Posted on 03/12/2014 1:18:16 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
It’s absolutely phenomenal the lengths they go to in order to appear to be doing something while avoiding at all costs actually performing their duty.
It is a de facto restatement of obamas sworn oath of office. It means nothing to him, by his own actions.
Impeach the Commie pink fag.
RE: . Should the president be required to enforce a law that he believes to be morally wrong?
You said it best...
As I said, something like this can cut both ways.
Let’s say we impeach Obama and succeed... what’s to stop a future Democratic congress from impeaching a conservative President for refusing to enforce a morally evil law?
Obama, the graduate of Law School from Harvard, takes decisions AGAINST his country laws!
The latest:
Washington’s decision to provide $1 billion financial aid to the Maidan-appointed government of Ukraine violate the US Code §22:
"the provision of foreign assistance is prohibited to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree."
After hearing this I am getting this uncontrollable urge to head out and be lawless in some fasion, what to do?
Forget to enroll in Obamacare, forget to pay the IRS its taxes, go 15mph over the speed limit, so many ways to be lawless.
When president decides that he does not have to enforce laws he does not like, the people have no obligation to obey the laws they don’t like.
-=-=o=-=-
“Irish Referendum” I believe it is called.........
+1
It does NOT say that he shall have the sole power to determine whether he has done that job.
In fact, I think there is an argument that can be made that the phrase "take care" indicates that it is possible that the president can NOT "take care." In which case, rather than using Article II as support for his sole authority in his self-assessment, the reverse would be true, because said Article would be interpreted as declaring it possible for him to FAIL in this task.
Thus it would fall to the other two powers - Judicial and Congressional - to assess his performance in faithfully executing the laws.
In fact, this proposed bill would be somewhat of a repetition of this part of Article II. Which brings up another question - why is this necessary at all? Why not just use Article II itself against him?
Answer - because there are two powers. The original Constitution under common law, and the corporate Constitution under the 14th Amendment.
Sorry, folks, There's no escaping this. If you want to save America, you have to learn how she is being destroyed. There's no other way - you're all shooting in the dark, while your opponants are running around with night-vision goggles.
So here's your set of night-vission goggles. All you have to do is put them on:
One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
Our Republic is lost!
When the government enacts, yea-even contemplates, LAWS that define how LAWS are to be carried out, we no longer have a Constitutional Republic.
MOLON LABE
+1
Logically, then, their real purpose IS to NOT perform their duty, and the "lengths they go to in order to appear to be doing something" is to cover that fact up.
That's treason.
Caesarism. Same motive, too.
Not to mention bills to do legislatively what he is doing by executive fiat.
IMPEACH THIS BASTARD!!!
Susan Collins, and Lyndsay Graham will never impeach.
Check my tag line, been that since the last election!
When Cruz or Paul become prez, the first thing they should do is rescind every EO done by W and BO and vow not to rule by EO.
So he vetoes the Bill, then what...McConnell looks sternly into the camera and says this is outrageous, Boehner cries and it’s over!
The DICTATOR has made it official!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.