Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap

[OutHouse]

As Werepossum said, the authority is the constitution itself. The president not only has the ability, but the DUTY not to enforce laws he finds unconstitutional, as his first duty is to uphold the constitution.

so to make sure I understand your statement, you are saying the President of the United States can ignore any law because he finds it unconstitutional?

 

[fskimospy]

so to make sure I understand your statement, you are saying the President of the United States can ignore any law because he finds it unconstitutional?

If he finds it unconstitutional it would be illegal for him not to ignore it. It's in his oath of office.

Wait, did you think that laws overrode the constitution or something? If you didn't think that than this answer should be obvious. The fact that so many people think that the president should be required to violate the constitution because Congress told him to is baffling.

 

[Moonbeam]

He's on my ignore list. You should think about the same. Its always like this from him so I stopped it. Also, he probably is a child so its really not so much of an act.

The science of the CBD tells us that conservatives are team players that bubble up in a shared delusionary bubble world to demonize the opposition. It would be hard to find a defect more childish than this in my opinion. But you can be sure that 10 out of 10 conservatives will vilify me for saying so, however, again in my opinion. But you can be sure I'll chalk that up to the very same thing.

 

[Moonbeam]

please link your proof to this bold lie.

I didn't see anything bolded. Look like regular old letters to me.

 

[Vic]

so to make sure I understand your statement, you are saying the President of the United States can ignore any law because he finds it unconstitutional?

Article 2 section 1: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If he finds it unconstitutional it would be illegal for him not to ignore it. It's in his oath of office.

Wait, did you think that laws overrode the constitution or something? If you didn't think that than this answer should be obvious. The fact that so many people think that the president should be required to violate the constitution because Congress told him to is baffling.

I don't see anywhere in the oath of office where the President is to determine what is constitutional or not.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Vic]

I don't see anywhere in the oath of office where the President is to determine what is constitutional or not.

If the President blindly executed every law passed by Congress, he would not be fulfilling his oath to protect the Constitution.
The SCOTUS does have the final say on this though, should they choose to take it up.

 

[Matt1970]

I've provided sources to the contrary.

Let me follow up, from your link:

"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."

There is no need for "legal interpretation" when there is a law on the books.

 

[Matt1970]

He's on my ignore list. You should think about the same. Its always like this from him so I stopped it. Also, he probably is a child so its really not so much of an act.

I typically ignore him anyways. Constant insults are the sign of a weak argument.

 

[cabri]

If the President blindly executed every law passed by Congress, he would not be fulfilling his oath to protect the Constitution.
The SCOTUS does have the final say on this though, should they choose to take it up.

His job is to faithfully uphold (execute) the laws of the United States. If he feels that he can not do so; then he is in violation of his oath and the responsibilities of his office.

A law is considered to be legal unless changed or deemed to be unconstitutional by the Judicial, not the Executive branch.

If the Executive branch wishes to challenge a law, use the proper channels.

 

[Matt1970]

The President has an obligation to follow the law and no power to break it.

The President has an obligation to uphold the Constitution and no power to ignore it.

There are times when those two obligations honestly come into conflict and thus, one obligation cannot be met. At that point, the President MUST do something beyond his authorized power, either to break the law or to ignore the Constitution. Congress then has the right and the obligation to sanction him if needed for exceeding his authority - but not without recognizing the conflict between the two Presidential obligations.

Honestly I don't think this is even the case here, but the principle is worth arguing.

If the President were to find a law he feels is unconstitutional, there are ways to get it changed.

 

[fskimospy]

His job is to faithfully uphold (execute) the laws of the United States. If he feels that he can not do so; then he is in violation of his oath and the responsibilities of his office.

A law is considered to be legal unless changed or deemed to be unconstitutional by the Judicial, not the Executive branch.

If the Executive branch wishes to challenge a law, use the proper channels.

The constitution comes first.

Are you saying he should commit acts that he believes violate the constitution until the judiciary tells him to stop? How is this in any way compatible with his oath of office?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

His job is to faithfully uphold (execute) the laws of the United States. If he feels that he can not do so; then he is in violation of his oath and the responsibilities of his office.

A law is considered to be legal unless changed or deemed to be unconstitutional by the Judicial, not the Executive branch.

If the Executive branch wishes to challenge a law, use the proper channels.

Exactly!!

 

[fskimospy]

Let me follow up, from your link:

"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."

There is no need for "legal interpretation" when there is a law on the books.

Of course there is. What if the law on the books is unconstitutional?

You guys realize that the President's first duty is to the constitution, right? Why do you keep getting it backwards?

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly!!

So if Congress passes a law (veto override!) that mandates that the President imprison and torture people at random throughout the US, he is required to do this until the judicial branch rules that it is unconstitutional?

What is the legal basis for this?

 

[Moonbeam]

Exactly!!

