Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap

[xBiffx]

http://www.nationalreview.com/385979/feds-obama-broke-law-bergdahl-swap-joel-gehrke

I would agree that even though Obama thinks the law is unconstitutional, it was passed in accordance with our rules regarding lawmaking, and he broke it.

My prediction, however, is that not a damn thing becomes of this.

 

[waggy]

http://www.nationalreview.com/385979/feds-obama-broke-law-bergdahl-swap-joel-gehrke

I would agree that even though Obama thinks the law is unconstitutional, it was passed in accordance with our rules regarding lawmaking, and he broke it.

My prediction, however, is that not a damn thing becomes of this.

i was just going to post this.

but of course NOTHING is going to come out of this. there is nothing anyone can do. send him back? lol

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.nationalreview.com/385979/feds-obama-broke-law-bergdahl-swap-joel-gehrke

I would agree that even though Obama thinks the law is unconstitutional, it was passed in accordance with our rules regarding lawmaking, and he broke it.

My prediction, however, is that not a damn thing becomes of this.

Well that's sort of the point: if the law is unconstitutional it doesn't matter what it says. I mean every law that's ever been ruled to be unconstitutional was passed in accordance with our rules regarding lawmaking.

As to what would come of it, I'm not even sure what could. Are we going to demand he give Bergdahl back? Are we going to impeach Obama?

 

[xBiffx]

send him back? lol

Obama or Bergdahl? :sneaky:

Both are defective.

 

[xBiffx]

Well that's sort of the point: if the law is unconstitutional it doesn't matter what it says. I mean every law that's ever been ruled to be unconstitutional was passed in accordance with our rules regarding lawmaking.

As to what would come of it, I'm not even sure what could. Are we going to demand he give Bergdahl back? Are we going to impeach Obama?

Yes, but its not within the purview of the executive to decide what is and isn't constitutional and act according to its own decision. Pretty much goes against our entire form and basis of government and separation of powers. In a dictatorship, you would have a point.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, but its not within the purview of the executive to decide what is and isn't constitutional and act according to its own decision. Kinda goes against our entire form and basis of government with separation of powers.

No, definitely not. It is absolutely within the purview of all three branches to determine what is and isn't constitutional and to act accordingly. It's the only way our system can function.

Under our accepted system of law we give the Supreme Court the final say but tons of decisions have to be made every year that don't involve their input and require interpretation by the various branches of government.

To use an extreme example, if Congress and the prior president signed a law that declared all guns in America were to be confiscated on the day before a new president were sworn in would he be compelled to enforce such an obviously unconstitutional law until the courts stepped in?

 

[waggy]

Obama or Bergdahl? :sneaky:

Both are defective.

sure! send bergdahl back and Obama back to kenya*!


*FOR IDIOTS on the forum who don't get jokes or sarcasm (dank69)

THIS IS A JOKE> I DO NOT THINK OBAMA IS KENYAN! WE DO NOT NEED A 59999999 PAGE DISCUSSION ON IF I MEAN IT OR NOT! (for record i am referencing this thread)

 

[ivwshane]

Lol! Please! Please! Bring this to a court! I dare you!

It's not like Obama didn't notify congress back in December about this situation and about the possibility that quick action would be required...nope I'm sure that never happened!

Oops he did:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/politics/bergdahl-swap-legality/?c=&page=0

"We received a detailed classified notification from the Secretary of Defense that satisfies the many substantive certification requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act," said a statement by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Noting that Obama "put Congress on notice" last December that he intended to act quickly in such cases, "members of Congress should not be surprised that he acted as he did in the circumstances that existed."

Yes the president should have given them new notice but it wasn't like he gave them zero notice.

I can see the headline now!
Obama impeached for bringing POW home!

That ought to raise congresses already super low ratings even higher!

 

[Genx87]

Yes, but its not within the purview of the executive to decide what is and isn't constitutional and act according to its own decision. Pretty much goes against our entire form and basis of government and separation of powers. In a dictatorship, you would have a point.

I think the point is Obama can break the law. Then what? Somebody charges him with it and the law is tossed out?

It is like those laws that make it illegal to video tape cops. DA's wont push it because it will be ruled unconstitutional.

 

[bshole]

Nice to see that Republicans support leaving soldiers behind. Makes me wonder why they cry so those huge crocodile tears over Benghazi....

 

[xBiffx]

No, definitely not. It is absolutely within the purview of all three branches to determine what is and isn't constitutional and to act accordingly. It's the only way our system can function.

