• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
eskimospy said:
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?

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.ed...20own 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.
Click to expand...

This is where I am coming from. It matters how the government is operating today, or more importantly, in the future. Not how its operated for two centuries.
 
xBiffx said:
This is where I am coming from. It matters how the government is operating today, or more importantly, in the future. Not how its operated for two centuries.
Click to expand...

Right. It sounds like we both agree that presidential authority to interpret the Constitution has gone too far.

That being said, I don't think it's supportable to say that the president does not have the authority or the ability to interpret the Constitution and act accordingly in some circumstances, including some that involve fully enacted laws.
 
eskimospy said:
Right. It sounds like we both agree that presidential authority to interpret the Constitution has gone too far.

That being said, I don't think it's supportable to say that the president does not have the authority or the ability to interpret the Constitution and act accordingly in some circumstances, including some that involve fully enacted laws.
Click to expand...

I would say that it has to be extremely limited when the law has been signed by the executive, the legislative branch has already weighed in (passed the law), and the judiciary has yet to weigh in. Obviously, I don't think there should be that authority when all have already made their considerations and the law is still valid.
 
eskimospy said:
Right. It sounds like we both agree that presidential authority to interpret the Constitution has gone too far.

That being said, I don't think it's supportable to say that the president does not have the authority or the ability to interpret the Constitution and act accordingly in some circumstances, including some that involve fully enacted laws.
Click to expand...

As it stands, all they can do is impeach? Perhaps we need lesser contests between our branches of government, ones which help them push each other around while not calling for each others heads.

I believe Congress should be able bring forth lawsuits in that regard, to seek court orders to clarify the law and the legal / illegal nature of the executive's actions. In order to do so, this whole "standing" concept needs to be eliminated as an obstacle.
 
Jaskalas said:
As it stands, all they can do is impeach? Perhaps we need lesser contests between our branches of government, ones which help them push each other around while not calling for each others heads.
Click to expand...

They have tons of ways to do that. They could withhold funding, they could refuse appointments, etc, etc. Congress is craven, not powerless.

I believe Congress should be able bring forth lawsuits in that regard, to seek court orders to clarify the law and the legal / illegal nature of the executive's actions. In order to do so, this whole "standing" concept needs to be eliminated as an obstacle.
Click to expand...

This would lead to a catastrophic blizzard of lawsuits that would destroy the ability of the courts to function, all while costing us billions of dollars. Bad idea. Standing exists for a VERY good reason.
 
werepossum said:
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.
Click to expand...

that is the issue. I do think that Obama broke the law (though i am not an attorney and not smart enough to play one on atot!) i wonder what can anyone do about it?

I do think any lawsuits would backfire. Also this is NOT something that is impeachment level.

about all i can think of is a sternly worded letter. shrug
 
xBiffx said:
This is where I am coming from. It matters how the government is operating today, or more importantly, in the future. Not how its operated for two centuries.
Click to expand...

when there is ever any whisper of dissolving the supreme court, or turning over supreme power to a single administrator, then I think we have a reason to be concerned.

But these kind of issues have always been a mainstay of our constitutional republic.

We've seen far worse constitutional crisis than anything that "dictator Obama, the evil Kenyan muslim" has subjected the poor mountainfolk of the USA to.

I mean, Lincoln....
 
I can see both sides. We got a prisoner back. Good. But we also establish the precedent that as long as an enemy can capture a prisoner, we will give them prisoners in exchange. I think long term we make it more dangerous for our troops. Isn't that why we have the law in the first place?
 
Pipeline 1010 said:
I can see both sides. We got a prisoner back. Good. But we also establish the precedent that as long as an enemy can capture a prisoner, we will give them prisoners in exchange. I think long term we make it more dangerous for our troops. Isn't that why we have the law in the first place?
Click to expand...
More dangerous? So instead of trying to kill our troops, they'll just try to capture them 🙄
 
Pipeline 1010 said:
I can see both sides. We got a prisoner back. Good. But we also establish the precedent that as long as an enemy can capture a prisoner, we will give them prisoners in exchange. I think long term we make it more dangerous for our troops. Isn't that why we have the law in the first place?
Click to expand...

Yeah because no president has ever negotiated with terrorist before!

Lol!
 
waggy said:
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)
Click to expand...
Ha funny. I know a joke when I see one, thanks very much. 😉
 
I believe it was Nixon that said "It's not a crime when the president does it." So I propose the following solution: we extend executive privilege so that the president can violate the law at will. He already does so we might as well stop wasting time talking about it and make the non-political unterclasse a reality on an official basis.

Now, if we can devise a way to stop the filthy peasants from wasting time on the internet...
 
The choices are clear- whine, impeach Obama, or STFU, move on to issues that matter.

The NRO & devotees have apparently chosen to whine, unsurprisingly. They'll do their best between now & the election to avoid that last part at all costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top