing X - forcing the President to choose between competing priorities, or if they believe the EO exceeds the Presidents authority then the go to the this branch of the government and get the courts to rule on whether the EO is violating the law or otherwise unconstitutional.

Now go back to Social Studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the president when, as a candidate for the office of presidency, criticized GWB for executive actions?
Isn’t this the president who campaigned on a promise to not circumvent Congress and govern by executive privilege?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRfrcit05M

Yes to both. However, if Congress won't work with you in general, especially on something that the majority of Americans of both parties say they want (e.g., background checks) then you use the tools you have to achieve what you can.

I'm sorry, were you trying to create a "Read my lips, no new taxes!" moment?

Some of us take a slightly more realistic view of our politics.

So, in other words, if a president does not get what he wants, he issues executive actions?
That’s not the way our government is designed.
Obama has not worked with Congress. His MO has been - outline what he wants and if he doesn’t get it, he finds a way around the law. Even if it’s unconstitutional.

Buzz. Thank you for playing "I don't understand how my government works!"

The President wants to achieve X. He proposed it to Congress. If Congress won't cooperate with him, then he still has the power to issue Executive Orders, which govern how the Executive Branch of the government operates. Thus, he can issue an EO that says, "The Federal government will operate in accordance with X."

Congress has a couple of options at that point. They can add a provision to a bill that the President really wants to pass saying that no executive agency can spend any of its budget implementing X - forcing the President to choose between competing priorities, or if they believe the EO exceeds the Presidents authority then the go to the this branch of the government and get the courts to rule on whether the EO is violating the law or otherwise unconstitutional.

Now go back to Social Studies.

Or, the president can actually work with Congress. You know, build relationships, talk with the leaders, etc.
And, we have seen that Obama’s EO’s do tend to violate our laws - e.g. his EO regarding immigration.
It will be interesting to see what he thinks he can accomplish with an EO regarding gun control.
It will likely be a “feel good” move to make his supporters think that he has tried to do something, but will accomplish little.
Or, he could go full hog and make a move that oversteps his authority. Wouldn’t put this past him either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the president when, as a candidate for the office of presidency, criticized GWB for executive actions?
Isn’t this the president who campaigned on a promise to not circumvent Congress and govern by executive privilege?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRfrcit05M

Yes to both. However, if Congress won't work with you in general, especially on something that the majority of Americans of both parties say they want (e.g., background checks) then you use the tools you have to achieve what you can.

I'm sorry, were you trying to create a "Read my lips, no new taxes!" moment?

Some of us take a slightly more realistic view of our politics.

So, in other words, if a president does not get what he wants, he issues executive actions?
That’s not the way our government is designed.
Obama has not worked with Congress. His MO has been - outline what he wants and if he doesn’t get it, he finds a way around the law. Even if it’s unconstitutional.

Buzz. Thank you for playing "I don't understand how my government works!"

The President wants to achieve X. He proposed it to Congress. If Congress won't cooperate with him, then he still has the power to issue Executive Orders, which govern how the Executive Branch of the government operates. Thus, he can issue an EO that says, "The Federal government will operate in accordance with X."

Congress has a couple of options at that point. They can add a provision to a bill that the President really wants to pass saying that no executive agency can spend any of its budget implementing X - forcing the President to choose between competing priorities, or if they believe the EO exceeds the Presidents authority then the go to the this branch of the government and get the courts to rule on whether the EO is violating the law or otherwise unconstitutional.

Now go back to Social Studies.

I guess Obama needs to go back to Social Studies as well.
Barack Obama as a candidate:
“I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the president when, as a candidate for the office of presidency, criticized GWB for executive actions?
Isn’t this the president who campaigned on a promise to not circumvent Congress and govern by executive privilege?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRfrcit05M

Yes to both. However, if Congress won't work with you in general, especially on something that the majority of Americans of both parties say they want (e.g., background checks) then you use the tools you have to achieve what you can.

I'm sorry, were you trying to create a "Read my lips, no new taxes!" moment?

Some of us take a slightly more realistic view of our politics.

So, in other words, if a president does not get what he wants, he issues executive actions?
That’s not the way our government is designed.
Obama has not worked with Congress. His MO has been - outline what he wants and if he doesn’t get it, he finds a way around the law. Even if it’s unconstitutional.

Buzz. Thank you for playing "I don't understand how my government works!"

The President wants to achieve X. He proposed it to Congress. If Congress won't cooperate with him, then he still has the power to issue Executive Orders, which govern how the Executive Branch of the government operates. Thus, he can issue an EO that says, "The Federal government will operate in accordance with X."

Congress has a couple of options at that point. They can add a provision to a bill that the President really wants to pass saying that no executive agency can spend any of its budget implementing X - forcing the President to choose between competing priorities, or if they believe the EO exceeds the Presidents authority then the go to the this branch of the government and get the courts to rule on whether the EO is violating the law or otherwise unconstitutional.

Now go back to Social Studies.

