Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Obama now rules by Decree

Page 3 of 7 [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

31 Oct 2011, 8:57 am

Dox47 wrote:
Libya? Bradley Manning? Secret death warrants? Pick a questionable decree, there are plenty to go around.

Libya ended out well. Bradley Manning was an insult against humanity. Secret death warrants? Tell me about those secret death warrants.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Oct 2011, 10:14 am

Gedrene wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Libya? Bradley Manning? Secret death warrants? Pick a questionable decree, there are plenty to go around.

Libya ended out well. Bradley Manning was an insult against humanity. Secret death warrants? Tell me about those secret death warrants.


Assassination by drone. The orders to carry them out are, in effect, death warrants. This can be done legally under the constitution. If Congress ordains a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, the President can take fatal action against a non-state entity. I am not sure how or if Congress authorized the Presdident to do those actions but in any case Congress is not threatening impeachment so the President can do what he can get away with. He is our Elected King.

Article 1 of the United States Constitution lists issuing letters of marque and reprisal in Section 8 as one of the enumerated powers of Congress, alongside the power of taxation and the ability to "declare War."

See article on Letters of Marque and Reprisal in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

ruveyn



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

31 Oct 2011, 10:16 am

ruveyn wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Libya? Bradley Manning? Secret death warrants? Pick a questionable decree, there are plenty to go around.

Libya ended out well. Bradley Manning was an insult against humanity. Secret death warrants? Tell me about those secret death warrants.


Assassination by drone. The orders to carry them out are, in effect, death warrants. This can be done legally under the constitution. If Congress ordains a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, the President can take fatal action against a non-state entity. I am not sure how or if Congress authorized the Presdident to do those actions but in any case Congress is not threatening impeachment so the President can do what he can get away with. He is our Elected King.

Article 1 of the United States Constitution lists issuing letters of marque and reprisal in Section 8 as one of the enumerated powers of Congress, alongside the power of taxation and the ability to "declare War."

See article on Letters of Marque and Reprisal in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

ruveyn

Aye, so death warrants against awlaki certainly weren't bad in any way at all it seems.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

31 Oct 2011, 10:40 am

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

But with Cain, it would be at the expense of sanity.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Do you call the last 10.5 years sanity?

ruveyn


On the part of the loony right, no.

And it has to be remembered, Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory without Congressional consent, but no one holds that against him today. And Lincoln certainly stretched what was constitutionally appropriate as president, but today, most agree there was a legitimate need for it. And as I remember, one of Lincoln's severest critics on that point was John Wilkes Boothe, who whined that Lincoln was becoming a dictator.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Oct 2011, 10:49 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
[
And it has to be remembered, Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory without Congressional consent, but no one holds that against him today. And Lincoln certainly stretched what was constitutionally appropriate as president, but today, most agree there was a legitimate need for it. And as I remember, one of Lincoln's severest critics on that point was John Wilkes Boothe, who whined that Lincoln was becoming a dictator.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Which is true. Abe Lincoln suspended the right of habeus corpus which is a power of Congress. Lincoln was the Elected King of the Union States. He also had anti-war newspaper editors jailed without charges.

ruveyn



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

31 Oct 2011, 10:53 am

ruveyn wrote:
He has issued an order relieving college students of repaying their loans. That was MY money the government used to put this people through school. I want the principle repaid with interest. The students signed a legal contract to repay principle with interest and King Obama has nullified the contract they signed (to their benefit). Does he have the legal right and power to deny the tax payers that their money be returned? What he did was, at the very least, legally questionable. Does the U.S. Constitution grant the power to the POTUS to forgive loans? the POTUS can pardon, but can he forgive loans?

ruveyn


Let's be clear, it was not your money. Once that money is remitted to the United States, you have no further property interest in that money. It has ceased to be your property and has become the property of the United States. While you might claim a theoretical, reversionary interest in those funds, it is of no legal significance. Political hyperbole does not serve to demonstrate legal error.

I see no reason why the President cannot forgive indebtedness to the United States unless the statute authorizing the extension of the loans to individuals restricts that capacity. By all means do the legal research to demonstrate that Congress has circumscribed the government's authority to forgive indebtedness, generally, or student load indebtedness in particular, and I will happily amend my view.


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Oct 2011, 10:55 am

visagrunt wrote:

Let's be clear, it was not your money. Once that money is remitted to the United States, you have no further property interest in that money. It has ceased to be your property and has become the property of the United States.


That is exactly what any thief would claim.

Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.
Othello Act 3, scene 3, 155–161

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

31 Oct 2011, 10:57 am

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
[
And it has to be remembered, Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory without Congressional consent, but no one holds that against him today. And Lincoln certainly stretched what was constitutionally appropriate as president, but today, most agree there was a legitimate need for it. And as I remember, one of Lincoln's severest critics on that point was John Wilkes Boothe, who whined that Lincoln was becoming a dictator.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Which is true. Abe Lincoln suspended the right of habeus corpus which is a power of Congress. Lincoln was the Elected King of the Union States. He also had anti-war newspaper editors jailed without charges.

ruveyn


For which legitimate historians today are more than willing to give him a pass. Freeing the slaves, and saving the union tends to get you that sort of consideration.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

31 Oct 2011, 11:10 am

The use of unmanned attack aircraft (the so-called "drones", more accurately RPVs, or remote-piloted vehicles) against members of al-Qaeda or former officials of the Taliban "government" of Afghanistan is pretty clearly authorized by the second of two Congressional resolutions in 2002, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Public Law 107-40). The specific usage of a given military asset is quite plainly under the purview of the President, in his role as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. (Usually, but not always, the President lets the military commanders under him handle specifics; OTOH, certain actions have been authorized by the office of the President specifically, for example the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was also an incident during the War of 1812, when President Madison assumed personal command of a unit a few miles from the capitol, but I'm not certain that's germane in this instance.)

