• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Obama Has Brought Us to ‘Constitutional Tipping Point’

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,505
3,008
126
Wow, if (when) the SCOTUS finds Obama's EOs unconstitutional there's going to be a lot of progressives going into a panic. "How can this be!?! It's not possible!! Those damned conservatives and their dirty Supreme Court!"

I can here the indignation now, even after being told all this time that it's a real possibility. :hmm:
If the SCOTUS upholds the executive branch changing laws, the Republicans will be salvating for the powers of a dictatorship. War on crime / drugs / terror by fiat. Can strip more rights and imprison more Americans without Congress getting in the way.

Either the courts strike it down or we start singing Sieg Heil Mein Führer!
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
Wow, if (when) the SCOTUS finds Obama's EOs unconstitutional there's going to be a lot of progressives going into a panic. "How can this be!?! It's not possible!! Those damned conservatives and their dirty Supreme Court!"

I can here the indignation now, even after being told all this time that it's a real possibility. :hmm:
If pigs had wings, they'd fly, right?

Well, at least in the world of right wing fantasy.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
If the SCOTUS upholds the executive branch changing laws, the Republicans will be salvating for the powers of a dictatorship. War on crime / drugs / terror by fiat. Can strip more rights and imprison more Americans without Congress getting in the way.

Either the courts strike it down or we start singing Sieg Heil Mein Führer!
You must have been dropped on your head as an infant if you actually believe that. I think not- it's just pandering to the usual fear & persecution complex of conservatards. It's one thing to delay implementation, another to just make shit up, create law by fiat.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
If pigs had wings, they'd fly, right?

Well, at least in the world of right wing fantasy.
You must have been dropped on your head as an infant if you actually believe that. I think not- it's just pandering to the usual fear & persecution complex of conservatards. It's one thing to delay implementation, another to just make shit up, create law by fiat.
If you'd stop insulting (is that possible?) and panicking for a moment, you'd see how there's no substantive difference between what Obama did/does and a line-item veto (unconstitutional) or broad legislative censure (also unconstitutional). It wouldn't matter if he simply changed the law by specifying that you can only apply for insurance on a day ending with the letter "Y", it's a direct change in the law by the executive branch when that isn't his job.

"But the Obstructionists!" It doesn't matter, the SCOTUS isn't going to look at excuses for fundamentally destroying an article of the Constitution. All they're going to see is that ANY president could then change ANY law in ANY way they see fit, just by penciling-in their own revisions. Say 8 years from now a narrowly-elected "John Q Republican" decides to just use an EO to raise the federal drinking age to 25 in some random transportation bill? "But that's not the same!" It doesn't matter, the precedent for making changes to a law ex post facto is already in place, and taking away that power later would be nearly impossible if the SCOTUS rules that what Obama did was constitutional.

So, either they slap it down now or later on it becomes a nightmare, and that's why even prominent Liberals are freaking out, because they should.

http://2017project.org/2014/02/now-constitutional-tipping-point/#.UxepSoUWCu0

Thus the whole reason for this thread, it's a "Constitutional Tipping Point".
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,505
3,008
126
You must have been dropped on your head as an infant if you actually believe that. I think not- it's just pandering to the usual fear & persecution complex of conservatards. It's one thing to delay implementation, another to just make shit up, create law by fiat.
If you think you can feel out whether certain changes are "legal" or not, simply because you agree with them, you certainly do not believe in the letter of the law. A living constitutionalist?

Yes, some changes are bigger than others, but none should be legal except in the halls of Congress.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
If you'd stop insulting (is that possible?) and panicking for a moment, you'd see how there's no substantive difference between what Obama did/does and a line-item veto (unconstitutional) or broad legislative censure (also unconstitutional). It wouldn't matter if he simply changed the law by specifying that you can only apply for insurance on a day ending with the letter "Y", it's a direct change in the law by the executive branch when that isn't his job.

