doomer Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Yeah but now the precedent is set and the office of the POTUS is no longer an office that carries weight. From now on when Congress disagrees with the POTUS this type of undermining can take place. I don't understand why the military is told to honor and serve every order from the Commander-In-Chief but Congress doesn't. The office of the POTUS is officially irrelevant and it is all because of partisan politics. It is irrelevant because of the arrogance, incompetence and lack of experience and leadership of the man in the position. It is clear. I can't remember another president in my lifetime who has been as divisive as this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PurplePride92 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 It is irrelevant because of the arrogance, incompetence and lack of experience and leadership of the man in the position. It is clear. I can't remember another president in my lifetime who has been as divisive as this one. Already moved past this thought that actually changed once given more information on this type of behavior taking place in the past. This type of undermining in foreign policy has been going on for decades. That means it will never stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice of Reason Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 It is irrelevant because of the arrogance, incompetence and lack of experience and leadership of the man in the position. It is clear. I can't remember another president in my lifetime who has been as divisive as this one. Hang in there. If another Democrat is elected in a couple years, I am sure it will be even worse. Bill Clinton is thankful for Obama's election. Obama will feel the same about the next Dem, whoever it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doomer Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Already moved past this thought that actually changed once given more information on this type of behavior taking place in the past. This type of undermining in foreign policy has been going on for decades. That means it will never stop. Yes, I think we have already agreed in other places already. So united in our frustration we stand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doomer Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 It is irrelevant because of the arrogance, incompetence and lack of experience and leadership of the man in the position. It is clear. I can't remember another president in my lifetime who has been as divisive as this one. But, just for the record, I don't condone the actions of this group of republicans. We should keep our disagreements in house and demonstrate a united front. This becomes an increasingly greater challenge with our overabsorption of media coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldweatherfan Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Hang in there. If another Democrat is elected in a couple years, I am sure it will be even worse. Bill Clinton is thankful for Obama's election. Obama will feel the same about the next Dem, whoever it is. These 2 men are entirely different. While Bill was very liberal, he was a good negotiator and knew how to compromise and also to get others to compromise. He was able to put his personal desires aside on many occasions. The current president thinks he knows more than everyone and everyone should do what he wants to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mexitucky Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 What do you expect the Senate to do when the president has stated he will not put the deal to a vote with the Senate or communicate with them about negotiations. If Obama doesn't want them going around him then include them. What they are Constitutionally bound to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mexitucky Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Separation of Powers. They are both equal parts of the government. Congress doesn't have to obey the President. Again, Constitutional LIMITS on all 3 areas of Government. They don't have to obey the President, the President doesn't have to "obey" them. They all have to obey the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt278 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Again, Constitutional LIMITS on all 3 areas of Government. They don't have to obey the President, the President doesn't have to "obey" them. They all have to obey the Constitution. Exactly. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress must obey the President. It would be nice to see the President obey the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quickslick Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Politicians of all type have constantly thrown around the word "traitor" in regard to the POTUS. As a few others have said ... the Republicans are so set on discrediting the POTUS ... not only have they missed a golden opportunity ... but they have now proven who the real traitors are. From there ... they look like the biggest bunch of tools ever ... IE: *Paraphrased--McCain says that the letter was rushed because his buddies rushed things so they could get out of dodge before the big snow storm. *Paraphrased--Our great Rand Paul ... says that he thought the letter was going TO the president ... Seriously? Lets blame a snow storm and act like we are completely clueless when it comes to trashing our president ... again .. who are the traitors? The republicans have no one to blame but themselves ... THEY HAD A CHANCE TO VOTE THE POTUS OUT 3 YEARS AGO ... AND THEY FAILED. (And according to most Americans .. they already hated the POTUS ... what does that tell you?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twotoplace Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Retired Army major general says actions of Sen. Cotton and gang of 47 "mutinous." Link below. Tom Cotton picked apart by Army general over ?mutinous? Iran letter - The Washington Post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIPTON BASH Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 What they are Constitutionally bound to do. Nothing they did went against the constitution ? What Obama has stated on record he would do is very much against the constitution. So your statement makes little sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mexitucky Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Nothing they did went against the constitution ? What Obama has stated on record he would do is very much against the constitution. So your statement makes little sense. Really? There is a Separation of Power. The President is our representative to the outside world, right? He appoints ministers in the likes, but he alone is who negotiates with foreign sovereignty. From there, any treaty must be approved by the Senate. HE HAS NOT brought a treaty before the Senate regarding Iran's nuclear program. Yet the Senate went over his head and contacted a foreign government. That is overstepping their Constitutional powers. Article I does not grant Congress the power to contact foreign governments. This is bogus. Just another example of grown men with absolutely no ability to delegate, communicate, and compromise keeping our country in a rut. Obama oversteps his bounds all of the time, so does Congress. This power play is getting really old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mexitucky Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Exactly. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress must obey the President. It would be nice to see the President obey the Constitution. Ok, since we are taking a literal interpretation, check out Article I and let me know where it gives the Senate the power to reach out to foreign governments to negotiate treaties with them, or in this case contact a foreign government at all? Congress is a domestic Legislative Branch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt278 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Ok, since we are taking a literal interpretation, check out Article I and let me know where it gives the Senate the power to reach out to foreign governments to negotiate treaties with them, or in this case contact a foreign government at all? Congress is a domestic Legislative Branch. Article I, Section 8, Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Notice what the bolded says? One could argue they thought they were doing this. As far as taking the Constitution literally, do you really thing everything in the Constitution is subject to judicial review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts