Obama Administration Refuses To Tell Judge If NDAA is Being Illegally Enforced?

[WWIIIDefender]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZjXHjkzMD4&feature=plcp

 

[88GT]

Since when has an "issue of law" ever been a significant factor in the Kenyan's administration? They condone (or at least turn a blind eye) to voter intimidation and then sue a state for enforcing federal (and state) law.

His transparency is rather opaque.

 

[Panama]

I just love this billboard

 

[WWIIIDefender]

Since when has an "issue of law" ever been a significant factor in the Kenyan's administration? They condone (or at least turn a blind eye) to voter intimidation and then sue a state for enforcing federal (and state) law.

His transparency is rather opaque.

I agree which makes our future even more scary since Romney supported the NDAA.

 

[Lex Concord]

 

[88GT]

I agree which makes our future even more scary since Romney supported the NDAA.

Good job. Got that Romney jab in early.

 

[John Galt]

I blame the Repub House more than Obama. We know Obama doesn't care about the Constitution or Rule of Law, but the Sheep in the House tolerate it. Boehner's weakness/inability/incompetence/ineptness only encourages Obama to br further defiant.

 

[buckstopshere]

I just had this conversation with my FIL tonight. I can't support a candidate that supports the PA, NDAA, or SOPA.

NDAA was a McCain sponsored piece of legislation IIRC. It's nice seeing both parties crossing the aisle and working together to destroy our freedoms.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I just had this conversation with my FIL tonight. I can't support a candidate that supports the PA, NDAA, or SOPA.

NDAA was a McCain sponsored piece of legislation IIRC. It's nice seeing both parties crossing the aisle and working together to destroy our freedoms.

Indeed. They sure as the universe never gang up to do anything good!

 

[88GT]

I blame the Repub House more than Obama. We know Obama doesn't care about the Constitution or Rule of Law, but the Sheep in the House tolerate it. Boehner's weakness/inability/incompetence/ineptness only encourages Obama to br further defiant.

How is either branch of Congress responsible for the Executive violating a court-ordered injunction?

 

[IndyDave1776]

How is either branch of Congress responsible for the Executive violating a court-ordered injunction?

I can see two possibilities:

1. Giving the Executive the tools to pull such shenanigans.

2. Failure to impeach.

 

[88GT]

I can see two possibilities:

1. Giving the Executive the tools to pull such shenanigans.

2. Failure to impeach.

I still don't see it. As factors that make it possible/actionable, yes, for sure. As factors that made him do it? Can't say that I agree. I questioned where the blame is placed. If we ignore the conscious choice and start backtracking to factors that made the choice possible, why should we stop at Congress passing the law? Let's go back to the 2008 election and blame 53% of the populace for voting for the scumbag who signed it. Or perhaps we could blame his mother for having sex and getting pregnant with him. Heck, while we're at it, let's just blame the FF for creating a representative system of government that allows such silliness in the first place.

If Congress is to blame for Obama's decision to disregard the law, why can't we put parents in jail for the crimes their adult children commit? Or better example: why not hold the bartender responsible for the guy who kills a family because he drove drunk? Perhaps Glock should be legally liable for its "fotay" being used in a Chicago drive-by? Kinda of extreme, but pretty good for illustrating the point.

Congress has their own culpability for allowing such a monstrous piece of trash to be enacted, but Obama is the sole owner of his choice not to abide by the injunction.

 

[downzero]

How is either branch of Congress responsible for the Executive violating a court-ordered injunction?

Congress (or, more specifically, the House) has the sole remedy for the President violating the law: Articles of Impeachment.

Our system is purposely set up so that no one party can ever be responsible. It's called checks and balances, both plural, for a reason.

 

[Expat]

I still don't see it. As factors that make it possible/actionable, yes, for sure. As factors that made him do it? Can't say that I agree. I questioned where the blame is placed. If we ignore the conscious choice and start backtracking to factors that made the choice possible, why should we stop at Congress passing the law? Let's go back to the 2008 election and blame 53% of the populace for voting for the scumbag who signed it. Or perhaps we could blame his mother for having sex and getting pregnant with him. Heck, while we're at it, let's just blame the FF for creating a representative system of government that allows such silliness in the first place.

If Congress is to blame for Obama's decision to disregard the law, why can't we put parents in jail for the crimes their adult children commit? Or better example: why not hold the bartender responsible for the guy who kills a family because he drove drunk? Perhaps Glock should be legally liable for its "fotay" being used in a Chicago drive-by? Kinda of extreme, but pretty good for illustrating the point.

Congress has their own culpability for allowing such a monstrous piece of trash to be enacted, but Obama is the sole owner of his choice not to abide by the injunction.