"But the Obstructionists!" It doesn't matter, the SCOTUS isn't going to look at excuses for fundamentally destroying an article of the Constitution. All they're going to see is that ANY president could then change ANY law in ANY way they see fit, just by penciling-in their own revisions. Say 8 years from now a narrowly-elected "John Q Republican" decides to just use an EO to raise the federal drinking age to 25 in some random transportation bill? "But that's not the same!" It doesn't matter, the precedent for making changes to a law ex post facto is already in place, and taking away that power later would be nearly impossible if the SCOTUS rules that what Obama did was constitutional.

So, either they slap it down now or later on it becomes a nightmare, and that's why even prominent Liberals are freaking out, because they should.

http://2017project.org/2014/02/now-constitutional-tipping-point/#.UxepSoUWCu0

Thus the whole reason for this thread, it's a "Constitutional Tipping Point".
So lame. so desperate. So sure you're right that the absurd hyperbole of a speculative future becomes real possibility, if only in your own mind. It's the basis for your OMFG! Obama! argument entirely.

Then have the temerity to re-link the piece about Turley, as if you understood a word of it.

Turley certainly doesn't make the same sort of speculative conspiracy theory arguments you do, at all. He points out that Congress & the Judiciary have abdicated their own responsibilities to the Executive, and have shown no inclination to reclaim them. He urges them to do so as he chides Obama & his predecessors for filling the gaps left by that abdication.

That would probably be difficult for congressional leaders while being held hostage by the Executive, the very action you demanded Obama take to force them to act.

Those 2 positions are only non-contradictory in the mind of a firmly committed devotee of far right agitprop.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
If the SCOTUS upholds the executive branch changing laws, the Republicans will be salvating for the powers of a dictatorship. War on crime / drugs / terror by fiat. Can strip more rights and imprison more Americans without Congress getting in the way.

Either the courts strike it down or we start singing Sieg Heil Mein Führer!
If you think you can feel out whether certain changes are "legal" or not, simply because you agree with them, you certainly do not believe in the letter of the law. A living constitutionalist?

Yes, some changes are bigger than others, but none should be legal except in the halls of Congress.
I can certainly feel out speculative right wing fearmongering & hyperbole of the absurd in your post quoted above, yes.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
If you think you can feel out whether certain changes are "legal" or not, simply because you agree with them, you certainly do not believe in the letter of the law. A living constitutionalist?

Yes, some changes are bigger than others, but none should be legal except in the halls of Congress.
That's the problem, he's so partisan that he believes the ends justify any means, as long as he agrees with that end. Reverse the situation and he'd be screaming for blood and pissing himself.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,660
7,735
126
Corrected thread title: The Patriot Act has Brought Us to Constitutional Tipping Point.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,212
8,054
136
Corrected thread title: The Patriot Act has Brought Us to Constitutional Tipping Point.
While I think that's a little extreme, I'd definitely agree that the patriot act has been a trade for perceived security for privacy.

Fear motivates a lot of people to give up or ignore what would otherwise be viewed as ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
Well at least I don't have to worry about you voting in the next election, you're so fucked up you'll die of an aneurysm before then. :rolleyes:
Which means you have no counter. Thanks for owning up to it.

If the SCOTUS has a problem with the way Obama handles the ACA, they'll say so, same wrt Congress. So far, there's just the usual lame raving from the Authoritarian Right about Obama being dictator & all of us being forced to say seig heil if he's not stopped.

Right after he follows your advice & locks congressional leaders in a room to force them to act.

There's no contradiction in that, obviously.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,505
3,008
126
Corrected thread title: The Patriot Act has Brought Us to Constitutional Tipping Point.
Now imagine the next Republican using Obama's precedent to change the Patriot Act to better suit his "needs" against the American people.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
235 posts before it became about Bush. Are congratulations in order? It's become very confusing.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
Now imagine the next Republican using Obama's precedent to change the Patriot Act to better suit his "needs" against the American people.
Would future repub leaders put us all in chains by delaying implementation of the Patriot Act, or what?

Wow, Man. That's some powerful Mojo right there. Kinda reminds me of Half-breed not born in this country Kenyan time warp voodoo mind control, if you know what I mean.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
235 posts before it became about Bush. Are congratulations in order? It's become very confusing.
Funny that. You're the only person who said "Bush".

