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