That is the constant tactic of the cabal here. They never allow any discussion of Obama or the Democrats without immediately flooding the thread with their comments on how the Repubs do it too, or would do it, or allowed it to be done.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I still don't see it. As factors that make it possible/actionable, yes, for sure. As factors that made him do it? Can't say that I agree. I questioned where the blame is placed. If we ignore the conscious choice and start backtracking to factors that made the choice possible, why should we stop at Congress passing the law? Let's go back to the 2008 election and blame 53% of the populace for voting for the scumbag who signed it. Or perhaps we could blame his mother for having sex and getting pregnant with him. Heck, while we're at it, let's just blame the FF for creating a representative system of government that allows such silliness in the first place.

If Congress is to blame for Obama's decision to disregard the law, why can't we put parents in jail for the crimes their adult children commit? Or better example: why not hold the bartender responsible for the guy who kills a family because he drove drunk? Perhaps Glock should be legally liable for its "fotay" being used in a Chicago drive-by? Kinda of extreme, but pretty good for illustrating the point.

Congress has their own culpability for allowing such a monstrous piece of trash to be enacted, but Obama is the sole owner of his choice not to abide by the injunction.

Think of it as being analogous to the police giving criminals guns and then standing back and watching them rob, rape, and pillage without lifting a finger to stop them. In this case, the vast constitutional overreaches in power and failure to impeach constitute arming a criminal and failing to address the crime being committed.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That is the constant tactic of the cabal here. They never allow any discussion of Obama or the Democrats without immediately flooding the thread with their comments on how the Repubs do it too, or would do it, or allowed it to be done.

The way I see it, if all the above-mentioned parties are contributing to the problem, then we need to get rid of all of them. No effort is being made here to deflect criticism of Obama. If I had my way about it he would be panhandling on the streets of Nairobi for a living, such as it may be.

 

[88GT]

Congress (or, more specifically, the House) has the sole remedy for the President violating the law: Articles of Impeachment.

Our system is purposely set up so that no one party can ever be responsible. It's called checks and balances, both plural, for a reason.

This is a completely different discussion. Impeachment is only applicable AFTER THE FACT. It has nothing to do with the offense and the party responsible for the offense.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

That is the constant tactic of the cabal here. They never allow any discussion of Obama or the Democrats without immediately flooding the thread with their comments on how the Repubs do it too, or would do it, or allowed it to be done.

OK ... Now tell me why this shouldnt happen? You people are complaining about Obama doing something that Republicans voted "yea" to. You want us to forget the fact that a single digit number of Republicans voted against NDAA? Keep voting for that letter its doing wonders

 

[88GT]

Think of it as being analogous to the police giving criminals guns and then standing back and watching them rob, rape, and pillage without lifting a finger to stop them. In this case, the vast constitutional overreaches in power and failure to impeach constitute arming a criminal and failing to address the crime being committed.

Same response to downzero. Reaction to an offense (or in this case, lack of a proper reaction) is NOT synonymous with direct liability. To continue using your example, the issue in question is the criminals' choice to commit crimes. How the police respond is moot. To prove it: the police could behave exactly as they should in response to the crime and the crime would still have been committed. So who is responsible for the crime?

And since you'll probably want to address the issue of pre-offense police action of handing the criminal firearms, let's take the flip-side of that coin into consideration as well. Does the criminal have the choice of not committing a crime even if in possession of the guns? Or another version: could/would the criminal have committed the crime without the "help" of acquisition of a gun from the police?

In all these scenarios, there is one moment where the CHOICE TO ACT rests solely with one party. And that is the only logical place where blame can be placed. Discussing the sequence of events that placed that party in that position to choose is fine, but you can't place blame on circumstances that didn't directly CAUSE the offense. I return to the bartender and the drunk driver. Driver wouldn't have been drunk if the bartender had refused to serve him. So is the bartender to blame for the driver's decision to drive under the influence?

The way I see it, if all the above-mentioned parties are contributing to the problem, then we need to get rid of all of them. No effort is being made here to deflect criticism of Obama. If I had my way about it he would be panhandling on the streets of Nairobi for a living, such as it may be.

You want to equate the commission of a crime with the act of "aiding and abetting." The two are distinct and separate. And the willingness of one party (as in entity, not political party) to to do the latter has nothing to do with who is directly responsible for the former. I already addressed this in my first response to this nonsense. Congress could do the exact same thing and a different POTUS with a respect for the rule of law could choose to follow the court order and suspend all indefinite detention per the injunction. The blame lies solely with the party who consciously chooses the action. Mitigating circumstances and the parties connected to them are not valid targets for blame placement, no matter which ridiculous analogy

 

[88GT]

OK ... Now tell me why this shouldnt happen? You people are complaining about Obama doing something that Republicans voted "yea" to. You want us to forget the fact that a single digit number of Republicans voted against NDAA? Keep voting for that letter its doing wonders

That's a completely different discussion. OR discussionS. Nobody is arguing Congress doesn't have some culpability for the existence of NDAA. But Congress has zero culpability for the Obama administration's choice to disregard a court ordered injunction. If Obama had done the right thing, would Congress be equally responsible for that? You can't have it one way for one outcome and the other way for another outcome.

Who made the choice to disregard the injunction? I don't see Congress playing a role in that decision at all.