Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 00:16:31
Subject: Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Umber Guard
|
While listening to Obama's speech in Russia something really stuck. I couldn't figure out what it was until I remembered the wording of the second Article of the US Constitution which I sited in another post as to how Obama was violating the Constitution with his near incessant appointments of "Czars". Article Two, Section Two is as follows: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. Obama has promised to cut a further 30% of our nuclear arsenal from our obligations under the START II treaty. Where was the two thirds vote in Congress on this? Why does this "President" continue to wipe his ass with the Foundation Document of this Great Nation? "Mr. President aren't you breaking the law?" Obama takes off his Judge Dredd mask, "I am the law!"
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/07/09 00:17:27
Your side is always the "will of the people" the other side is always fundamentalist, extremist, hatemongers, racists, anti- semitic nazies with questionable education and more questionable hygiene. American politics 101.
-SGT Scruffy
~10,000 pts (Retired)
Protectorate of Menoth 75pts (and Growing) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 00:34:14
Subject: Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Because sadly our nation has become so soft that we lack the spine to stand up and do anything about it, even when its plain as day.
Bush did it for 8 years, why change now?
Lets add this to my list of stupid things that shouldnt be that includes:
* The minority ruleing the majority (Ex why the hell should we change our Pledge, national anthem ect ect just because you hate the word God? FU!)
* People abuseing Welfare/handouts
* Illegals allowed to collect SS, Welfare, Get DL's ect ect
The list goes on but you get the idea.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/07/09 00:39:56
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 00:38:45
Subject: Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Again, czars are officials within the executive branch. They have no authority of their own, and derive any power from the office of the President. Essentially they are high-ranking staffers who are charged to become experts on a given issue area.
As for the matter with Russia: Obama never signed a treaty, so the Article doesn't apply. Congress is nominally called to vote on the ratification of a treaty, not its negotiation.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/07/09 00:47:45
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 00:45:12
Subject: Re:Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Umber Guard
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKId8akx6bA
No pen has gone to papaer, that much is true, but he's declared as much will happen. A little unilateral wouldn't you say?
On the Czar thing, I disagree with you, Politicians (A Senior Democrat amongst them) disagree with you, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
Your side is always the "will of the people" the other side is always fundamentalist, extremist, hatemongers, racists, anti- semitic nazies with questionable education and more questionable hygiene. American politics 101.
-SGT Scruffy
~10,000 pts (Retired)
Protectorate of Menoth 75pts (and Growing) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 00:57:12
Subject: Re:Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Tyras wrote:
No pen has gone to papaer, that much is true, but he's declared as much will happen. A little unilateral wouldn't you say?
Not really. This is how Start I, II, and III were handled. Its also how GWB handled SORT. In fact, I can't think of a single treaty in the last 50 years that called Congress to vote prior to ratification.
Edit: After a little digging I discovered that this is also how the Treaty of Tripoli (the first treaty in US history) was dealt with. Albeit via a Commissioner Plenipotentiary rather than a President.
Tyras wrote:
On the Czar thing, I disagree with you, Politicians (A Senior Democrat amongst them) disagree with you, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Well, we can't really disagree on what they are. They can only be members of the Executive Branch as they do not have official authority over the organizations they are instructed to oversee. The issue in question is whether or not they constitute Officers of the United States. My claim is that they lack an office, and so cannot be officers (czar is not an official title). This renders them distinct from cabinet level postings in that those men possess an office independent of the President's.
To me the whole 'czar' thing is little more than a publicity stunt. Unofficial experts have existed within the Executive throughout history. It was only Reagan's decision to place the 'drug czar' in the public eye which has given rise to the popularity of the term.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2009/07/09 01:01:19
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 01:17:22
Subject: Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot
|
jp400 wrote:(Ex why the hell should we change our Pledge,
The pledge didn't have "under God" in it until recently.
Also, it breaks the rhythm. It should be out of here.
"One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.".... that makes sense. We're one nation, and we cannot be divided into more than one.
"One nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."... that sucks. Not only does it sound bad, but it just turns into a laundry list of adjectives.
|
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 01:24:42
Subject: Re:Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Stubborn Hammerer
|
I like the czars. The authority of Mother Russia is here! If there's work for them to be done then let 'em at it I say.
OT
The pledge itself is a fairly recent addition to the American tradition. Try the star spangled banner.
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
Although things do change.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 01:26:48
Subject: Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Wrack Sufferer
|
jp400 wrote:Bush did it for 8 years, why change now? 
Most of our modern presidents haven't really been going by the books...
I'd say it's a shame, but does anyone really care anymore? Anyone with power that is.
Orkeosaurus wrote:jp400 wrote:(Ex why the hell should we change our Pledge,
The pledge didn't have "under God" in it until recently.
