Jump to content

If the president does it, it's legal.


MDM4AU

Recommended Posts

“Is it the position of the Obama Administration that after the President of the United States signs a law… he can… say ‘I don’t have to comply with a particular provision of that law, without having to go to court first?” Byrne asked Preston.

“The president may act in the exercise of his Constitutional authority as he understands it and as circumstances demand without necessarily going to court,” Preston responded.

Byrne’s line of questioning then took a surprising turn that clearly caught Preston and Hagel off guard. The freshman congressman compared the Obama Administration’s reasoning behind ignoring the law to the famous argument that then-President Richard Nixon made in the aftermath of Watergate, that “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

“How is that different from the position that people in the Nixon Administration took during Watergate that if the president does it, it’s legal?” Byrne quipped. “How is that different?”

“I wouldn’t even know where to begin to answer that,” Preston replied.

http://yellowhammernews.com/nationalpolitics/byrne-says-obama-took-nixon-esque-approach-taliban-prisoner-exchange/

Link to comment
Share on other sites





“Is it the position of the Obama Administration that after the President of the United States signs a law… he can… say ‘I don’t have to comply with a particular provision of that law, without having to go to court first?” Byrne asked Preston.

“The president may act in the exercise of his Constitutional authority as he understands it and as circumstances demand without necessarily going to court,” Preston responded.

Byrne’s line of questioning then took a surprising turn that clearly caught Preston and Hagel off guard. The freshman congressman compared the Obama Administration’s reasoning behind ignoring the law to the famous argument that then-President Richard Nixon made in the aftermath of Watergate, that “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

“How is that different from the position that people in the Nixon Administration took during Watergate that if the president does it, it’s legal?” Byrne quipped. “How is that different?”

“I wouldn’t even know where to begin to answer that,” Preston replied.

http://yellowhammernews.com/nationalpolitics/byrne-says-obama-took-nixon-esque-approach-taliban-prisoner-exchange/

You honestly don't see the difference? Look how the initial question was phrased-- what President has ever "gone to court first" before exercising their duty as they understand it? They seek an opinion from legal counsel--- just like Bush did. What this exchange proves is how embarrassingly ignorant Byrne is-- and he was so clueless he's probably in a bar saying, "And then I asked him..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got it. You have no problem with how Obama went about it. Thanks for your input.

Sorry-- thought you were one of the few folks on the right here capable of rational conversation. Thanks for the clarification. Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tex, I have a problem with the way this president continues to pick and choose which laws he will enforce. Even portions of his own laws when it helps him politically and then tries to explain it all away or blame someone else. He seriously thinks he is above the law. If it didn't happen so often it might be different, but this is simply part of his fabric. It's who he is and how he was taught.

I don't think he seeks counsel. I think he tells them to make it work for him. Lawyers are good at that, too. And many in this country eat it up and beg for more because that's their guy or they just want to sticking to the other side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tex, I have a problem with the way this president continues to pick and choose which laws he will enforce. Even portions of his own laws when it helps him politically and then tries to explain it all away or blame someone else. He seriously thinks he is above the law. If it didn't happen so often it might be different, but this is simply part of his fabric. It's who he is and how he was taught.

I have no problem with folks questioning the rational given for the lack of notice in this case, even though I think it is a stupid law passed for purely political reasons. But Byrnes big moment just ain't what folks are claiming it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tex, I have a problem with the way this president continues to pick and choose which laws he will enforce. Even portions of his own laws when it helps him politically and then tries to explain it all away or blame someone else. He seriously thinks he is above the law. If it didn't happen so often it might be different, but this is simply part of his fabric. It's who he is and how he was taught.

I have no problem with folks questioning the rational given for the lack of notice in this case, even though I think it is a stupid law passed for purely political reasons. But Byrnes big moment just ain't what folks are claiming it is.

Obama pushed the law AND signed it....what was his political motive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tex, I have a problem with the way this president continues to pick and choose which laws he will enforce. Even portions of his own laws when it helps him politically and then tries to explain it all away or blame someone else. He seriously thinks he is above the law. If it didn't happen so often it might be different, but this is simply part of his fabric. It's who he is and how he was taught.

