ImWaitingForTheDay
Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
President Obama!
- Thread starter passerby
- Start date
Since I cannot give a thumbs down vote on the above post, I would like to offer this to moreluck's post:
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Is there a limit to a "Thumb's Up or Thumb's Down" one can give to any single poster?
ImWaitingForTheDay
Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
There is currently no limit, however members that abuse the system or harass other members can have their thumbs removed...
Where does it say he can't?
moreluck
golden ticket member
It's a law and it took an act of congress to pass it.........I think it takes an act of congress to tweak it and change it and fix it.......whatever O's word is this week.
How about this. Pass the House bill allowing folks to keep their healthcare but with the provision that the current system of "just showing up at the emergency room" is going away. In our other words, you can keep your crappy, sub par insurance, but don't come crying back to the ACA when you find out just how crappy it is.
Correct. But he can signal from hat the federal government will not persue those who fail to abide by the law. Just like marijuana legal states.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
There is currently no limit, however members that abuse the system or harass other members can have their thumbs removed...
Somehow I suspected that and you confirmed it. Tx
Oh really? Is that spelled out in the Constitution or can you direct me to case law...or are you making that up?
oldngray
nowhere special
Selective Enforcement of the Law - Adam Goldfein
Presidential rewriting of the text of laws was found to be unconstitutional in 1998. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Clinton v. New York, the court found that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was unconstitutional. The court said,"If this Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a law whose text was not voted on by either House or presented to the President for signature." Basically, it violates the basic separation of powers afforded under the constitution. The president cannot create a law. That is exclusively the power of congress.Presidential rewriting of the text of laws was found to be unconstitutional in 1998. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Clinton v. New York, the court found that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was unconstitutional. The court said, “If this Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a law whose text was not voted on by either House or presented to the President for signature.” Basically, it violates the basic separation of powers afforded under the constitution. The president cannot create a law. That is exclusively the power of congress.
Presidential rewriting of the text of laws was found to be unconstitutional in 1998. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Clinton v. New York, the court found that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was unconstitutional. The court said,"If this Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a law whose text was not voted on by either House or presented to the President for signature." Basically, it violates the basic separation of powers afforded under the constitution. The president cannot create a law. That is exclusively the power of congress.Presidential rewriting of the text of laws was found to be unconstitutional in 1998. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Clinton v. New York, the court found that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was unconstitutional. The court said, “If this Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a law whose text was not voted on by either House or presented to the President for signature.” Basically, it violates the basic separation of powers afforded under the constitution. The president cannot create a law. That is exclusively the power of congress.
With all due respect, that is an incredible reach. Selective enforcement is far.different than a line item veto. The law is not changed. In fact, selective enforcement is the fact of the constitutional system we live in. Whether it is drug policy, foreign policy, tax policy, economic policy, our elections elect the people we entrust to write and enforce those laws. Who thinks a Republican president would fiercely enforce environmental law? Or that a Democratic president would close down legalized marijuana? Nobody strictly enforced laws governing Wall Street. Go figure.
Similar threads