Also, it breaks the rhythm. It should be out of here.
"One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.".... that makes sense. We're one nation, and we cannot be divided into more than one.
"One nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."... that sucks. Not only does it sound bad, but it just turns into a laundry list of adjectives.
Agreed sir.
|
Once upon a time, I told myself it's better to be smart than lucky. Every day, the world proves me wrong a little more. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 01:28:12
Subject: Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot
|
Scrabb wrote:The pledge itself is a fairly recent addition to the American tradition. Try the star spangled banner. And this be our motto: "In God is our trust." Although things do change.
I don't mind those. They don't sound awkward.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/07/09 01:31:29
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 01:33:52
Subject: Re:Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Umber Guard
|
dogma wrote:Tyras wrote: No pen has gone to papaer, that much is true, but he's declared as much will happen. A little unilateral wouldn't you say? Not really. This is how Start I, II, and III were handled. Its also how GWB handled SORT. In fact, I can't think of a single treaty in the last 50 years that called Congress to vote prior to ratification. Edit: After a little digging I discovered that this is also how the Treaty of Tripoli (the first treaty in US history) was dealt with. Albeit via a Commissioner Plenipotentiary rather than a President. Tyras wrote: On the Czar thing, I disagree with you, Politicians (A Senior Democrat amongst them) disagree with you, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Well, we can't really disagree on what they are. They can only be members of the Executive Branch as they do not have official authority over the organizations they are instructed to oversee. The issue in question is whether or not they constitute Officers of the United States. My claim is that they lack an office, and so cannot be officers (czar is not an official title). This renders them distinct from cabinet level postings in that those men possess an office independent of the President's. To me the whole 'czar' thing is little more than a publicity stunt. Unofficial experts have existed within the Executive throughout history. It was only Reagan's decision to place the 'drug czar' in the public eye which has given rise to the popularity of the term. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/13/herb-allison-fannie-mae-c_n_186451.html they do not have official authority over the organizations they are instructed to oversee
It sure looks like Mr. Allison is running the show there. He's Obama's TARP Czar. He might be running in Obama's stead, but sure as  he's calling the shots. I pulled it from the Huffingtonpost so I don't get your standard "ya can't trust that site it's right leaning" bit that you come up with for all the other news media I link or quote. Granted it is a Wallstreet Journal article, it was vetted by the ultra left Huffpo. These Obama appointees are making decisions and using the power of the office of the President to enforce them. They are not confirmed by Congress, they have no oversight, and answer only to the man that created their job and thusly signs their paycheck. How this is not a violation of Article Two of the Constitution is unfathonable to me. You stated in the comic thread that DC had done more research than I had and was thus in a better postion to judge what was right and wrong. I'll use the same argument here. If a Senior Senator like, Senator Byrd says it's unconstitutional I'm sure he's in a much more educated position than you to make that call.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/07/09 01:36:17
Your side is always the "will of the people" the other side is always fundamentalist, extremist, hatemongers, racists, anti- semitic nazies with questionable education and more questionable hygiene. American politics 101.
-SGT Scruffy
~10,000 pts (Retired)
Protectorate of Menoth 75pts (and Growing) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 01:34:30
Subject: Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Wrack Sufferer
|
Orkeosaurus wrote:Scrabb wrote:The pledge itself is a fairly recent addition to the American tradition. Try the star spangled banner.
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
Although things do change.
I don't mind those. They don't sound awkward.
'Merca is a Christian country after all!
...what was that? Oh, all races, creeds and religions. Really?
|
Once upon a time, I told myself it's better to be smart than lucky. Every day, the world proves me wrong a little more. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 01:47:27
Subject: Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot
|
I don't worship a pyramid with an eye on it either, that doesn't mean I need it taken off of the dollar.
|
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 02:02:21
Subject: Re:Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
He has to be confirmed by Congress, Obama merely nominated him. It says so in the article you linked.
If confirmed, Mr. Allison will become point person for what has become an unpopular program.
This makes sense, given that he has an office independent of the Presidency.
Tyras wrote:
I pulled it from the Huffingtonpost so I don't get your standard "ya can't trust that site it's right leaning" bit that you come up with for all the other news media I link or quote. Granted it is a Wallstreet Journal article, it was vetted by the ultra left Huffpo.
I don't believe I ever said you couldn't trust a site because it was it was right leaning. I noted that one of the links you provided placed a right-leaning spin on benign factual information, but that's all.
Tyras wrote:
These Obama appointees are making decisions and using the power of the office of the President to enforce them.
To my knowledge the most significant critique mounted against the czar system has come from former czars. That being their inability to deal with the issue with which they were charged due to a lack of actual power. In essence they are Presidential assistants that speak with people for whom the President does not have time.
