Rahm Emanuel expected to quit White House [Archive]

View Full Version : Rahm Emanuel expected to quit White House

Jagermeister

06-21-2010, 03:59 PM

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, is expected to leave his job later this year after growing tired of the "idealism" of Barack Obama's inner circle.

Washington insiders say he will quit within six to eight months in frustration at their unwillingness to "bang heads together" to get policy pushed through.

Mr Emanuel, 50, enjoys a good working relationship with Mr Obama but they are understood to have reached an understanding that differences over style mean he will serve only half the full four-year term.

"I would bet he will go after the midterms," said a leading Democratic consultant in Washington. "Nobody thinks it's working but they can't get rid of him – that would look awful. He needs the right sort of job to go to but the consensus is he'll go."

An official from the Bill Clinton era said that "no one will be surprised" if Mr Emanuel left after the midterm elections in November, when the Democratic party will battle to save its majorities in the house of representatives and the senate.

It is well known in Washington that arguments have developed between pragmatic Mr Emanuel, a veteran in Congress where he was known for driving through compromises, and the idealistic inner circle who followed Mr Obama to the White House.

His abrasive style has rubbed some people the wrong way, while there has been frustration among Mr Obama's closest advisers that he failed to deliver a smooth ride for the president's legislative programme that his background promised.

"It might not be his fault, but the perception is there," said the consultant, who asked not to be named. "Every vote has been tough, from health care to energy to financial reform.

"Democrats have not stood behind the president in the way Republicans did for George W Bush, and that was meant to be Rahm's job."

There were sharp differences over health care reform, with Mr Emanuel arguing that public hostility about cost should have forced them into producing a scaled down package. Mr Obama and advisers including David Axelrod, the chief strategist, and Valerie Jarrett, a businesswoman and mentor from Chicago, decided to push through with grander legislation anyway.

Mr Emanuel has reportedly told friends that his role as White House chief of staff was "only an eighteen month job" because of its intensity.

Regarded as the most demanding after president, it involves controlling the president's agenda, enforcing White House message discipline as well as liaising with Congress.

His departure would regarded as another sign of how Mr Obama's presidency has been far more troubled than expected.

Mr Emanuel has privately expressed a readiness to run for mayor of Chicago, which is also his home town though he was never part of the Obama set and did not endorse the then senator in the Democratic primary in 2008.

That would however depend on Mayor Richard Daley stepping down when he is up for re-election in 2011.

The chief obstacle to taking the White House job originally was doubts about moving his three children from Chicago. According to another former Clinton official, he has let friends know that he is "very sensitive to the idea that he is not a good father for having done this".

One of Washington's more colourful characters, Mr Emanuel is the son of Jewish immigrants and was an accomplished ballet dancer at school. He served as a civilian volunteer with the Israeli Defence Force in the 1991 Gulf War.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on Friday but on Monday, Mr Emanuel issued a statement: “This is BS. And if you need it for translation, it’s baseless.”

Jagermeister

06-21-2010, 04:00 PM

:cry:

ELVIS

06-21-2010, 04:05 PM

Differences over style ??

He should take Obama with him...

Amature night is over...

:elvis:

Jagermeister

06-21-2010, 04:11 PM

Differences over style ??

He should take Obama with him...

Amature night is over...

:elvis:

I guess this guy is a real hardass. Or thought he was anyway.

Catfish

06-21-2010, 04:13 PM

All we need now is to get the OTHER Muslim out of the White House!

Jagermeister

06-21-2010, 04:18 PM

All we need now is to get the OTHER Muslim out of the White House!

All in good time. :)

Jagermeister

06-21-2010, 04:19 PM

Better hurry! Lounge is prolly getting ready to close this thread. ;)

knuckleboner

06-21-2010, 07:05 PM

All we need now is to get the OTHER Muslim out of the White House!

considering that the iraq war has been an al qaeda recruiting tool, i'd say that bush was more the fanatical islamist...

Nickdfresh

06-21-2010, 09:28 PM

All we need now is to get the OTHER Muslim out of the White House!