Under our accepted system of law we give the Supreme Court the final say but tons of decisions have to be made every year that don't involve their input and require interpretation by the various branches of government.

To use an extreme example, if Congress and the prior president signed a law that declared all guns in America were to be confiscated on the day before a new president were sworn in would he be compelled to enforce such an obviously unconstitutional law until the courts stepped in?

Where are you coming up with that? That is patently false and smacks in the face of reasoning in regards to how our government operates.

The legislative branch passes laws, the executive executes them. The judiciary is called in to determine issues/matters in regards to constitutionality. To say that they all get to determine what is and isn't constitutional when it comes to an active/valid law, usurps the constitutionally protected power given to 1/3 of the government. If a law was passed by the legislative branch and then signed by the executive, it is a valid law and must be upheld. However, the judiciary still has the power to strike down that law if they see fit. The only recourse for the other two branches is to amend that law or supersede it with another. One can't just ignore it at will, especially with the disregard of the other two branches. THAT is unconstitutional.

Your example is self serving in that such an obvious unconstitutional law couldn't reasonably make it that far. It would be a complete disregard for the oaths of Congress as well as the President.

 

[waggy]

Lol! Please! Please! Bring this to a court! I dare you!


I can see the headline now!
Obama impeached for bringing POW home!

That ought to raise congresses already super low ratings even higher!

yeah it would be silly to take it to court. it would gain them nothing. what would the courts be able to do?

I don't see it as a impeachment. not to mention as you said a trial over bringing a POW home? lol fuck that would be a riot actually. it would guarantee the dems winning the next presidency.

The best thing the GOP can do is let this die. But they won't they (politicians in both parties) have the mentality of if this hurts the other party its good for me.

 

[dphantom]

sure! send bergdahl back and Obama back to kenya*!


*FOR IDIOTS on the forum who don't get jokes or sarcasm (dank69)

THIS IS A JOKE> I DO NOT THINK OBAMA IS KENYAN! WE DO NOT NEED A 59999999 PAGE DISCUSSION ON IF I MEAN IT OR NOT! (for record i am referencing this thread)

lol

 

[ivwshane]

Where are you coming up with that? That is patently false and smacks in the face of reasoning in regards to how our government operates.

The legislative branch passes laws, the executive executes them. The judiciary is called in to determine issues/matters in regards to constitutionality. To say that they all get to determine what is and isn't constitutional when it comes to an active/valid law, usurps the constitutionally protected power given to 1/3 of the government. If a law was passed by the legislative branch and then signed by the executive, it is a valid law and must be upheld. However, the judiciary still has the power to strike down that law if they see fit. The only recourse for the other two branches is to amend that law or supersede it with another. One can't just ignore it at will, especially with the disregard of the other two branches. THAT is unconstitutional.

Your example is self serving in that such an obvious unconstitutional law couldn't reasonably make it that far. It would be a complete disregard for the oaths of Congress as well as the President.

You have no idea what you are talking about. For one, congress can and has passed unconstitutional laws. Two, the president can and has used his authority to not enforce a law if it is believed to be unconstitutional.

 

[xBiffx]

You have no idea what you are talking about. For one, congress can and has passed unconstitutional laws. Two, the president can and has used his authority to not enforce a law if it is believed to be unconstitutional.

Sure congress can pass an unconstitutional law but if its signed by the executive and isn't struck down by the judiciary then the executive can't legally choose to not enforce it. Doing so usurps the power of 2/3 of the government in that case. Of course, such a scenario is highly unlikely because if it's truly unconstitutional, its not getting that far.

YOU have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[ivwshane]

Not after said law signed by the executive.

YOU have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes and obama signed it with a signing statement saying that there could be a conflict.

Again, you have no clue what the fuck you are talking about! Your continued insistence that you do know what you are talking about only makes you look like an idiot.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, but its not within the purview of the executive to decide what is and isn't constitutional and act according to its own decision. Pretty much goes against our entire form and basis of government and separation of powers. In a dictatorship, you would have a point.

This.

Eskimo makes a good point. Better that the executive acts honestly, accepting the consequences if judged wrong, than perpetrate an un-Constitutional law.

In this case, I don't see any practical consequences if Obama is judged wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Where are you coming up with that? That is patently false and smacks in the face of reasoning in regards to how our government operates.

I'm coming up with this based on basically the entirety of how the US system of government has operated for two centuries. Seriously, how could it be any other way?