Need a duh-version from your usual wingnut prattle?
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
Which means you have no counter. Thanks for owning up to it.

If the SCOTUS has a problem with the way Obama handles the ACA, they'll say so, same wrt Congress. So far, there's just the usual lame raving from the Authoritarian Right about Obama being dictator & all of us being forced to say seig heil if he's not stopped.

Right after he follows your advice & locks congressional leaders in a room to force them to act.

There's no contradiction in that, obviously.
Counter? To what, your temper tantrum? When you grow-up some we can revisit the issue, or you'll be dead and it won't matter. The fact you can't see the difference between legally passed laws and illegal revisions means you aren't capable of rational thought.

Need a duh-version from your usual wingnut prattle?
"Wingnut prattle?" Pardon me prattlemeister, but that's all you do. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
Counter? To what, your temper tantrum? When you grow-up some we can revisit the issue, or you'll be dead and it won't matter. The fact you can't see the difference between legally passed laws and illegal revisions means you aren't capable of rational thought.



"Wingnut prattle?" Pardon me prattlemeister, but that's all you do. :rolleyes:
So, I'm going to have to learn how to say Seig Heil in Kenyan, I suppose.

You contend that the revisions are "illegal", just the same way you'd say it was "illegal" for Obama to lock up Congressional leaders until they made a deal, right?

OTOH, right wing creepazoids in Congress have made hostage taking a normal kinda thing, so you're used to it.

Perhaps you might notice, not likely, that it's a bit presumptuous of you to usurp the power of the SCOTUS, declare something to be "illegal" before they've ruled on it at all.

It's not like your name is on the door, nor mine.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Corrected thread title: The Patriot Act has Brought Us to Constitutional Tipping Point.
The Patriot Act, Obama's decision to unilaterally change immigration law, Bush's signing statements, Clinton's sudden discovery of his ability to spend unallocated money . . . Pretty much every President since FDR, the king of tipping points, except maybe Nixon who was so obviously dirty he couldn't get away with it and Truman who genuinely was too honest and respectful of the nation to try it. And maybe to a lesser degree not non-entities like Ford and Carter who simply never had the political capital to extend personal power, whether or not they would have done so. Problem is, it looks much less worse when it's your guy doing it, and it's always "our guy" to a slight majority of the nation. Or at least, our lesser evil.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
So, I'm going to have to learn how to say Seig Heil in Kenyan, I suppose.

You contend that the revisions are "illegal", just the same way you'd say it was "illegal" for Obama to lock up Congressional leaders until they made a deal, right?
He has the Constitutional power to do the latter (there's actual precedent for it), but not the former. It doesn't matter what your opinion is on the matter, in accordance with the law.

OTOH, right wing creepazoids in Congress have made hostage taking a normal kinda thing, so you're used to it.
Bitch Obama is holding the nation hostage with the ACA, screwing existing coverage and services left, right, and center, so I suppose you're fine with it as well?

Perhaps you might notice, not likely, that it's a bit presumptuous of you to usurp the power of the SCOTUS, declare something to be "illegal" before they've ruled on it at all.

It's not like your name is on the door, nor mine.
Like you retarded muppets don't howl when any tiny thing doesn't meet up with your warped sensibilities? :rolleyes: Now, if Obama wants to get a constitutional amendment together and get it ratified by the states allowing him to edit whatever laws he wants, then that's all fine and dandy. Until then, it isn't one of his legal powers as POTUS. Good luck with that.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
The Patriot Act, Obama's decision to unilaterally change immigration law, Bush's signing statements, Clinton's sudden discovery of his ability to spend unallocated money . . . Pretty much every President since FDR, the king of tipping points, except maybe Nixon who was so obviously dirty he couldn't get away with it and Truman who genuinely was too honest and respectful of the nation to try it. And maybe to a lesser degree not non-entities like Ford and Carter who simply never had the political capital to extend personal power, whether or not they would have done so. Problem is, it looks much less worse when it's your guy doing it, and it's always "our guy" to a slight majority of the nation. Or at least, our lesser evil.
Ike was pretty cool. :D
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,140
13,081
136
He has the Constitutional power to do the latter (there's actual precedent for it), but not the former. It doesn't matter what your opinion is on the matter, in accordance with the law.
You cited Roosevelt in that argument, conveniently forgetting that your alleged lockup of congressional leaders never actually occurred. It wasn't even a threat, but rather a statement of purpose in response to the banking crisis of 1933. Reference page 94 of this annotated account-