What other Muslim? Rahm is a Jew...

Nickdfresh

06-21-2010, 09:28 PM

Better hurry! Lounge is prolly getting ready to close this thread. ;)

Oh look, someone is putting on his Joan of Arc dress already...

hambon4lif

06-22-2010, 12:50 AM

All we need now is to get the OTHER Muslim out of the White House!Agreed, but it's such a waste of time and energy to be angry at someone who is just months away from being impeached.

Dr. Love

06-22-2010, 01:57 AM

Agreed, but it's such a waste of time and energy to be angry at someone who is just months away from being impeached.

for what, exactly?

sadaist

06-22-2010, 02:04 AM

for what, exactly?

His closest loyalists are starting to get tired of his worsening shenanigans. Someone is gonna start to leak shit that has been covered to make him appear the Golden Child. Something will be uncovered that will give enough ammunition to take him to task. Doubtful it would get him out of office. But the whole point is to make sure he doesn't get 8 years to destroy this country. 4 years is more than enough destruction that we will be repairing it for decades.

Funny thing though, so far Obamas own worst enemy is himself. He is doing his damnedest to make sure he doesn't get re-elected and taking down as many Democrats along the way as he can.

sadaist

06-22-2010, 02:05 AM

BigBadBrian

06-22-2010, 05:32 AM

for what, exactly?

Google "Sestak"

Seshmeister

06-22-2010, 08:12 AM

Who wants a President that hates the country he is President of anyways? Dude has to go.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hU9iCANi02o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hU9iCANi02o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

If you can't pay attention or check things it just makes you look like a bit of a dummy.

That BS was debunked just after it came out 3 YEARS AGO.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp

Seshmeister

06-22-2010, 08:14 AM

Google "Sestak"

You're going to impeach him if Slovakia get knocked out the World Cup?

Yeah that sounds up to the usual standard...

Nickdfresh

06-22-2010, 08:41 AM

sadaist

06-22-2010, 11:08 AM

If you can't pay attention or check things it just makes you look like a bit of a dummy.

That BS was debunked just after it came out 3 YEARS AGO.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp

Yeah, SNOPES just says he didn't make the "false statements" that have been attributed to him denouncing the flag. I don't claim he said that either. But the video is authentic, and he DID NOT hold his hand over his heart during the national anthem, while everyone else did.

Now you are the dummy.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp

sadaist

06-22-2010, 11:13 AM

What does any of this have to do with impeachment?

As people who were at one time loyal to him scurry away, they will want their 15 minutes of fame and drop as much dirt as they can.

Nickdfresh

06-22-2010, 11:15 AM

As people who were at one time loyal to him scurry away, they will want their 15 minutes of fame and drop as much dirt as they can.

Okay, nothing it is...

I hate to break the news to you, but there's no "I don't like the president, let's impeach him!" clause to the Constitution...

hambon4lif

06-22-2010, 11:16 AM

jhale667

06-22-2010, 11:16 AM

All we need now is to get the OTHER Muslim out of the White House!

There'd have to be ONE first for there to be ANOTHER to "get out"...:rolleyes:

And the impeachment fantasy? Do what?

Nickdfresh

06-22-2010, 11:19 AM

Dr. Love

06-22-2010, 11:22 AM

His closest loyalists are starting to get tired of his worsening shenanigans. Someone is gonna start to leak shit that has been covered to make him appear the Golden Child. Something will be uncovered that will give enough ammunition to take him to task. Doubtful it would get him out of office. But the whole point is to make sure he doesn't get 8 years to destroy this country. 4 years is more than enough destruction that we will be repairing it for decades.

Funny thing though, so far Obamas own worst enemy is himself. He is doing his damnedest to make sure he doesn't get re-elected and taking down as many Democrats along the way as he can.

So he's going to be impeached for something that might be leaked eventually by someone that quits his administration over some nebulous shennanigans.

You know, I have as hard a time taking these sorts of statements seriously as I did the statements about GWB when all the dems here were making them (well, at least until the very end when the shit really hit the fan.

You guys sound almost verbatim like what FORD/Lounge/Nick sounded like when Bush was president.

hambon4lif

06-22-2010, 11:27 AM

Okay, nothing it is...

I hate to break the news to you, but there's no "I don't like the president, let's impeach him!" clause to the Constitution...That's some funny shit there....
.....resorting to the Constitution (when all else fails, of course).

Does it even bother you at all that you and all your tree-hugging buddies have spent the last year and a half sounding like kids trying to talk their way out of a jam?
How much longer do you expect the "Blame Bush" defense to hold water?

Dr. Love

06-22-2010, 11:34 AM

sadaist

06-22-2010, 11:35 AM

Okay, nothing it is...

I hate to break the news to you, but there's no "I don't like the president, let's impeach him!" clause to the Constitution...

Nah. It depends on what kind of dirt they have to dish on him, and how motivated the listener is. Like the whole Tony Rezko/house purchase crap. You know information is buried on that.. Just like the Whitewater shit came back to bite the Clintons years later. Hell, I got 25 year old info on my sister that if I told my mom now, sis would lose her driving privileges for 6 months...and she is 44! :)

sadaist

06-22-2010, 11:40 AM

Okay, nothing it is...

I hate to break the news to you, but there's no "I don't like the president, let's impeach him!" clause to the Constitution...

And isn't that the clause they used on Bill? I mean really...dude was impeached for lying about getting a blow job. It was ridiculous then as it is now. If that were a crime, we would all have been sent up the river at some point in our past.

Dr. Love

06-22-2010, 11:41 AM

Google "Sestak"

18 USC 600

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The criminal code classifies violation of section 600 (and anything else punishable by a year in prison or less) as a Class A misdemeanor. That’s less serious than a felony such as outright bribery, which can be punished by up to 15 years in prison.

Even so, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey says that section 600 was not violated, unless it can be shown that the White House offered Sestak something more than the unpaid advisory position it admits to discussing.

Appearing on Fox News on Friday, May 28, Mukasey was asked specifically whether Section 600 would be violated by the actions the White House and Sestak describe. His answer:

Former A.G. Mukasey: It has to be a position that was created by Congress, or was somehow partially created by an act of Congress. If not, then it doesn’t violate the statute. … If it’s something that was created only by executive order or by the executive entirely, then it’s not a violation.

And according to the accounts given by White House Counsel Robert Bauer, the White House sent President Clinton to ask Sestak whether he would serve on "a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board," without pay. Sestak said Clinton asked if he would serve on "a presidential board."

Mukasey said it would "substantially" change things if it turned out that Sestak had been offered some other job, such as secretary of the Navy. "The position of secretary of the Navy is a position that exists by virtue of an act of Congress."

But White House Counsel Bauer says rumors to that effect are "false," adding: "At no time was Congressman Sestak offered, nor did he seek, the position of Secretary of the Navy."

We can’t independently confirm that it was merely an unpaid presidential advisory position that Clinton dangled before Sestak. But by the same token, Rep. Issa has no evidence that it wasn’t.

http://m.factcheck.org/2010/06/sunday-replay-6/

It all depends on what was offered. I think it was wrong to do regardless, but not necessarily illegal. I see no problem with having it investigated but I suspect it would go nowhere fast.

hambon4lif

06-22-2010, 11:57 AM

sadaist

06-22-2010, 12:09 PM

Dr. Love

06-22-2010, 12:19 PM

Nitro Express

06-22-2010, 02:45 PM

I guess this guy is a real hardass. Or thought he was anyway.

Rahm is a thug and a real scumbag. Do a little research on him. He's nothing but a corporate, political, and banking whore of the worst kind. I'll cut to the chase. Rahm is a fascist. That being said he's the guy that actually does the work at the White House. Obama gives speeches, makes appearances, and flys around in Air Force One a lot. Rahm is the Dick Cheney who is actually doing work. I thought is was telling when a television crew was at the West Wing where Rahm was running around like a man trying to get things done while Obama had plenty of time for interviews and to run to Five Guys for some burgers.

Much like Bush riding his mountain bike during key business hours while Dick Cheney is busting his ass over at the West Wing running things.

Nitro Express

06-22-2010, 02:51 PM

Who wants a President that hates the country he is President of anyways? Dude has to go.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hU9iCANi02o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hU9iCANi02o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Where's the birth certificate Obama? Why have you spent over a million dollars on legal fees fighting it in court when you could just produce a long-form birth certificate and end the contraversy? Oh you don't have one.

Nitro Express

06-22-2010, 02:57 PM

And isn't that the clause they used on Bill? I mean really...dude was impeached for lying about getting a blow job. It was ridiculous then as it is now. If that were a crime, we would all have been sent up the river at some point in our past.

What I learned from the whole Bill Clinton thing is impeachment doesn't mean a damn thing. He still finished his second term having presidential powers. Not only that, the president can lie under oath and not go to prison for it. If you are Martha Stewart and lie to the SEC, they will throw your ass in prison but the president seems untouchable these days. That being said the Republicans showed very poor taste exploiting Bill's sex life the way they did. To be honest, that's between the president and his wife. Maybe Monica, Bill, and Hillary had the threesome going. Who knows.

jhale667

06-22-2010, 03:01 PM

Where's the birth certificate Obama?

Good lord, man - THAT tired bullshit ...still? :rolleyes:

Seshmeister

06-22-2010, 03:48 PM

Nitro Express

06-22-2010, 03:53 PM

Good lord, man - THAT tired bullshit ...still? :rolleyes:

It's tired because Obama never produced a long-form birth certificate. Why would he spend over a million dollars in court fighting it when he simply has to produce it? He can't prove he's a natural born citizen. Do some research on Obama. His records are locked up tighter than a nun's ass.

Nitro Express

06-22-2010, 03:58 PM

The thing is, even if he was natural born, he's going down. It's quite obvious he doesn't give a ratt's ass about the average American. All Obama wants to do is take people's money during one of the worst economic periods in US history. Our industry is being pummeled, we have pretty much been outsourced and sold off. He hasn't done a damn thing about the wars and so much for his open government he sold himself on. Now he wants dictator powers over the internet, more energy taxes, and to give every illegal amnesty. To hell with the middle working class and the millionares who actually create jobs.

It's about productive jobs. Obama's policies destroy them.

sadaist

06-22-2010, 04:17 PM

Fair enough but I would have had my hands over my ears, that was fucking hellish.

I'd rather hear Ace sing it. :)

No shit, right? WTF was with that rendition? Compares right up there to when Roseanne Barr sang before a Padres game. Just ouch.

Nickdfresh

06-22-2010, 07:49 PM

That's some funny shit there....
.....resorting to the Constitution (when all else fails, of course).

Yeah, I mean applying actual laws and logic to your silly arguments. Imagine that?

Does it even bother you at all that you and all your tree-hugging buddies have spent the last year and a half sounding like kids trying to talk their way out of a jam?
How much longer do you expect the "Blame Bush" defense to hold water?

Oh, okay. Any specific examples other than your mindless teabagging ramblings?

hambon4lif

06-22-2010, 07:59 PM

Yeah, I mean applying actual laws and logic to your silly arguments. Imagine that?Not quite, wiseass!

It's you, in the midst of an argument, reaching for the Constitution. Especially when your messiah has spent his tenure disregarding the fucking thing!

I find that to be quite humorous and amusing, if not ironic.

Nickdfresh

06-22-2010, 09:13 PM

Not quite, wiseass!

It's you, in the midst of an argument, reaching for the Constitution. Especially when your messiah has spent his tenure disregarding the fucking thing!

I find that to be quite humorous and amusing, if not ironic.

I don't have a messiah. And really? He's really spent his tenure "disregarding the Constitution?"

Again, feel free to offer examples of that. Because few serious Obama critics have really made any sort of case for that...

And I'm not talking about fuckwitted Teabaggers and hypocrite Libertard'ians that apply a huge double standard to Pres. Obama, and anyone Democrat, after they have pretty much have given decades of free pass to massive spending, gov't-expanding GOP admins...

hambon4lif

06-22-2010, 09:34 PM

o.k.

since we're being polite and civilized, I think it's completely possible.

