Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CitizenUSA

The problem is that the omnibus is now law. He says only that it’s not going to prevent him from sending recommendations to congress, but reading between the lines, Obama is saying he, and by extension his NIH, is going to ignore the restrictions congress implemented.

While this article is aimed at gun control, the problem is far more widespread. Between:

*this example of Obama deciding which laws he will follow

*the NDAA which codifies the administration’s ability to detain anyone anywhere (so long as they can tie that person to “terrorism” somehow)

*the various inadvertently-revealed administration views that terrorists and extremists include ordinary protestors, low-tax advocates, anti-abortionists, gun owners, people who keep emergency food supplies beyond 7 days’ worth, veterans &c

*the proposed SOPA/PIPA legislation that will give the administration broad authority over any web content, so long as it can be deemed to “violate copyright”

*the newly-revealed DHS position that it can gather the personal information of various journalism avocations, but also anyone who uses social media for real-time updating of any kind

Short version: A President and executive branch that believes it can pick and choose which laws to obey, and ignore the public’s elected representatives (this NIH thing), and who considers a wide range of ordinary Americans to be its enemies (various terrorist lists), and has given itself authority to gather personal information about such people (the DHS thing), and further authority to shut down any media it chooses (SOPA/PIPA), and arrest whoever it wants without recourse (NDAA).

This is looking more and more like a full-on assault on free speech and a nascent police state.


6 posted on 01/11/2012 12:31:01 AM PST by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Little Pig

President Obama isn’t the first to make signing statements. President Reagan used them. Personally? I think they’re unconstitutional. Nothing in the US Constitution gives a president the right to reject portions of bills. He can either sign or veto them. He has no constitutional right to modify or ignore them.

That aside, I’m saying a law that prevents or limits a president’s right to advocate (to Congress) for particular legislation is also unconstitutional. Congress has no right to tell the president what topics he is permitted or not permitted to discuss with Congress.

Again, I know the administration is pushing a very fine line here, but frankly, he knows he can get away with it. There are limits, but it’s very difficult to tailor legislation precisely enough to excise what one wants. Even then, there’s no way to resolve disagreements short of impeachment or tying the issue up in courts for years.

Congress is at fault for creating an overpowerful executive branch in the first place. The chief executive is well, well beyond commander in chief and head diplomat these days.


8 posted on 01/11/2012 12:49:51 AM PST by CitizenUSA (What's special about bad? Bad is easy. Anyone can do it. Try good instead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Little Pig
“*this example of Obama deciding which laws he will follow”
...just a question is it possible for congress to reduce funding for NIH by that exact same amount? Only a thought. Amen.
15 posted on 01/11/2012 8:01:13 AM PST by gakrak ( A man should know his limitations and act accordingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Little Pig
Short version: A President and executive branch that believes it can pick and choose which laws to obey, and ignore the public’s elected representatives (this NIH thing), and who considers a wide range of ordinary Americans to be its enemies (various terrorist lists), and has given itself authority to gather personal information about such people (the DHS thing), and further authority to shut down any media it chooses (SOPA/PIPA), and arrest whoever it wants without recourse (NDAA).

This is looking more and more like a full-on assault on free speech and a nascent police state.

None of this would be possible without the acquiescence of the GOP.  Face it, both parties are enemies of the people. We have nowhere to go.

17 posted on 01/11/2012 8:23:03 AM PST by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson