70° Light Rain and Breezy
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Tell me what "fundamental change" has happened in five years of Obama's presidency? He got the Affordable Care act early when he had majority in the House and Senate. And that's it. The gun companies got rich scaring the public when not one gun law has passed.
I think we know Obama has not been that good a president, but the Republicans have not helped. We could not even get an Immigration Bill passed that has some bi-partisan support on a non-election year.
Article author appears behind the curve. The Senate and House are no longer needed. We have Obama.
Check out what Liberal law Professor Jonathon Turley thinks....
"Past presidents have used executive powers, but not to reverse laws, violate Senate or House rules and perhaps violate the Constitution." Does the writer have examples where this has occurred? " Or is he just using hyperbole and exaggeration as a scare tactic when he has no facts.
When a law has specific deadlines, the ACA does and has been held constitutional by the Supreme Court, there is no ambiguity where a President can use discretion in the enforcement thereof as he has sworn to do. To remove deadlines and change the law, by fiat, is unconstitutional and a violation of his oath of office. It is very dangerous territory to venture into. For example, let's say that a republican is voted into office in 2016. Rather than go to congress, he instructs the IRS to no longer "enforce" certain requirements of the law like the individual and company penalties for non-compliance. Then he tells insurance companies that "he" is granting them a waiver for 20 years on having to provide the health insurance that the law requires. A President is just no allowed to do this. No matter how justified he or she might think it is. The end never justifies the means.
"This is why the upcoming November elections are so important — to those who want to continue the fundamental change and the drift to socialism and a “nanny state,” as well as to those who oppose greater government control of the lives of all Americans, the loss of freedoms and a weaker, less prestigious nation."
How about let's remember that the November elections are also going to affect the composition of our state government. Here, let me help:
"This is why the upcoming November elections are so important — to those who want to continue the fundamental change and the drift to THEOCRACY and a “nanny state,” (we already are a "nanny state" and not the kind suggested in this editorial) as well as to those who SUPPORT (even though they deny it) greater government control of the lives of all KANSANS, the loss of freedoms and a weaker, less prestigious STATE."
Once again, when our elected representatives play politics with people’s lives, yet claim to follow Jesus, it’s time for them to get kicked out of their “temples.”
This president has breached very dangerous constitutional areas of the law. Regardless of whether you voted for or against Barack Obama is immaterial. We never want to move the presidency toward a despotic tyranny. What if he were to declare martial law and suspend elections? What then? Will those of you that supported him in the minor transgressions speak out when it becomes something "big" or do you hate the "right" so much you will follow this President wherever he leads? This is not an uncommon pattern. Tyrannical leaders of the past surrounded themselves not with people of integrity but with people that would move an agenda forward without question. Eventually the people throw off these despots one way or another. What is left are the questions, "Why didn't we speak up? Who could have seen this coming? How did this get so far out of control?"
The powers that this president accumulates will pass to the next. Do you want the next president using the same unconstitutional powers to ignore established laws?
"According to an article in The Boston Globe, Bush has claimed the right to ignore more than 750 laws enacted since he became president. He has unilaterally overruled Congress on a broad range of matters, refusing, for example, to accept a requirement for more diversity in awarding government science scholarships. He has overruled numerous provisions of congressional appropriations bills that he felt impinged on his executive power. He has also overruled Congress’s requirement that he report back to it on how he has implemented a number of laws. Moreover, he has refused to enforce laws protecting whistle-blowers and providing safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. Bush has also used signing statements to place severe limits on the inspectors general created by Congress to oversee federal activities, including two officials who were supposed to inspect and report to Congress on the US occupation of Iraq."
So if Bush did it, Obama can?
Domestically we face a constitutional crisis with a president who doesn’t believe he must adhere to our fundamental system of governance. If you have some time, take a read through or refresh yourself on the “Spirit of the Laws” by Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu in 1748.
Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/02/consituttional-crisis/#uEbzD6kgH7WijWSa.99
"Mr. Bush Broke all records, using Signing Statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined." Christopher Kelley- Poli-Sci Prof.- University of Miami. It is not a matter of if Bush did it , Obama can. ALL presidents have this option. It is hypocritical to complain about a Democratic President Doing what a Republican President did but with, what is obviously, much more restraint than any of his Republican Predecessors.
So if Bush did it Obama can.
It is wearying to catalogue President Obama’s lawlessness – his systematic, blatant violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws (you know, those statutes that Congress writes) be faithfully executed. But this last Obamacare rewrite is especially worth noting.
I am not just talking about the president’s (latest) illegal waiver of the employer mandate, which yet again delays (this time, to 2016) the requirement that businesses with 50 to 99 employees must provide Obama-certified coverage or pay crushing fines – a desperate political calculation to accommodate Democrats who face angry voters this November. I am talking about the other bomb administration officials dropped in announcing this unconstitutional edict.
So Obama has unilaterally legislated illegal conditions on the illegal waiver. To wit, employers will be required to certify to the IRS, under penalty of perjury, that the waiver was not a motivating factor in the company’s hiring and firing decisions.
Chris Stirewalt quips, “To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs.”
You are welcome. It Started with James Monroe, our 5th President(1817-1825). All Presidents, Republican or Democrat, have had this option for almost 200 years now.
The battle continues. Will the AmeriKKKan Taliban, including the Kansas chapter, gain more momentum, or is the public getting tired of the Insane Klown Posse? Turnout will be the key. The R's want a low turnout.
Just imagine if he reversed Citizen's United... re-established Glass-Steagall... Sent Jamie Dimon to prison for fifty years... Created environment protections like the Native Americans have...oh sorry...had- like when changing nature you must consider the effect(s) it will have on the next 7 generations...repealed NAFTA...repealed the laws that mandate profit making as a paramount, or an absolute (like breathing)... that trumps the health and well being of the population and the condition of planet Earth... legalized several drugs so that the population would have to consider what effect it would have on one's health and future well being and pay that price when no violence or any other crime has been perpetrated...and bailed out the American Tax Payer through the IRS right at the same amount of cash that was used to bail out Wall Street. Sure would lock in a Democratic majority in the House and Senate and seal a victory in the White House for the next twenty-five years...of course this would just be the beginning then... I voted for him hoping he would start something. Like a revolution.
The nation and the state of Kansas can begin by eliminating the ALEC party from congress and state legislatures. 33 years of ALEC subverting the GOP has proved to be nothing but a financial disaster backed by the New World Order Global Economy. 20 million less USA jobs is a poor result.
What’s The Matter With Kansas Schools
ALEC Right Wing Party is posing as the republican party which is fraudulent representation of the GOP. Rather than serve the public interest, ALEC champions the agenda of corporations which are willing to pay for access to legislators and the opportunity to write their very own legislation behind closed secret doors.
ALEC helps surrogates and lobbyists for corporations to draft and promote bills which:
• gut environmental laws
• create a regressive tax system
• eliminate workers’ rights = lower wages
• undermine universal and affordable health care
• privatize public education
• chip away at voting rights.
United States of ALEC
John Birch Society Celebrates Koch Family For Their Role In Founding The Hate Group
This just in: Dolph really doesn't like Obama.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Set'em Up Jacks
Burger Monday! All burgers half price
· All day long
Henry T's Bar & Grill
2-for-1 Charbroiled Burgers
· Chicken, pork, turkey or spicy black bean with ...