Some of the 21 tactics President Obama is using to subvert the Constitution and "transform" America:

* The Czars: How Obama is creating a "shadow government" by appointing dozens of powerful executive officials -- many of them radicals -- that are not Senate-confirmed, are outside congressional oversight, and report only to him

* The Courts: How Obama is packing the courts with judges who share his far-left vision of the Constitution -- and is also working to expand the lower courts to pack them with dozens of new judges who would dominate the courts for a generation

* Executive orders: The sweeping changes in law Obama is enacting through administrative rulemaking and executive orders, end-running the legislative process

* Domestic army: What Obama, his Chief of Staff, and the First Lady have said about his plans to create a civilian security force as large and well-funded as the U.S. military -- and which would answer to Obama alone

* Healthcare: How the bill just passed by Congress is just the first step in Obama's plan to take over the entire American healthcare system

* Cap and Trade: How Obama is pushing for a job-killing carbon emission control system to give the government enormous power over the entire economy

* Stimulus: How Obama is using stimulus bills to engage in massive wealth redistribution and permanently grow government with new taxpayer-funded programs

* Taxes: How Obama is shifting the tax burden to less than half of the population, so that a majority of voters have nothing to lose by supporting higher taxes on the rest

* Elections: How Obama wants to grant citizenship to every illegal alien in the United States, making them all voters with the expectation that they will vote for bigger government, paid for by higher taxes on others

* Card check: How Obama wants to abolish secret ballots in businesses voting on whether to unionize -- opening the door to massive intimidation to enormously increase the size of labor unions in America

* Guns: How Obama wants to radically restrict gun ownership in the United States

....if that isn't enough, there's actually alot more.....

Nickdfresh

06-22-2010, 11:07 PM

Oh look, Hambone gets chain emails (by partisan fuckwits hoping everyone they send this shit too won't actually check facts--or have a high school degree giving them the critical thinking skills necessary to piss all over this fucking nonsense)... :)

I'll make all this look fucking preposterous tomorrow...

Dr. Love

06-22-2010, 11:14 PM

I'm looking at this list wondering how much of it is "disregarding the consitution" (hell, how much of it is even subversive to the Constitution?)

o.k.

since we're being polite and civilized, I think it's completely possible.

Some of the 21 tactics President Obama is using to subvert the Constitution and "transform" America:

* The Czars: How Obama is creating a "shadow government" by appointing dozens of powerful executive officials -- many of them radicals -- that are not Senate-confirmed, are outside congressional oversight, and report only to him

This, I agree with. And I wondered how/why this suddenly started happening?

The modern czar system actually flourished under former President George W. Bush who persuaded a Republican Congress to authorize the President to share classified information with anyone of his choosing. Prior to this law, only persons confirmed by the Senate could have such privileges; and, so, prior to this law, there were few czars as federal law limited what documents they could see or secrets that could be shared with them. President Obama now enjoys this and other unconstitutional yet congressionally-created Bush-era presidential powers.

Read more: http://radio.foxnews.com/2009/09/08/what-can-the-czars-legally-do/#ixzz0rdmMFrbh

Surprise, surprise... I still don't like it and think it should be done away with, or that Congress should step in and do something about it.

* The Courts: How Obama is packing the courts with judges who share his far-left vision of the Constitution -- and is also working to expand the lower courts to pack them with dozens of new judges who would dominate the courts for a generation

Uh...

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Not seeing how this subverts the constitution or disregards it? Unless you mean that you don't like a bunch of left-leaning judges to be interpreting things?

* Executive orders: The sweeping changes in law Obama is enacting through administrative rulemaking and executive orders, end-running the legislative process

Too long to copy in length from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_%28United_States%29 but here are some excerpts:

U.S. Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits Executive Orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. At the minimum, most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[1] the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the Federal Government - the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[2]

and

To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1996 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the U.S. government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll.[6] Congress may overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.[7]

I believe the term is "checks and balances" ... if you want it to stop, elect people that will stop it.

