Obama now rules by Decree

Post Reply New Topic

Of course, and it is not granted as opposed to any other tax this time around because you say so.

Well, the collection and foregiveness of idebtedness due to the United States appears to me to be an executive power, which Article II vests in the President. Unless and until the legislative branch passes law that deprives the executive of the authority to do so, there appears to me to be no constitutional objection whatsoever to the President exercising this function, since administration of the government falls entirely within his jurisdiction.

While the notion of the states protecting individual rights of their people was a high ideal, it hardly has worked out that way in reality. Unpopular minorities, whether they're blacks, gays, or communists, etc. have had they're rights stifled at the state level time and time again. It's been the federal government that has been the authority to step in in order to protect the rights of all citizens.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

And see what a bang up job has been done! The Federal government has been given carte blance to exercise the power of eminent domain. In short, the Central Government can now steal your land. Whoopie. Some right's protection

Now consider the reverse case. In Oregon under their state law people suffering from intractable pain (as from cancer) are permitted medical canibus. The Central Government has stepped in to prevent it.

The Government of the United States has long since abandoned the principles of equal protection of the laws and has fully backed the Rule of the Cronies.

ruveyn

I admit it hasn't always been perfect, but in most cases it has been, such as the enforcement of civil rights.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Hmm I always thought it was the Lobbyist that ruled by Decree.

Should have followed the link I provided. Public Law 107-40 was passed by the House and Senate on September 18, 2001. It states "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Note that it calls only for the judgement of the sitting President as to who exactly these people are, and what force is "appropriate" and "necessary". What's more, the next paragraph states that this law fulfills the purpose of the War Powers Act, so the President never has to go back and ask this to be renewed. Personally, I feel that this law overreaches just a bit, as it declares war against a concept, and has no firm end date, but it is indeed a law as passed by Congress, and all actions taken under cover of this resolution are therefore legal.

On a side note, you and Kraichgauer are arguing nonsense. The executive order you so fear, as has been pointed out at least twice in this thread alone, does not in any way, shape, or form call for "forgiveness" of student debt - rather, in a similar fashion to housing-finance reform, it permits a student to consolidate debts and perhaps lower his or her interest rate, increasing the likelihood that the loan will be repaid. The monies concerned will indeed be paid back (and the interest isn't "your money" - it's charged by the bank or other organization doing the actual loaning, and goes to that corporation. The Department of Education merely guarantees the loan, and seeks repayment should there be a default. It's not that different from the VA loan program, in that regard).

Or are we to prevent the Executive Branch from having any control over how its own departments handle the business delegated to them by the Legislative? Because, as a resident of a state where everything seems to have to run through either the state legislature or a public vote, that's no way to get anything done. At all.

1. That is not a declaration of war.
2. The power to declare war is a congressional power according to the constitution
3. The congress is nowhere given (in the constitution) the power to transfer its powers to any other branch of government

therefore that Public Law is unconstitutional.

Not that it makes an difference. The government does as it pleases and the courts rarely stop it.

ruveyn

It's a little more complicated than that. We have a medical marijuana law here in California, too, and the vast majority of 'patients' do not have a legitimate medical need for the stuff. I once had a housemate who had a prescription for it because, and I quote, 'It helps him relax.' This was a young, healthy college student with no obligations besides school.

I support medical marijuana use - my aunt used it while she was in chemotherapy - but the vast majority of pot grown under the auspices of that ordinance are actually grown for profit. A lot of it gets shipped out of state. While I don't think it's as bad as other drugs, and while I agree it should be legal, I don't have a problem with the feds shutting down bogus operations that are stretching current law beyond what it should allow.

It is sometimes dangerous to quote "Othello", especially Othello the character himself. Great service to Iago is often made available through quotation of Othello, as Iago's manipulations led Othello's line of thought.

With Othello, looking for confusions beyond the ictal part, I discovered that not only was Iago one of the earliest sociopaths in literature, he was also one of the earliest practicing neuropsychiatrists in literature. The complex villain Iago describes, with his sociopathic intent, Othello's alleged post-ictal psychosis from a partial complex seizure to an inspiring degree for modern neuropsychiatrists' great delight, and expands his being a role-model further beyond just rattlesnake psychiatrists' spitting their venom (Amazon-dot-com Look Inside, p.81) (book, p. 83). "Secondary Schizophrenia" by Sacdev and Keshavan (March 15, 2010), p.83.
http://books.google.com/books?id=44_zy3 ... io&f=false

Thagard's book, "The Brain and the Meaning of Life" (Feb 2010), has jumped in the ratings, and now I'm more concerned with his address to political scientists, because of the latest State issued Fake Legal Notices and Fake Laws, along with the Fake Amnesty Law (Pandemonium was reported at the rendering auditorium when the truth became known about the Fake government). It seems like many Human Rights are treated by the government as being Fake also, even with Medical Ethics. I wonder if fake laws can only be challenged in a fake court, and that's why AEDs with Medicaid is such bizzare bureaucracy between the Governor and the Federal Courts (now before the U.S. Supreme Court).

With your misleading and incorrect sentences: "That power is not granted by the Constitution. Whatever is not granted and taken is usurped."
You have again reduced the President to having fewer rights than an ordinary citizen.

Tadzio

Last edited by Tadzio on 01 Nov 2011, 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Not to change the direction of the conversation, but I have to say, Othello is my favorite play by the Bard, and Iago has to be one of the greatest fictional villains of all time!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

But those that do have a real need can suffer in agony. The Law is the Law. Right?

Do we punish the Just for the sake of the Unjust?

ruveyn

I was thinking today and then it struck me. This paragraph utter BS.

First of all, are you worried about the banks? The same banks that got incredibly awesome bailouts a couple of years ago? The banks owe the US government a lot, so this pardon is the least they can do so that THEY give it back.

Second, tax payers getting their money back? Are you a tax payer, I'd guess yes. Then do you have children in college (I'd say no). Cause the students are all tax payers and family to tax payers. Are you a business owner/entrepreneur? Cause this pardon is going to mean that the money that won't go in paying the loans will go into consumption of whatever product and service you provide. Are you not a student nor parent to a student and are not a business owner/entrepreneur nor a bank? Then I gotta wonder what exactly is it that you do to help your country that makes you entitled to a say in this...

That, and I don't think Obama did any such thing.

As someone who owes on student loans, if the great Obama was making it all go away, I'd hear about it. He hasn't.

He is mucking about with the repayment scheme...doing now what was supposed to happen anyway in a couple of years, but it was a showman's move to boost popularity for his upcoming election. All it does is lighten the monthly payments now, but it leaves the ultimate mess unresolved...as always.

Nope. I say that this would be wrong.

It is very simple. The U.S. Constitution does not grant the President the power to forgive loans are change the terms of repayments on loans. It is that simple....

The President can issue pardons, but not loan forgiveness.....

ruveyn