Nah. It's easier to try and rewrite history and rail about the tyrannical reign of a President facing an obstructionist, do nothing Congress with no discernible agenda other than gutting Obamacare, slashing social services and cutting the tax burden in the wealthiest Americans. It's all Obama's fault. Get used to hearing this from conservatives for the next decade or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the president when, as a candidate for the office of presidency, criticized GWB for executive actions?
Isn’t this the president who campaigned on a promise to not circumvent Congress and govern by executive privilege?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRfrcit05M

Yes to both. However, if Congress won't work with you in general, especially on something that the majority of Americans of both parties say they want (e.g., background checks) then you use the tools you have to achieve what you can.

I'm sorry, were you trying to create a "Read my lips, no new taxes!" moment?

Some of us take a slightly more realistic view of our politics.

So, in other words, if a president does not get what he wants, he issues executive actions?
That’s not the way our government is designed.
Obama has not worked with Congress. His MO has been - outline what he wants and if he doesn’t get it, he finds a way around the law. Even if it’s unconstitutional.

Buzz. Thank you for playing "I don't understand how my government works!"

The President wants to achieve X. He proposed it to Congress. If Congress won't cooperate with him, then he still has the power to issue Executive Orders, which govern how the Executive Branch of the government operates. Thus, he can issue an EO that says, "The Federal government will operate in accordance with X."

Congress has a couple of options at that point. They can add a provision to a bill that the President really wants to pass saying that no executive agency can spend any of its budget implementing X - forcing the President to choose between competing priorities, or if they believe the EO exceeds the Presidents authority then the go to the this branch of the government and get the courts to rule on whether the EO is violating the law or otherwise unconstitutional.

Now go back to Social Studies.

Or, the president can actually work with Congress. You know, build relationships, talk with the leaders, etc.
And, we have seen that Obama’s EO’s do tend to violate our laws - e.g. his EO regarding immigration.
It will be interesting to see what he thinks he can accomplish with an EO regarding gun control.
It will likely be a “feel good” move to make his supporters think that he has tried to do something, but will accomplish little.
Or, he could go full hog and make a move that oversteps his authority. Wouldn’t put this past him either.

Hahaha! Work with Congress... An organization that is now run by people who on day one when he was elected made it their primary purpose in life to 'make sure he is a one term president'

The Republicans obstructed him on EVERYTHING right from day one. And now they control both chambers. They have zero interest in a relationship, they have zero interest in talk. That is rich, 'work with Congress' - have you been living under a rock these last 6 years, PP? Because it's obvious you have no clue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the president when, as a candidate for the office of presidency, criticized GWB for executive actions?
Isn’t this the president who campaigned on a promise to not circumvent Congress and govern by executive privilege?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRfrcit05M

Yes to both. However, if Congress won't work with you in general, especially on something that the majority of Americans of both parties say they want (e.g., background checks) then you use the tools you have to achieve what you can.

I'm sorry, were you trying to create a "Read my lips, no new taxes!" moment?

Some of us take a slightly more realistic view of our politics.

So, in other words, if a president does not get what he wants, he issues executive actions?
That’s not the way our government is designed.
Obama has not worked with Congress. His MO has been - outline what he wants and if he doesn’t get it, he finds a way around the law. Even if it’s unconstitutional.

Civics lesson of the day- there are THREE parts of government - the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. The problem is that Congress wants to act like they are the only ones with power and authority, as though they are the only ones running the show, but per the Constitution, that was never intended to be the case. They have from day one tried abusing their power to shut down and sabotage the President, even to the point of dangerously shutting government down completely if they can't get their way. Checks and balances are a two way street. The President was vested with powers as a means of working past a dysfunctional, obstructive Congress, such as we have now.

[Anonymous]

"Work with congress"

Yeah, that's pretty rich.

[Anonymous]

Such bold leadership!

[PaleoConPrep]

None of this matters. When Cruz is elected President, Obamas legacy will be history. Maybe Obama can work for the UN.

[Anonymous]

PaleoConPrep wrote:None of this matters. When Cruz is elected President, Obamas legacy will be history. Maybe Obama can work for the UN.

When Cruz is elected President, we will have handed the country over to corporate plutocrats and the Constitution will no longer matter.

[PaleoConPrep]

Anonymous wrote:

PaleoConPrep wrote:None of this matters. When Cruz is elected President, Obamas legacy will be history. Maybe Obama can work for the UN.

When Cruz is elected President, we will have handed the country over to corporate plutocrats and the Constitution will no longer matter.

The Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing to hussein Obama. Cruz is a Constitutionalist. After Nov 8, Hillary will finally retire.

[Anonymous]

PaleoConPrep wrote:None of this matters. When Cruz is elected President, Obamas legacy will be history. Maybe Obama can work for the UN.

Rafael, can you go find something better to do -- other than exploiting your children as political props?

[Anonymous]

This is a great way to drive gun sales up.

[Anonymous]

PaleoConPrep wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PaleoConPrep wrote:None of this matters. When Cruz is elected President, Obamas legacy will be history. Maybe Obama can work for the UN.

When Cruz is elected President, we will have handed the country over to corporate plutocrats and the Constitution will no longer matter.

The Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing to hussein Obama. Cruz is a Constitutionalist. After Nov 8, Hillary will finally retire.

I thought Chuck Baldwin was a Constitutionalist and that's why you were pimping him on another thread? It's hard to keep track of the crazies who are busy fellating gin-toting evangelicals. Isn't Virgil Goode batshit enough for you clowns anymore?