I have no problem with folks questioning the rational given for the lack of notice in this case, even though I think it is a stupid law passed for purely political reasons. But Byrnes big moment just ain't what folks are claiming it is.

Obama pushed the law AND signed it....what was his political motive?

Not sure why he signed it, but since he did, it's valid to question the rational for not providing notice. How's that for "cheerleading?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tex, I have a problem with the way this president continues to pick and choose which laws he will enforce. Even portions of his own laws when it helps him politically and then tries to explain it all away or blame someone else. He seriously thinks he is above the law. If it didn't happen so often it might be different, but this is simply part of his fabric. It's who he is and how he was taught.

I have no problem with folks questioning the rational given for the lack of notice in this case, even though I think it is a stupid law passed for purely political reasons. But Byrnes big moment just ain't what folks are claiming it is.

Obama pushed the law AND signed it....what was his political motive?

Not sure why he signed it, but since he did, it's valid to question the rational for not providing notice. How's that for "cheerleading?"

He not only signed it - it was HIS idea. So, honestly, if it was purely political, I would just like to know what the political motive was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tex, I have a problem with the way this president continues to pick and choose which laws he will enforce. Even portions of his own laws when it helps him politically and then tries to explain it all away or blame someone else. He seriously thinks he is above the law. If it didn't happen so often it might be different, but this is simply part of his fabric. It's who he is and how he was taught.

I have no problem with folks questioning the rational given for the lack of notice in this case, even though I think it is a stupid law passed for purely political reasons. But Byrnes big moment just ain't what folks are claiming it is.

Obama pushed the law AND signed it....what was his political motive?

Not sure why he signed it, but since he did, it's valid to question the rational for not providing notice. How's that for "cheerleading?"

He not only signed it - it was HIS idea. So, honestly, if it was purely political, I would just like to know what the political motive was.

I know it was in a larger defense bill. Do you have a credible link that he was behind its inclusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tex, I have a problem with the way this president continues to pick and choose which laws he will enforce. Even portions of his own laws when it helps him politically and then tries to explain it all away or blame someone else. He seriously thinks he is above the law. If it didn't happen so often it might be different, but this is simply part of his fabric. It's who he is and how he was taught.

I have no problem with folks questioning the rational given for the lack of notice in this case, even though I think it is a stupid law passed for purely political reasons. But Byrnes big moment just ain't what folks are claiming it is.

Obama pushed the law AND signed it....what was his political motive?

Not sure why he signed it, but since he did, it's valid to question the rational for not providing notice. How's that for "cheerleading?"

He not only signed it - it was HIS idea. So, honestly, if it was purely political, I would just like to know what the political motive was.

I know it was in a larger defense bill. Do you have a credible link that he was behind its inclusion?

It was his idea, he made campaign speeches about that very issue but you can certainly refuse to believe that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tex, I have a problem with the way this president continues to pick and choose which laws he will enforce. Even portions of his own laws when it helps him politically and then tries to explain it all away or blame someone else. He seriously thinks he is above the law. If it didn't happen so often it might be different, but this is simply part of his fabric. It's who he is and how he was taught.

I have no problem with folks questioning the rational given for the lack of notice in this case, even though I think it is a stupid law passed for purely political reasons. But Byrnes big moment just ain't what folks are claiming it is.

Obama pushed the law AND signed it....what was his political motive?

Not sure why he signed it, but since he did, it's valid to question the rational for not providing notice. How's that for "cheerleading?"

He not only signed it - it was HIS idea. So, honestly, if it was purely political, I would just like to know what the political motive was.

I know it was in a larger defense bill. Do you have a credible link that he was behind its inclusion?

It was his idea, he made campaign speeches about that very issue but you can certainly refuse to believe that.

Link ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got it. You have no problem with how Obama went about it. Thanks for your input.

Sorry-- thought you were one of the few folks on the right here capable of rational conversation. Thanks for the clarification. Got it.

Hilarious coming from you. You can't even answer a simple question without acting like an immature child. :laugh:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Members Online

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...