Posted on 04/18/2014 4:35:04 PM PDT by Nachum
President Obama on Friday signed into law a bill authored by Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz that would bar an Iranian diplomat from entering the United States, but immediately issued a statement saying he won't enforce it.
Obama decided to treat the law as mere advice. "Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress's concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our Nation," Obama said in his signing statement.
"Nevertheless, as President [George H.W.] Bush also observed, "curtailing by statute my constitutional discretion to receive or reject ambassadors is neither a permissible nor a practical solution." I shall therefore continue to treat section 407, as originally enacted and as amended by S. 2195, as advisory in circumstances in which it would interfere with the exercise of this discretion."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
A law is “advice” .... IMPEACH THIS LAWLESS SOB!!!
Like Obama taking money to write a book and never writing the book
By which Zero meant, “curtailing by statute My royal prerogative to receive or reject ambassadors is neither a permissible nor a practical solution”
So it's pretty much OK if we treat any future gun control measures as "mere advice"? Right?
Had the diplomat ever been to a Tea Party rally, Obama would be willing to enforce the law.
No, I think there will be a lot more straws where that one came from, unfortunately.
So laws are merely “advisory”, unless you’re a peon. Then it’s at his satanic majesty’s discretion whether or not to enforce-ie, if you’re a legal citizen, if you’re on the right politically, etc.
He doesn’t, where he doesn’t find it expedient to do so.
“So if you don’t enforce the law and are selective with it, why are the Feds harassing ranchers out west?”
******************************
That’s different! /S
Yes. And everyone knew that when the law was passed.
Washington runs on ignorance and cynicism... and money.
No, no, no. You misunderstand. Obama is just using a very broad interpretation of Article 2, Secion 2. Advice and consent. To him and his rogue administration advice and consent simply means that if he agrees with Congress, they have given him their consent. If they disagree with him, it is only advice and can be ignored.
So in the mind of the esteemed Constitutional scholar, Barack Obama, the branches of government were never co-equal.
I wonder what Jimmy Carter thinks of this tyranny.
If it’s under way, he’s to blame, ultimately. He is not going to see the result he thinks he is going to get, though. If the country breaks because of him, then he had better hope that he does not receive the burial of a donkey, dragged away and thrown outside the limits of Washington DC (and may God forgive me for my ill paraphrase of Jeremiah 22:19).
I honestly believe he's having fun seeing how many impeachable offenses he can rack up.
Obama: (giggling) "... wow, that's 471...! ... wonder if I can get another dozen by nightfall...."(giggles again)
So harry reid, time for you to go after obama, after all he is not going to enforce the law of the land (again!) or is it only when the citizens nullify a law that gets you up in arms?
If he won’t enforce the law he signed isn’t that grounds for IMPEACHMENT?
Mainly ignorance.
Scary I thought this was from the onion
Does anyone know what the Bush reference is about?
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.