http://books.google.com/books?id=gl-H4TEqHGoC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=fdr+locked+congressional+leaders+in+a+room&source=bl&ots=KPJqUCE42b&sig=dnx4cYaexS8yow553PDoYGJ4glw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SkAbU8anC8nYqgGTw4DYAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=fdr locked congressional leaders in a room&f=false

Yor chronicler managed to embellish actual events to serve his purposes, relying on the usual lack of fact checking by the targets of his spiel.

Bitch Obama is holding the nation hostage with the ACA, screwing existing coverage and services left, right, and center, so I suppose you're fine with it as well?
The ACA is the law of the land, instituted by Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the SCOTUS in several particulars. It's remarkable that you can claim it's being shoved down our throats with delayed implementation. That's the current whine, isn't it, that delayed implementation is "illegal", correct?

You're demanding on-time implementation for something you oppose, as if that actually makes sense, which it doesn't in any context other than attempting to force failure. But Repubs are actually trying to make reform better, I suppose, in doing that. Honest. True Story.

Like you retarded muppets don't howl when any tiny thing doesn't meet up with your warped sensibilities? :rolleyes: Now, if Obama wants to get a constitutional amendment together and get it ratified by the states allowing him to edit whatever laws he wants, then that's all fine and dandy. Until then, it isn't one of his legal powers as POTUS. Good luck with that.
You *are* a Constitutional Scholar, I suppose, even if that's only in your own mind. I personally have little doubt that the SCOTUS will never actually rule on the current set of lawsuits, at all, rather relying on the lower courts to deny litigants' claims, then deny cert to avoid it entirely. Well, that's if they get to it before the point is mooted by implementation in the meanwhile.

Merely my opinion, unlike your assertions of conjecture as fact.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
You cited Roosevelt in that argument, conveniently forgetting that your alleged lockup of congressional leaders never actually occurred. It wasn't even a threat, but rather a statement of purpose in response to the banking crisis of 1933. Reference page 94 of this annotated account-

http://books.google.com/books?id=gl-H4TEqHGoC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=fdr+locked+congressional+leaders+in+a+room&source=bl&ots=KPJqUCE42b&sig=dnx4cYaexS8yow553PDoYGJ4glw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SkAbU8anC8nYqgGTw4DYAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=fdr locked congressional leaders in a room&f=false

Yor chronicler managed to embellish actual events to serve his purposes, relying on the usual lack of fact checking by the targets of his spiel.
There you, and the Progressives go, trying to revise history again. Pathetic.

The ACA is the law of the land, instituted by Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the SCOTUS in several particulars. It's remarkable that you can claim it's being shoved down our throats with delayed implementation. That's the current whine, isn't it, that delayed implementation is "illegal", correct?

You're demanding on-time implementation for something you oppose, as if that actually makes sense, which it doesn't in any context other than attempting to force failure. But Repubs are actually trying to make reform better, I suppose, in doing that. Honest. True Story.
No one whines more than you and your ilk, it's a requirement for party affiliation. What's illegal is Obama editing the law to suit him, without the legislature, quit trying to wiggle the subject around, you dishonest sack of shit. :rolleyes:

You *are* a Constitutional Scholar, I suppose, even if that's only in your own mind. I personally have little doubt that the SCOTUS will never actually rule on the current set of lawsuits, at all, rather relying on the lower courts to deny litigants' claims, then deny cert to avoid it entirely. Well, that's if they get to it before the point is mooted by implementation in the meanwhile.

Merely my opinion, unlike your assertions of conjecture as fact.
We'll see, won't we?

FYI, you're entirely delusional, and moving the whole point around, trying to dance away from what I was saying, avoiding the issue entirely. Aside from McOwned and Spidey, you have to be the most incorrigible partisan hack on this forum, and worthless in every respect. Congratulations.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY