March 17, 201511 yr 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. So is it getting old to you by the Senators or Obama too?
March 17, 201511 yr So is it getting old to you by the Senators or Obama too? Yes. I am sick of this bipartisan peeing match. We are regressing financially and the only people w the power to fix are in a staring match. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Both sides don't do any of that. They just bang heads.
March 17, 201511 yr Dear Netanyahu, blah, blah, blah Sincerely, bunchoyayhoos Is that the letter from the Obama camp.
March 17, 201511 yr Yes. I am sick of this bipartisan peeing match. We are regressing financially and the only people w the power to fix are in a staring match. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Both sides don't do any of that. They just bang heads. I agree completely. It would really help if our leader, President Obama, started acting like a President instead of a king. He is starting to lose members of his own party with his child like attitude.
March 17, 201511 yr 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? As to the bolded, I believe that that refers to common defence, i.e. use of the military. This is an energy agreement, no matter what we think about how Iran is going to using their nuclear energy (I'm not saying that I am not nervous about it.) As for the judicial review question, no I do not. Only where there is a case and controversy should there be any input for the Supreme Court. That is how the Constitution continues to be a living and breathing document. The 9 justices review the intent of the Madison and the boys through a modern prism, so that it evolves with our times. You don't become a Supreme Court Justice without being the best of the best (and having connections and the right degree). That is where the Supreme Court distinguishes itself from so many different Governmental branches. There is prestige there, it is an honor to serve, and you're guaranteed a job for life. Compare that to FEMA or, really, any other area of public service where the private sector jobs are more appealing.
March 17, 201511 yr 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? Are you really using the bolded as the rationale? I don't see that as the meaning at all.
March 17, 201511 yr Quick question: Does the president or white house have the power to meddle in other countries elections using tax payer dollars ?? Congressman Wants State Department Investigated for Grants to Anti-Netanyahu Group | PJ Tatler We all know Obama hates Netanyahu and wants him defeated but can he use tax dollars to do it ??
March 17, 201511 yr Quick question: Does the president or white house have the power to meddle in other countries elections using tax payer dollars ?? Congressman Wants State Department Investigated for Grants to Anti-Netanyahu Group | PJ Tatler We all know Obama hates Netanyahu and wants him defeated but can he use tax dollars to do it ?? I don't believe so. The purse strings have to be pulled by Congress I believe. I could be very wrong on that.
March 17, 201511 yr Then I see no difference in congress sending the letter and Obama trying to sway an election in another country..
March 18, 201511 yr Then I see no difference in congress sending the letter and Obama trying to sway an election in another country.. How does both of those wrong actions justify either one as a right decision?
March 18, 201511 yr Are you really using the bolded as the rationale? I don't see that as the meaning at all. I didn't say I was. I said one could.
March 18, 201511 yr As to the bolded, I believe that that refers to common defence, i.e. use of the military. This is an energy agreement, no matter what we think about how Iran is going to using their nuclear energy (I'm not saying that I am not nervous about it.) As for the judicial review question, no I do not. Only where there is a case and controversy should there be any input for the Supreme Court. That is how the Constitution continues to be a living and breathing document. The 9 justices review the intent of the Madison and the boys through a modern prism, so that it evolves with our times. You don't become a Supreme Court Justice without being the best of the best (and having connections and the right degree). That is where the Supreme Court distinguishes itself from so many different Governmental branches. There is prestige there, it is an honor to serve, and you're guaranteed a job for life. Compare that to FEMA or, really, any other area of public service where the private sector jobs are more appealing. If you really think Iran only wants this for energy purposes, I have a bridge to sell you.
March 18, 201511 yr As to the bolded, I believe that that refers to common defence, i.e. use of the military. This is an energy agreement, no matter what we think about how Iran is going to using their nuclear energy (I'm not saying that I am not nervous about it.) As for the judicial review question, no I do not. Only where there is a case and controversy should there be any input for the Supreme Court. That is how the Constitution continues to be a living and breathing document. The 9 justices review the intent of the Madison and the boys through a modern prism, so that it evolves with our times. You don't become a Supreme Court Justice without being the best of the best (and having connections and the right degree). That is where the Supreme Court distinguishes itself from so many different Governmental branches. There is prestige there, it is an honor to serve, and you're guaranteed a job for life. Compare that to FEMA or, really, any other area of public service where the private sector jobs are more appealing. As far as judicial review, I see you are in the camp of judicial activism.
March 18, 201511 yr If you really think Iran only wants this for energy purposes, I have a bridge to sell you. Agreed. So when Obama brings this proposed treaty, the Senate shoots it down...at least that is how it is supposed to work.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.