Great move by Obama... when the shaq hits the fan for this he will be out of office so someone else can get blamed..

(02-29-2016 06:01 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 04:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 03:55 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The only water I'm carrying is for our Constitution...the rule of law...due process...and actual facts. I'll leave the nonsense to you guys.

(02-25-2016 01:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 01:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  So you're cool with the President knowingly breaking the law? That explains a lot.

When I believe the law is unconstitutional, yes. I believe that the commander-in-chief of the military should be allowed to make decisions on where to move and house enemy combatants during a conflict.

Sorry bubba, you can't claim to be "carrying water for our Constitution", while simultaneously approving of the President of the United States to willfully and deliberately break a duly passed law in accordance with the same Constitution because you 'believe' he should be allowed to make a decision that is not granted to him to make.

Yes...and the Constitution provides for the SCOTUS which determines if said law is constitutional. That can't be know until it is challenged. In a perfect world, you would challenge it before actually doing it. But when we're dealing with time sensitive stuff like this, there might not be time.

This is an ongoing military campaign. There is nothing time sensitive about the issue. Furthermore, challenging a law is not done by first breaking it and then pleading your case to the SC. Transferring detainees to the US is illegal. If Obama wanted to do so, he should not have signed the law that made it illegal to do so.

I believe it was tagged onto a defense budget bill. He had little choice.

(02-29-2016 06:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 06:01 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 04:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 03:55 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The only water I'm carrying is for our Constitution...the rule of law...due process...and actual facts. I'll leave the nonsense to you guys.

(02-25-2016 01:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  When I believe the law is unconstitutional, yes. I believe that the commander-in-chief of the military should be allowed to make decisions on where to move and house enemy combatants during a conflict.

Sorry bubba, you can't claim to be "carrying water for our Constitution", while simultaneously approving of the President of the United States to willfully and deliberately break a duly passed law in accordance with the same Constitution because you 'believe' he should be allowed to make a decision that is not granted to him to make.

Yes...and the Constitution provides for the SCOTUS which determines if said law is constitutional. That can't be know until it is challenged. In a perfect world, you would challenge it before actually doing it. But when we're dealing with time sensitive stuff like this, there might not be time.

This is an ongoing military campaign. There is nothing time sensitive about the issue. Furthermore, challenging a law is not done by first breaking it and then pleading your case to the SC. Transferring detainees to the US is illegal. If Obama wanted to do so, he should not have signed the law that made it illegal to do so.

I believe it was tagged onto a defense budget bill. He had little choice.

Irrelevant.

(02-29-2016 06:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 06:01 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 04:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 03:55 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The only water I'm carrying is for our Constitution...the rule of law...due process...and actual facts. I'll leave the nonsense to you guys.

(02-25-2016 01:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  When I believe the law is unconstitutional, yes. I believe that the commander-in-chief of the military should be allowed to make decisions on where to move and house enemy combatants during a conflict.

Sorry bubba, you can't claim to be "carrying water for our Constitution", while simultaneously approving of the President of the United States to willfully and deliberately break a duly passed law in accordance with the same Constitution because you 'believe' he should be allowed to make a decision that is not granted to him to make.

Yes...and the Constitution provides for the SCOTUS which determines if said law is constitutional. That can't be know until it is challenged. In a perfect world, you would challenge it before actually doing it. But when we're dealing with time sensitive stuff like this, there might not be time.

This is an ongoing military campaign. There is nothing time sensitive about the issue. Furthermore, challenging a law is not done by first breaking it and then pleading your case to the SC. Transferring detainees to the US is illegal. If Obama wanted to do so, he should not have signed the law that made it illegal to do so.

I believe it was tagged onto a defense budget bill. He had little choice.

Why?

He's got his pen, veto the thing and stand on "principle".

Yea, we know, he won't do that, he'd rather simply circumvent the law and hope he gets lucky with one of his court appointments.