I've got a pen and a phone.

[TRoaches]

The only difference is that no other president in history has ever been called a dictator for wanting to use their executive powers besides Obama...

Sure are some short memories in here.....

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_H44IkuSV9qQ/Ri5XMZJs0wI/AAAAAAAABAA/oe5xaEZL510/s320/hitler_bush.jpg http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/indybushhitler1.jpg

 

Every president is branded a dictator by his opponents.....because every president expands the power of the executive branch, bringing us closer to a dictatorship..

 

And how are they able to do this? Because of the short memories of their supporters, who forget all about why executive power expansion is a bad thing once THEIR guy is in office, and instead cheer them on during their power grabs and support and defend the very same policies that they opposed during the last administration.

Edited January 26, 2014 by TRoaches

[colourwheel]

 

The only difference is that no other president in history has ever been called a dictator for "wanting" to use their executive powers besides Obama...

 

Every president is branded a dictator by his opponents.....because every president expands the power of the executive branch, bringing us closer to a dictatorship..

 

You need to be more careful reading "exactly" how people phase things... I was never claiming "not once" has a president ever been called a dictator besides Obama. That is just a ridiculous claim....

 

 

Sure are some short memories in here.....

 

Sure maybe at times I do have a short memory. At least I try to be more mindful before I post in regards to the attempt to insult another's attention span...

Edited January 26, 2014 by colourwheel

[Vagrant0]

 

May want to find some 7th grader to refresh your memory about how the US government is setup.

 

First of all I will bypass the immature comment about my post. ones hope that the president can do what he wants to promote the policies one supports are immaterial to reality.

 

Due to the fact that taking an exam based on a good understanding of the constitution and the way that the US government is structured is required in order for anyone to pass 7th grade, and 7th graders should be learning this exact thing at this time of the year, my statement holds true. I would have not mentioned it if you're explanation who is responsible for what wasn't so far off base.

 

The President can't do what he WANTS. The President can however take executive action to deal with the immediate concerns of the country as long as it does not conflict with existing law. Why else do you think it's called the Executive branch? Only Congress can draft new laws or alter the constitution, to which both the Executive and Judicial branch must also agree to those changes. Meaning that the President can order troops to foreign countries, but cannot officially declare war, and subsequently has to either get approval from congress or withdraw those deployed forces after a certain period of time. The President cannot make you give up your 4th amendment rights, or change what the 1st amendment relates to unless congress also agrees to these changes. Even if they wanted to do these things, they still have to pass the bill through congress to have the specific terms written up, and then the Supreme court needs to rule on the constitutionality of those terms.

[TRoaches]

Sometime after 7th grade many people actually open their eyes to reality and realize that the theory and the reality do not agree with each other. The current president has signed executive orders that authorize the execution of US citizens accused of crimes without trial. I don't remember that executive power being mentioned during 7th grade civics class, and it is not an executive power granted by constitution. You are basically saying "It would be illegal for the president to do what he has already done, therefore it could not have happened even though it already did".

[colourwheel]

 

Sometime after 7th grade many people actually open their eyes to reality and realize that the theory and the reality do not agree with each other. The current president has signed executive orders that authorize the execution of US citizens accused of crimes without trial. I don't remember that executive power being mentioned during 7th grade civics class, and it is not an executive power granted by constitution. You are basically saying "It would be illegal for the president to do what he has already done, therefore it could not have happened even though it already did".

 

If it is in regards to this it's just one U.S. citizen... unprecedented as it may seem....

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?_r=0

 

To my understanding as i read this article seem it passed congressional approval, if I have read it correctly....

 

"Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford."

 

(a) This wasn't a decision of the CIA alone.

(b) This wasn't a decision made by just the president after being asked by the CIA

© Multiple agencies and legal departments were consulted, and their input required

(d) Congress was informed AND consulted under the appropriate statues.

(e) All this took place under the existing framework of laws, none of which were interpreted of "stretched".

(f) Those reporting this decision were neither threated with imprisonment or legal action, nor vilified as "Anti-American" or other public smearing.

 

In other words, this process was done exactly as it was supposed to be done, according to precedent and prior example.

Edited January 26, 2014 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

If it is in regards to this its just one U.S. citizen...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?_r=0

 

To my understanding as i read this article seem it passed congressional approval, if I have read it correctly....

 

The number of people who are executed by executive decree is irrelevant. Whether it is only one person or thousands it is a very bad thing. If you allow the executive branch to order US citizens accused of crimes to be executed without a trial you setting the stage for more executions. If they can do it once they will do it again....and they already have. Several US citizens have been executed without trial by this administration. Remember the justified outrage over our treatment of our prisoners during the Bush administration? It blows my mind that so many of the same people so rightly upset about that are now defending the current administration as they take it one step further and skip the whole imprisonment thing in favor of execution. If I were a psychopath I suppose I would praise them for their efficiency in removing the need for trial and expediting the execution process.

 

And you did not read it correctly, regarding congressional approval. First of all, congress does not have the power to authorize such an action any more so than the President does. The only branch of government that is authorized to execute a citizen is the judicial. Second, congress only approved military force against a foreign enemy. The executive order(s) in question authorizes the execution of any person anywhere in the world, including within the borders of the borders of the United States.

[colourwheel]

 

Second, congress only approved military force against a foreign enemy.

 

As unprecedented as it maybe isn't Al Qaeda a foreign enemy in this case?

[kvnchrist]

 

 

May want to find some 7th grader to refresh your memory about how the US government is setup.

 

First of all I will bypass the immature comment about my post. ones hope that the president can do what he wants to promote the policies one supports are immaterial to reality.

 

Due to the fact that taking an exam based on a good understanding of the constitution and the way that the US government is structured is required in order for anyone to pass 7th grade, and 7th graders should be learning this exact thing at this time of the year, my statement holds true. I would have not mentioned it if you're explanation who is responsible for what wasn't so far off base.

 

The President can't do what he WANTS. The President can however take executive action to deal with the immediate concerns of the country as long as it does not conflict with existing law. Why else do you think it's called the Executive branch? Only Congress can draft new laws or alter the constitution, to which both the Executive and Judicial branch must also agree to those changes. Meaning that the President can order troops to foreign countries, but cannot officially declare war, and subsequently has to either get approval from congress or withdraw those deployed forces after a certain period of time. The President cannot make you give up your 4th amendment rights, or change what the 1st amendment relates to unless congress also agrees to these changes. Even if they wanted to do these things, they still have to pass the bill through congress to have the specific terms written up, and then the Supreme court needs to rule on the constitutionality of those terms.

 

And what part of this do you think I don't already know. and what part of my previous post is incorrect?

 

The congress doesn't have to work with the president and he can't go over their heads to create laws. Executive orders are emergency powers given to the president. They do not have the force of legislation and all are subject to judicial review.

[TRoaches]

As unprecedented as it maybe isn't Al Qaeda a foreign enemy in this case?

 

Declaring a US citizen to be an "enemy combatant" is a very slippery slope to go down. The law currently allows nearly any crime to be declared an act of terrorism. If a person throws eggs at a mail carrier they could be charged with committing terrorism. Should they be subject to execution by decree? What about a political protester who interrupts a congressional proceeding? What about a protester who chains them self to an object in front of a courthouse and or otherwise disrupts government business as a form of protest? Nelson Mandela was labeled a terrorist. Should he have been executed via a military strike? The definition of "terrorism" (and, by extension, "enemy combatant") is so broad, and the label applied with such ease, that the thought of executing a person based solely on the government's willingness to apply that label to them should worry everyone.

 

Terrorist is the new heretic, and you are speaking in support of the modern inquisitors and witch hunters right now.

[colourwheel]

 

As unprecedented as it maybe isn't Al Qaeda a foreign enemy in this case?

 

 

Declaring a US citizen to be an "enemy combatant" is a very slippery slope to go down. The law currently allows nearly any crime to be declared an act of terrorism. If a person throws eggs at a mail carrier they could be charged with committing terrorism. Should they be subject to execution by decree? What about a political protester who interrupts a congressional proceeding? What about a protester who chains them self to an object in front of a courthouse and or otherwise disrupts government business as a form of protest? Nelson Mandela was labeled a terrorist. Should he have been executed via a military strike? The definition of "terrorism" (and, by extension, "enemy combatant") is so broad, and the label applied with such ease, that the thought of executing a person based solely on the government's willingness to apply that label to them should worry everyone.

 

Terrorist is the new heretic, and you are speaking in support of the modern inquisitors and witch hunters right now.

 

Let me explain this again....

 

"Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford."

 

(a) This wasn't a decision of the CIA alone.

(b) This wasn't a decision made by just the president after being asked by the CIA

© Multiple agencies and legal departments were consulted, and their input required

(d) Congress was informed AND consulted under the appropriate statues.

(e) All this took place under the existing framework of laws, none of which were interpreted of "stretched".

(f) Those reporting this decision were neither threated with imprisonment or legal action, nor vilified as "Anti-American" or other public smearing.

 

In other words, this process was done exactly as it was supposed to be done, according to precedent and prior example.

 

It is not like Obama himself pick someone at random he didn't like.... there was a long process involved in this decision....

 

Unless you can show more proof of other examples you "claim" where multiple citizens have been executed via "executive power" you really don't hold a strong debate here....

 

Whether you think this example of use of executive power is right or wrong is completely another debate in itself.... But over all this hardly account as framing Obama as a dictator in my opinion, because any president in their right mind would probably do the same thing in this particular case....

Edited January 26, 2014 by colourwheel