Jamie Almond said something on the radio this morning that I kinda agree with..

If the President is the "commander in chief" of the armed forces, why should he hae to go to Congress if he's making a military action? (don't get me wrong, I think it's the wrong move), but I'm thinking that 30-day law basically nullifies the portion of the Constitution?

now the question is.. why did OBama sign that law if he thought it was Unconstitutional in the first place?

So yes I45. I'm saying I'm wrong in that argument I gave you earlier in regards to whether Obama was in the right to do this without Congressional approval.

(06-04-2014 10:03 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Jamie Almond said something on the radio this morning that I kinda agree with..

If the President is the "commander in chief" of the armed forces, why should he hae to go to Congress if he's making a military action? (don't get me wrong, I think it's the wrong move), but I'm thinking that 30-day law basically nullifies the portion of the Constitution?

now the question is.. why did OBama sign that law if he thought it was Unconstitutional in the first place?

So yes I45. I'm saying I'm wrong in that argument I gave you earlier in regards to whether Obama was in the right to do this without Congressional approval.

Checks and balances come to mind.

Congress gave up that responsiblity when they wrote the President as the CIC.. the generals don't micromanage what everyone of their colonels and such do...

LBJ learned the hard way with Vietnam, cause he actually tried to Micromanage much of the Vietnam war...

If your Commander does something you disagree with, then you bring him up on whatever action you have to take.. and in this case, the President will have to answer to congress AFTER his actions, not while he's making his actions.

(06-04-2014 10:03 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Jamie Almond said something on the radio this morning that I kinda agree with..

If the President is the "commander in chief" of the armed forces, why should he hae to go to Congress if he's making a military action? (don't get me wrong, I think it's the wrong move), but I'm thinking that 30-day law basically nullifies the portion of the Constitution?

now the question is.. why did OBama sign that law if he thought it was Unconstitutional in the first place?

So yes I45. I'm saying I'm wrong in that argument I gave you earlier in regards to whether Obama was in the right to do this without Congressional approval.

Because it wasn't just a law for that one item. And he doesn't have a "line-item veto" type of action to use. The bill was signed for the other items in it that needed to be signed and it would have caused all sorts of problems if he didn't sign it...so he issued the signing statement.

(06-04-2014 09:37 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 03:55 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 03:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 03:07 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 03:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  We don't have a line item veto dude. You can't throw the baby out with the bath water.

You only answered half the question. The congress you are referring to is half controlled by Democrats. So it wasn't like this was Republicans trying to neuter his ability to close GITMO. This was bipartisan - if he was so opposed he could have vetoed the whole bill.

Ummm...you do realize that I never said it was only the GOP don't you?

Fair enough - You often go to great lengths to support the Dems regardless of their actions. This seems to be a change in M.O.. Plus with the opposition to closing Gitmo statement, I naturally assumed you were referencing the GOP.

Since I'm a liberal, I'm mostly going to align with the democrat position on most things, but I'm not a democrat. They're mostly spineless. I've never wavered from this position. Sorry.

You are a clown, so you have no viable position.

Old man...you're funny. You want to take me to task when nearly every poster on this board identifies themselves as only a conservative?

Granted, a few will claim to be Libertarians...but that only means they are Republicans afraid of saying so as Libertarians can't be blamed for anything because they are in charge of nothing.

Idiot.

(06-04-2014 11:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Old man...you're funny. You want to take me to task when nearly every poster on this board identifies themselves as only a conservative?

Granted, a few will claim to be Libertarians...but that only means they are Republicans afraid of saying so as Libertarians can't be blamed for anything because they are in charge of nothing.

Idiot.

You call "the woodshed" your residence.