|
|
|
| |
|
CommentsPage 1 of 4 pages 1 2 3 > Last › Yes, Jean, I saw the E.O. where the Indonesian purports to take control of the great lakes and other waters. It too is unlawful as a usurpation of powers not granted to the President.I hope the EdL's on our side can see the point of my paper - that the President's powers are enumerated and quite limited - and they will henceforth focus their efforts on more productive endeavors such as telling everyone in their spheres of influence about the President's Enumerated & Limited Powers! And well done, NoCrud! Posted by Publius Huldah on 09/05 at 09:18 PM | # Jean, I just looked at the website where Obama got US into the National Ocean Council or, you will, the back door to the Law of the Sea (LOST) UN attempt to control the USA by controlling America's coastlines and lakes. The intention eventually is to bring America down so the rest of the world will be pulled up, or some nonsense, but with America being the standard-setter for what is good in the world, it only means lowering the standards of the entire world. The Democrats have been trying to get the LOST thing approved for decades. The Pretender-in-Chief did it with a flourish of his limp-wimp wrist by that Executive Order. You know, maybe if the President had the Executive Order ability removed -- would not that be like tearing up the credit card of an irresponsible teenager or spouse? Looking at who is on the National Ocean Council shows it to be another Obama Takeover on the Family Plan. Even Steven Chu, and no doubt others, who were on the short list to be tossed out of Washington for various reasons, are there. Also, don't forget ACORN was supposed to be given the boot but they just changed their name by dividing up their Union Thug organization and then diversified into new groups with the same intention, that of "equalizing" America into mediocrity. You'd think the Obamaroids would be sneaky when really, really necessary but it looks like this is their preferred way of operation. More closed door type sneakiness. Posted by NoCrud on 09/05 at 05:30 PM | # By the way, Publius, have you seen this? EO 13547 http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/national-ocean-council-–-obama’s-executive-order/ Posted by Jean on 09/05 at 04:31 PM | # Thank you, Publius Huldah! I have copied the web address and sent it to others who will be served by your writings. Too sad so many in Congress do not understand the Constitution and perhaps have never read it. Congressman Jim Clyburn openly stated "We don't go by the Constitution." Well, duh! Posted by Jean on 09/05 at 04:25 PM | # From Times of India Jun 8, 2003: "The word veto comes from the Latin word meaning 'I forbid' and the French word 'vetare' meaning 'to forbid'. A veto is the right of an executive to forbid or withhold assent to acts passed by a law-making body. In the older nations of Europe, the monarch had an absolute veto, that is by refusing assent, the ruler could prevent acts of the legislature from taking effect. This right still exists in some constitutional monarchies. The president of USA enjoys this unique power." What is a presidential veto? A presidential veto occurs when the president withholds his signature from a bill presented to him, after it has been passed by both houses of Congress, and returns it to Congress (specifically, to the house of origin), along with his objections to the bill. Congress may then, if it chooses, attempt to override the veto. For the override effort to be successful, it must be by 2/3 vote in both houses. This procedure is provided for in Article I, section 7 of the Constitution. If the president withholds his signature but does not return the bill to Congress, it automatically becomes law after 10 days (excluding Sundays), unless Congress by its adjournment makes bill return impossible. Under those unusual circumstances, the president's withholding of signature is a 'pocket veto' which kills the bill. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_presidential_veto#ixzz1X5XRkJly And that's about it... Posted by NoCrud on 09/05 at 12:33 PM | # @ Lynda, You raise an important issue: There is much written about constitutional & legal issues on the internet. Too often, the writer doesn't know what he is talking about. Such writers do much harm, because they spread misinformation and untruths, and lead others astray (as we have here seen). But we live in The Age of Opinion, where everybody has an "opinion", and most do not feel constrained by their own lack of knowledge from pontificating about what they think. They may "think" they know, but they have no rational basis for believing they know. When assessing an article, one should ask: What are the author's credentials? Does the author cite original sources to support his statements, or is the author merely spouting off his own opinions? When someone writes on The Constitution, he must cite authority to support what he says! Ask also, is the writing logical and coherent? Many of the people who spout off about the Constitution and legal issues are no more qualified to speak on the subject than I am on how to operate a nuclear power plant. Posted by Publius Huldah on 09/05 at 11:31 AM | # Ed L: What is the old saying, "A distinction without a difference"? Though the Constitution does not call it a veto, that is in effect, what it is. If the President decides he does not want the bill to become a law, he rejects it and it goes back to Congress to see if they can override his rejection. Call it whatever you want, it means the same thing. It is just common practice to refer to the rejection of the bill as a veto. Why make a big deal about it? Posted by Mike Foil on 09/02 at 04:53 AM | # Ed L, where is "Debt Ceiling" in your version of the Constitution? And, what about Motha's Vineyard for the golfing president when there is a crisis in the economy and the jobless rate? Is that also in the Constitution? Ooops, I meant -- is it in the version you have memorized? Oh, I get it. It's not about Obama at all, is it? It's about seeming to know something about the Constitution, right? Nothing about the "veto" being in the Constitution. But, when Congress sends a bill to the president for approval and the president decides to not approve it, what can the president do? The obvious response is to approve it or ignore it, right? If he does not sign it, then it does not get passed. Is this a veto or does the bill need a big "X" marked across it? Somewhere in here some common sense has to set in. Waiting... Posted by NoCrud on 09/01 at 02:59 AM | # Page 1 of 4 pages 1 2 3 > Last › The President’s Enumerated Powers, Rulemaking by Executive Agencies, & Executive OrdersPosted by Publius Huldah on Aug 30, 2011 at 09:40 PM
What are the Enumerated Powers of the President? On election night, November 2, 2010, Rep. John Boehner said in his victory speech: More... Post a Comment on: The President’s Enumerated Powers, Rulemaking by Executive Agencies, & Executive OrdersCommenting is not available in this channel entry. Next entries comments: Warren Buffet; Tax Shirker and Hypocrite Previous entries comments: Coddling Note from the Editor: This section is for comments from readers of canadafreepress.com. Please don't assume that Canada Free Press agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege. |
|