Tyras wrote:
They are not confirmed by Congress, they have no oversight, and answer only to the man that created their job and thusly signs their paycheck.
Actually, some of them are confirmed by Congress. Six to be exact.
Those that aren't confirmed are overseen by the office of the President, and therefore ultimately by Congress. If they step out of line, then the President has stepped out of line. This is the ultimate weakness of the system if it is intended as a power play.
Tyras wrote:
How this is not a violation of Article Two of the Constitution is unfathonable to me.
You're reading what you believe to be intent, and not letter. That's why it isn't a violation.
Tyras wrote:
You stated in the comic thread that DC had done more research than I had and was thus in a better postion to judge what was right and wrong. I'll use the same argument here. If a Senior Senator like, Senator Byrd says it's unconstitutional I'm sure he's in a much more educated position than you to make that call.
Who knows. Most (in theory all) of this information is publicly available. The stuff DC might view is not. To me that makes a difference.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 02:17:21
Subject: Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
|
It is different between promising to do what he said and actually going ahead and getting rid of the nuke.
He'll still need to pass this through parliament. He can't do just like that (imagine clicking of fingers).
If Parliement/Senate/Whatever votes in favour then it's alright.
If they say no then Obama is not true to his word. (unless he promised to TRY)
|
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 03:14:56
Subject: Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
I'm guessing Obama was supposed to stand up and say 'I pledge a non-binding agreement to put to Congress a suggestion to consider a mutal reduction in nuclear weapons'.
Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't worship a pyramid with an eye on it either, that doesn't mean I need it taken off of the dollar.
You think you don't....
Mwahahaha!
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 12:12:14
Subject: Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Thats actually what he's doing Sebster. Congress has to approve treaties. Further, those treaties cannot violate the Bill of Rights or the relevant passages are void.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 19:28:37
Subject: Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine
Murfreesboro, TN
|
Approval of treaties? *glances at the balance in Congress* No sweat.
Bill of Rights? Unless there's some citizen out there with some nukes in his personal arsenal, I don't see how any part of the BoR affects nuke-disarmament treaties.
|
As a rule of thumb, the designers do not hide "easter eggs" in the rules. If clever reading is required to unlock some sort of hidden option, then it is most likely the result of wishful thinking.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake;
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
Member of the "No Retreat for Calgar" Club |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 19:31:28
Subject: Re:Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Umber Guard
|
The constitution, not the bill of rights.
|
Your side is always the "will of the people" the other side is always fundamentalist, extremist, hatemongers, racists, anti- semitic nazies with questionable education and more questionable hygiene. American politics 101.
-SGT Scruffy
~10,000 pts (Retired)
Protectorate of Menoth 75pts (and Growing) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 19:39:20
Subject: Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
lord_sutekh wrote:Approval of treaties? *glances at the balance in Congress* No sweat.
Bill of Rights? Unless there's some citizen out there with some nukes in his personal arsenal, I don't see how any part of the BoR affects nuke-disarmament treaties.
Wo, WTF is that about? I was clarifying that the President cannot unilaterally bind the US to a treaty. It has to be approved by Congress (can’t remember if both or just the Senate). Treaties have to be enacted like legislation.
Treaties still have to abide by the Bill of Rights/Constitution or the law that enacts the treaty can be found unconstitutional. Aka President Bob cannot unilaterally bind the US to a treaty that says US citizens no longer have the right of free speech. The scary part is I don’t believe this is settled law…
Same thing Tyras. Sorry I should have said both but I was specifically thinking of scenarios given to us in law school where the executive/Congress tried to get around the Billl of Rights via foreign treaties.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/09 19:42:27
Subject: Re:Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Umber Guard
|
I was just correcting lord_sutekh, who seemed to be confused by Article two of the US Constitution and the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/07/09 19:42:53
Your side is always the "will of the people" the other side is always fundamentalist, extremist, hatemongers, racists, anti- semitic nazies with questionable education and more questionable hygiene. American politics 101.
-SGT Scruffy
~10,000 pts (Retired)
Protectorate of Menoth 75pts (and Growing) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/10 08:36:40
Subject: Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine
Murfreesboro, TN
|
And I was responding to Frazz's post right above mine. Y'all got some short memories, or some eye-sight problems, one or the other.
|
As a rule of thumb, the designers do not hide "easter eggs" in the rules. If clever reading is required to unlock some sort of hidden option, then it is most likely the result of wishful thinking.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake;
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
Member of the "No Retreat for Calgar" Club |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2009/07/10 13:41:28
Subject: Obama and the US Constitution
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
|
The mass amount of American legislation flying about the place is disturbing...
And it's making a big mess too.
|
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
"Good game guys, now lets hit the showers" |
|
 |
 |
|