That would be like putting your hand down your throat, grabbing yourself by the asshole, and pulling yourself inside out. Tell me please, you're not serious.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is no legal principle for such differentiation of breaking the law through action vs breaking the law through inaction that I am aware of.

There are laws against murder. If someone willfully end another life with premeditated malice you are guilty of that crime.

Now you are a government prosecutor. I saw the above crime but did not do my utmost to prevent it. Please present to the court you arguments that by inaction I am as legally guilty of murder as the one who did the deed.

I suppose I could list all permutations, but given this law only actively participating in the killing means me breaking it.



In any case let's get something out if the way so I have a very clear understanding of something of your basic premise. If Obama says that he believes the pertinent laws/regulations do not apply to him by Constitutional right, does that make it so? Once I have your answer then I can explore further.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Obama evidently broke two laws, although personally I think the latter is a crock. I have a very hard time believing that we allocate money down to the costs of transporting individual prisoners. In any case, I don't think we've seen evidence that the agency's total spending has exceeded its appropriations, which seems to me to be clearly the point of the Antideficiency Act.

Just a thought, and I could surely be wrong because it's based upon a hazy recollections of events from some years ago, but transporting GITMO prisoners could be a special case.

I seem to remember that several years ago when Obama was considering closing GITMO that Congress took the step of ensuring that no money be made available to transport GITMO prisoners as a way of preventing Obama from unilaterally closing GITMO.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

There are laws against murder. If someone willfully end another life with premeditated malice you are guilty of that crime.

Now you are a government prosecutor. I saw the above crime but did not do my utmost to prevent it. Please present to the court you arguments that by inaction I am as legally guilty of murder as the one who did the deed.

I suppose I could list all permutations, but given this law only actively participating in the killing means me breaking it.

That's not a good example at all. The example I replied to you earlier explained it very well. If congress passed a law that said police are no longer allowed to prosecute white people for murdering blacks, by your logic it would be unacceptable for Obama to ignore that and arrest those murderers anyway. If they passed a law that said that all black people must die, then Obama would be ok with ignoring that. I'm telling you there's no principle behind that, either legal or moral, that makes sense to me. I think that clearly shows why such a distinction doesn't matter.

In any case let's get something out if the way so I have a very clear understanding of something of your basic premise. If Obama says that he believes the pertinent laws/regulations do not apply to him by Constitutional right, does that make it so? Once I have your answer then I can explore further.

Of course it doesn't make it so. As I said many pages ago, SCOTUS has the final say. That doesn't mean that Obama doesn't need to constantly make decisions based on his interpretation of the Constitution, some of which may involve not enforcing laws.

There's simply no even remotely feasible way for Obama to run everything he wants to do by the judiciary first. Hell, even if he wanted to do that the judiciary would throw out every attempt he made to do so for lack of a case or controversy.

 

[ivwshane]

I think you need to take 7th grade civics over again.

here let me help you out some.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/meeting-the-third-branch-of-us-government-the-supr.html

Nothing you quoted disputes what I or eskimospy have said.

 

[Nebor]

If he finds it unconstitutional it would be illegal for him not to ignore it. It's in his oath of office.

Wait, did you think that laws overrode the constitution or something? If you didn't think that than this answer should be obvious. The fact that so many people think that the president should be required to violate the constitution because Congress told him to is baffling.

Exactly. The president has the ability to violate the constitution, not the duty.

 

[fskimospy]

Just a thought, and I could surely be wrong because it's based upon a hazy recollections of events from some years ago, but transporting GITMO prisoners could be a special case.

I seem to remember that several years ago when Obama was considering closing GITMO that Congress took the step of ensuring that no money be made available to transport GITMO prisoners as a way of preventing Obama from unilaterally closing GITMO.

Fern

They did. The question here would be if that restriction was constitutional as applied to a prisoner exchange. ie: it could be constitutional for the purposes of moving prisoners around in the US, but unconstitutional if it prevented the commander in chief from exchanging prisoners during a war, as that could be considered a command function and not a regulatory one.

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly. The president has the ability to violate the constitution, not the duty.

That's not what I said at all. What I said was that he has the duty to violate unconstitutional statutes. (as well as the ability)

 

[ivwshane]

He's on my ignore list. You should think about the same. Its always like this from him so I stopped it. Also, he probably is a child so its really not so much of an act.

Lol! You put me on ignore because you are a bitch who can't refute anything that contradicts your beliefs.

I treat you like a child because you act like one! Lallalalalalal (fingers in your ear)

 

[Matt1970]

Of course there is. What if the law on the books is unconstitutional?

You guys realize that the President's first duty is to the constitution, right? Why do you keep getting it backwards?

You can't keep rewriting the rules to fit your cause. It is solely the job of the judicial branch to decide what laws are constitutional or not. I will wait for you guys to quote which part of the constitution gives the executive branch the power to decide which laws are and are not constitutional. I suspect I will be waiting a while.