The legislative branch passes laws, the executive executes them. The judiciary is called in to determine issues/matters in regards to constitutionality. To say that they all get to determine what is and isn't constitutional when it comes to an active/valid law, usurps the constitutional protected power given to 1/3 of the government. If a law was passed by the legislative branch and then signed by the executive, it is a valid law and must be upheld. However, the judiciary still has the power to strike down that law if they see fit. The only recourse for the other two branches is to amend that law or supersede it with another. They can't just ignore it at will, especially with the disregard of the other two branches. THAT is unconstitutional.

No, definitely not. This is simply not how our government works. For a pretty detailed analysis of this issue I would suggest this article: http://www.repository.law.indiana.e...y branch interprets constitution its own way"

By the way, I agree with the conclusions of the article, that presidential power to interpret the Constitution has gone way too far, into dangerous territory.

That being said, this paragraph is basically impossible to argue with and shows exactly why the President not only can, but must implement his own interpretations of the Constitution at times.

The answer must acknowledge that a measure of independence in
presidential interpretation is unavoidable. Presidents, with the help of their
lawyers, daily confront issues requiring constitutional and other legal
interpretation, and they often must act without the benefit of clear judicial
guidance. Judicial precedent is especially scarce, and executive branch
precedent particularly developed, on issues of national security and the
separation of powers.57 Jurisdictional requirements such as political question
and standing doctrine, as well as deferential standards of review, may limit,
delay or preclude judicial review. Such limits on review sometimes reflect the
Court’s judgment that the executive or legislative branches bring value to the
interpretive enterprise and are deserving of deference. At other times,
Presidents must act before the Court considers an issue. It therefore is not
feasible within our system to instruct Presidents simply to implement judicial
precedent and never to act upon their own interpretations

To say that he should never do so is simply impossible in a functioning government and has never been an aspect of ours.

Your example is self serving in that such an obvious unconstitutional law couldn't reasonable make it that far. It would be a complete disregard for the oaths of Congress as well as the President.

It's not self serving, it's a simple question. Either the president must enforce ALL laws or he has the ability to use his interpretation on ones he finds unconstitutional. You can't have it both ways.

 

[werepossum]

No, definitely not. It is absolutely within the purview of all three branches to determine what is and isn't constitutional and to act accordingly. It's the only way our system can function.

Under our accepted system of law we give the Supreme Court the final say but tons of decisions have to be made every year that don't involve their input and require interpretation by the various branches of government.

To use an extreme example, if Congress and the prior president signed a law that declared all guns in America were to be confiscated on the day before a new president were sworn in would he be compelled to enforce such an obviously unconstitutional law until the courts stepped in?

Ah, shit.

Quickest mind change ever. This, instead of that.

sure! send bergdahl back and Obama back to kenya*!


*FOR IDIOTS on the forum who don't get jokes or sarcasm (dank69)

THIS IS A JOKE> I DO NOT THINK OBAMA IS KENYAN! WE DO NOT NEED A 59999999 PAGE DISCUSSION ON IF I MEAN IT OR NOT! (for record i am referencing this thread)

+1

 

[zinfamous]

Yes, but its not within the purview of the executive to decide what is and isn't constitutional and act according to its own decision. Pretty much goes against our entire form and basis of government and separation of powers. In a dictatorship, you would have a point.

lol. but as you said, that is why we have a constitution. The only way for an unconstitutional law to be changed, is to challenge it. And one must first break it, to offer the challenge.

Are you saying that the executive branch is somehow uniquely restricted against challenging unconstitutional laws?

 

[xBiffx]

Yes and obama signed it with a signing statement saying that there could be a conflict.

Again, you have no clue what the fuck you are talking about! My our continued insistence that you do know what you are talking about only makes you look like an idiot.

Signing statements carry zero weight, especially in regards to a Supreme Court decision.

Throwing a temper tantrum and using name calling? That's surely going to win an argument.

 

[ivwshane]

This.

FYI the presidents main duties are to faithfully execute laws and to uphold the constitution. Guess which one gets priority? The law or the constitution?

 

[xBiffx]

And one must first break it, to offer the challenge.

Self serving logic again. Only in your world is breaking a law the only way to challenge it.

 

[ivwshane]

Signing statements carry zero weight, especially in regards to a Supreme Court decision.

Throwing a temper tantrum and using name calling? That's surely going to win an argument.

When ignorance turns to stupidity I'll get down to your level to get the point across your thick head

In other words, don't act like an idiot and I won't treat you like one.

 

[xBiffx]

When ignorance turns to stupidity I'll get down to your level to get the point across your thick head

In other words, don't act like an idiot and I won't treat you like one.

More name calling. I expected more...no wait, nevermind.