Still not exactly comparable with, for instance, the use of the USA PATRIOT Act to "justify" warrantless wiretaps (which have yet to produce any terrorist information at all - why, it's almost as though the terrorists didn't have a large presence within the United States or something!), or the waterboarding debacle...


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Oct 2011, 11:14 am

DeaconBlues wrote:
The use of unmanned attack aircraft (the so-called "drones", more accurately RPVs, or remote-piloted vehicles) against members of al-Qaeda or former officials of the Taliban "government" of Afghanistan is pretty clearly authorized by the second of two Congressional resolutions in 2002, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Public Law 107-40). The specific usage of a given military asset is quite plainly under the purview of the President, in his role as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. (Usually, but not always, the President lets the military commanders under him handle specifics; OTOH, certain actions have been authorized by the office of the President specifically, for example the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was also an incident during the War of 1812, when President Madison assumed personal command of a unit a few miles from the capitol, but I'm not certain that's germane in this instance.)
.


In what year and on what day that that year was war declared?

By the way, the war of 1812 was a declared war, so Madison was acting legally.

ruveyn



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

31 Oct 2011, 11:15 am

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
[
And it has to be remembered, Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory without Congressional consent, but no one holds that against him today. And Lincoln certainly stretched what was constitutionally appropriate as president, but today, most agree there was a legitimate need for it. And as I remember, one of Lincoln's severest critics on that point was John Wilkes Boothe, who whined that Lincoln was becoming a dictator.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Which is true. Abe Lincoln suspended the right of habeus corpus which is a power of Congress. Lincoln was the Elected King of the Union States. He also had anti-war newspaper editors jailed without charges.

ruveyn

And? Are we goint to play the old ought with is game? Lincoln was fighting a war against an opponent who broke way more rules than he ever did. I don't like the suspending of habeas corpus, but he wasn't alone in the act. He's done it better than Obama, who pretty much continues to suspend the Habeas Corpus of Manning and I am sure a whle squad of innocents at Guantanamo.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

31 Oct 2011, 11:18 am

ruveyn wrote:
visagrunt wrote:

Let's be clear, it was not your money. Once that money is remitted to the United States, you have no further property interest in that money. It has ceased to be your property and has become the property of the United States.


That is exactly what any thief would claim.

Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.
Othello Act 3, scene 3, 155–161

ruveyn
And yet Obama has made many people's lives richer by giving them an education? I am sure that enrichens him. I am sure it is also a government's job to tax people in order to not get in debt, like the Republicans keep doing.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Oct 2011, 11:20 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

For which legitimate historians today are more than willing to give him a pass. Freeing the slaves, and saving the union tends to get you that sort of consideration.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The outcome of the Civil War plus the 17 th Amendment pretty well finished off the -Federal- system ordained by the Founders. States are no long sovereign political entities. Prior to the 17 th the Senate represented the States. Now they represent the people of the States. States are now mere Departments as in France.

ruveyn



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

31 Oct 2011, 11:24 am

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

For which legitimate historians today are more than willing to give him a pass. Freeing the slaves, and saving the union tends to get you that sort of consideration.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The outcome of the Civil War plus the 17 th Amendment pretty well finished off the -Federal- system ordained by the Founders. States are no long sovereign political entities. Prior to the 17 th the Senate represented the States. Now they represent the people of the States. States are now mere Departments as in France.

ruveyn

Yet ironically I don't think anyone can doubt that the slave recapture law can be considered a good example of state's rights. In fact it's an outright violation. And who was it pushed by? Southern states.

If anyone is to blame for causing the erosion of states' rights it is the south for the slave retrieval (or whatever) law and also the decisions just before the civil law in the Supreme Court.

The first amendment has more of a corrosive effect on States' rights to bully people than any civil war or reconstruction amendment ever did.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

31 Oct 2011, 12:50 pm

ruveyn wrote:
That is exactly what any thief would claim.

Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.
Othello Act 3, scene 3, 155–161

ruveyn


Theft has a distinct legal meaning, honed over centuries of Common Law jurisprudence: the conversion of property without colour of right.

You cannot for a moment pretend that the United States does not have colour of right to convert your money to its use. You may properly argue that it is coercive, oppressive, excessive or unfairly assessed. But you cannot make a credible claim that it is illegal.

Now, the question still remains--does the President of the United States have the legal capacity to forgive indebtedness due to the United States? I think the answer is an unequivocal, "yes," unless there is a particular statutory incapacity built into the legislation that enables the creation of the debt. For example, how many times has the United States settled a claim in court for back taxes for a percentage of the total indebtedness? Who has the authority to agree to such a settlement? It is abundantly clear that such an authority lies with the Executive branch of government. That which the government can do sub iudice it seems apparent to me that it can do pre iudice.


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Oct 2011, 12:59 pm

visagrunt wrote:

Now, the question still remains--does the President of the United States have the legal capacity to forgive indebtedness due to the United States? I think the answer is an unequivocal, "yes," unless there is a particular statutory incapacity built into the legislation that enables the creation of the debt. For example, how many times has the United States settled a claim in court for back taxes for a percentage of the total indebtedness? Who has the authority to agree to such a settlement? It is abundantly clear that such an authority lies with the Executive branch of government. That which the government can do sub iudice it seems apparent to me that it can do pre iudice.


That power is not granted by the Constitution. Whatever is not granted and taken is usurped.

ruveyn