* Domestic army: What Obama, his Chief of Staff, and the First Lady have said about his plans to create a civilian security force as large and well-funded as the U.S. military -- and which would answer to Obama alone

I googled this because I'd never heard this before. It's from 2008 so far as I can tell and nothing since then. And really the only one to run it very much was WorldNetDaily. I'll file this one under ... LOL, talk to me when the legislation for it appears.

* Healthcare: How the bill just passed by Congress is just the first step in Obama's plan to take over the entire American healthcare system

As you said -- Congress just passed this bill. And they wrote it. Maybe you meant Congress is subverting the constitution?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Well, I guess it's not unconstitutional.

* Cap and Trade: How Obama is pushing for a job-killing carbon emission control system to give the government enormous power over the entire economy

Not sure how this subverts the constitution when

* Stimulus: How Obama is using stimulus bills to engage in massive wealth redistribution and permanently grow government with new taxpayer-funded programs

* Taxes: How Obama is shifting the tax burden to less than half of the population, so that a majority of voters have nothing to lose by supporting higher taxes on the rest

* Elections: How Obama wants to grant citizenship to every illegal alien in the United States, making them all voters with the expectation that they will vote for bigger government, paid for by higher taxes on others

* Card check: How Obama wants to abolish secret ballots in businesses voting on whether to unionize -- opening the door to massive intimidation to enormously increase the size of labor unions in America

I'm not sure how these generally apply to the constitution ... the Congress passes bills, the President signs them ... Obama can't just wish these things to magically happen.

* Guns: How Obama wants to radically restrict gun ownership in the United States

....if that isn't enough, there's actually alot more.....

Again, call me when there's a bill with a snowball's chance in hell of passing...

hambon4lif

06-22-2010, 11:30 PM

I'm not sure how these generally apply to the constitution ..Well, that makes two of us, 'cause I don't either.

hambon4lif

06-22-2010, 11:33 PM

Oh look, Hambone gets chain emails
I'll make all this look fucking preposterous tomorrow...Alright......just don't hurt yourself doing it.

Nickdfresh

06-22-2010, 11:37 PM

Alright......just don't hurt yourself doing it.

Well, I think Doc Love pretty much owned you enough for one eon...

hambon4lif

06-22-2010, 11:57 PM

Well, I think Doc Love pretty much owned you enough for one eon...Oh contrare, homeboy! Dr. Slip And Fall doesn't own jack shit!

.....I told you, I had more!
How Unconstitutional is Barack Obama? Let me count the muthafuckin' WAYS!!!

1) Bailouts
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to spend the taxpayer’s money. Without the consent of Congress, the President cannot legally spend taxpayer money.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.
Two Presidents had a hand in the auto industry bailout: 1) President G. W. Bush by using TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money authorized by Congress and 2) President Barack Obama, not using TARP funds, but declaring that he would use monies from somewhere, and do so with the authority and power of the Executive Branch. At the time, CNSNews.com correspondent Fred Lucas asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs where President Obama derived his authority to use taxpayer funds to bail out GM and Chrysler.

I think the determination has been made both by the previous administration and the current administration that this assistance is legal, and our goal is to ensure that the taxpayers in any instance when this is used feel confident that it’s being done in a transparent and accountable way,” Gibbs said.
President Bush’s use of congressionally approved TARP funds is suspect also, although the money was “legislated” by Congress. The bug in the ointment is that the TARP funds were authorized only for use by the Treasury to purchase “troubled assets” from “financial institutions.” The auto industry does not qualify as a “financial institution.”

CNSNews.com once again seeks an answer, this time from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:

The administration clearly believes it does have the authority to use some of the remaining TARP funds for the automobile industry,” Hoyer told Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com.

I don’t know, technically. I would be kidding you to mouth some words on that, because I don’t know technically where that authority would be,” said Hoyer. “But my own view is that if it is perceived they don’t have that authority and it is perceived by the Congress they need to have that authority, the Congress would probably be willing to give that authority. But I don’t know technically the answer to that question.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) introduced a Bill in the House to give the President Constitutional authority for the bailouts. Sixty Senators were required to vote for the legislation to overcome a Senate filibuster. Those votes were not there and the legislation was dead.

Then comes the Time of Obama. There was no attempt to get the Senate Banking Committee to introduce the needed legislation.

Rep. Barney Frank washed his hands of all responsibility of the administration’s trampling the Constitution. Again, when CNSNews.com asked Frank about Obama’s intentions to do the bailout without Congressional approval, Frank allegedly said:

It’s an administration situation so I’m not very well informed on it,” Frank told Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com

Then the correspondent asked Frank if Obama’s promised guarantee of the auto warranties for GM and Chrysler needed “legislative authority,” Frank was even clearer in his answer:

Do the words ‘I’m not very well informed on it’ have any meaning to you? Am I speaking a language you don’t understand?”

It’s not something I’m focused on,” said Frank. “The committee, which I chair, keeps me busy. I have not had a chance to look at that. I do not have an informed opinion on it. It’s not my understanding that Congress is going to get to vote on it. So I tend to focus on things that are under the jurisdiction of the committee and that we’ll have to vote on. When things are neither, I don’t have a very well-informed opinion.
So much for constitutionally-mandated Congressional oversight.

Back in October 2008, the CATO Institute looks at the constitutionality of the auto bailouts. After exploring the fact that the government “created this crisis with everything from artificially low interest rates to political pressures for affordable housing, quick loans for bad credit risks, and the subsidization of agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Nevertheless, CATO Institute’s chairman, Robert A. Levy, says, no, the bailout is not constitutional.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to spend taxpayers’ money to buy distressed assets, much less to take an ownership position in private financial institutions. And Congress has no constitutional authority to delegate nearly plenary legislative power to the Treasury secretary, an executive branch official.Congress can proceed only from legitimate authority, not from good intentions alone. That means we must find a constitutional pedigree for each proposed law.
Levy then discusses the rationale of using the commerce clause to legitimize the spending, but he clearly decides that any reasoning for this position is a misinterpretation.

Moreover, it is not a commerce clause argument to say that Congress created the mess and, therefore, Congress can do whatever it wants to fix the mess. Legislators’ misdeeds do not ipso facto justify the socialization of private banks, brokers, mortgage companies, and insurance companies-and who knows where it stops.

Even if Congress could defend the bailout as a means of preventing interstate impediments to commerce, that would not legitimize any and all means.
Under the sub-heading No Intelligible Principle, Levy says (snippets):

Indeed, the bailout quite clearly violates the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principle-in particular, what has become known as the nondelegation doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to any other entity, including the Cabinet departments of the executive branch….A plain reading of that text shows that lawmaking is for the legislative branch, which does not include the Treasury Department. Yet when Congress authorized the bailout package, it gave Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. unprecedented power to act as a super-legislature.
But Congress itself, not an executive official, must be accountable for the consequences of laws that Congress puts in place. That tenet has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for more than two centuries. John Locke got it right in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690): The separation-of-powers principle means that “the legislative [branch] cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands.” The legislative power, wrote Locke, is “to make laws, and not to make legislators.”

Despite that sound advice, the Treasury secretary is now the one calling the shots as he partially nationalizes a significant sector of our economy.
Here’s the link again to Mr. Levy’s article.

2) Supreme Court

President Obama has expressed his desire to see his Supreme Court nominees embrace “empathy” in their decisions and opinions. Nevermind the the oath that a Justice swears to:

I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
There is no room for empathy when justice is blind and the poor and the rich have equal rights in the sight of the law of the land. While the U.S. Constitution does not provide the oath for a Supreme Court Justice, it does state that others “shall be bound by an oath or affirmation to support this constitution.”

Additionally, if the President keeps his oath of office, he will not require a Justice who uses “empathy” to decide a case, because empathy is unconstitutional and unfit for the U.S. Supreme Court:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Appointing activist Judges to the Supreme Court is an avenue to interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing” document…an avenue for a Judge to insert personal opinion, maybe “empathy,” which is unlawful. The only way for the Constitution to take a breath is through an amendment. There is no other way. Outside of amendments, the Constitution is ageless, and it awaits it’s use as a service to all Americans, but not at the whim of an activist Judge.

Interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing document without amendments, renders it practically impotent, because it no longer has the power to protect our rights. Eminent domain is an excellent example.

3) The Czars

The appointment of the many “czars” by the Obama administration are unconstitutional. There’s the Car Czar, The Pay Czar, The Great Lakes Czar, a Cyber Czar, a Drug Czar, an Energy Czar, a Health Reform Czar, an Intelligence Czar, and a Tech Czar. The Czar Czar, of course, is Barack Obama. What is Obama’s Cabinet members doing these days? They’ve all been demoted and they know it and there’s not a thing they can do about it.

Here’s the problem with Czars. They report to no one but Barack Obama. They have far reaching powers and Congress cannot stop a single decision they make. What has happened to our egotistic Congress who has been so willingly hypnotised into giving up their grasp on EVERYTHING? Maybe it’s something in the water. So much for checks and balances. Barack Obama reigns.

Even Senator Robert Byrd, the longest-serving senator in history, hates the idea of Czar appointments. It’s dangerous he says. It gives the president too much power.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd, a Democrat, said that the czar system “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances,” Politico reported. Byrd added that oversight of federal agencies is the responsibility of officials approved by the Senate.

As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, or to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.
The wildly liberal CBS News, at the end of the article on Byrd, says:

These days, however, Byrd’s comments have less force as he is no longer the chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee.
What does Byrd’s chairmanship or the lack of it have to do with the fact that it is unconstitutional to have presidential appointees making decisions about taxpayer monies without congressional oversight?

4) Government ownership in private business

The seizure of ownership of private business is unconstitutional. The government ownership of GM is unconstitutional. We’ve beat this horse to the ground. No need to say more.

5) Redistribution of Wealth

Engineering the redistribution of wealth in the GM stock debacle is unconstitutional. I’m not sure I have the latest figures, but nevertheless, it’s not good for shareholders who I believe end up with 10 percent of their investment or five cents on the dollar. The government gets 50 percent of the stock, about 87 cents on the dollar. The Unions get 40 percent ownership, plus $10 billion in cash – about 76 cents on the dollar. Doesn’t this make you want to throw-up and then find a quiet spot and grieve for our country?

6) Health Care

Obama’s health care plan is unconstitutional. The first thing that comes to mind is his plan to pay for his health care plan by taxing the wealthy to pay for it. Redistribution of wealth is unconstitutional in America. Then there’s the fact that he plans to put private business out of business to achieve his goal, which is simply power over all of us.

In the fall of 2008, Obama told Tom Brokaw that health care “should be a right for every American.” The Constitution says nothing about guaranteeing health care. BUT, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. has introduced H.J. Res. 30 which calls for a Constitutional Amendment to establish “the right of citizens of the U.S. to health care of equal high quality.”

7) Interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing” document

The only way to make the Constitution take a breath occasionally is to amend it. The Constitution limits government, and to expand government, that expansion must be appropriate under the document,

That’s my six obviously unconstitutional steps taken by President Obama.

We live among idiots, and I guess, we are idiots because if we had the proper sense of outrage, we would sit on the steps of Congress until all of the above are overturned, or Barack Obama is impeached, whichever comes first.

Where are our Defending Fathers in Congress? They should be on the floor railing about these issues every single day, over and over. Are we…are they, really so willing to devalue our prized Constitution.

From Thomas Paine:
A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is power without right.’ ‘A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government; and a government is only the creature of a constitution.’
Think about that:

“…operating the government without the Constitution “is a power without right.”
I as a “people” didn’t grant that power, neither did you, neither did Congress.

I ask this question: Who will limit the expansion of government? President Obama and the Executive Branch? Speaker Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Reid? The Supreme Court? For the moment, The Supreme Court is the only chance we have. Once Sonia Sotomayor, an activist judge is confirmed, Ruth Bader Ginsberg will resign and then we have not one branch of government to stop the wild ride to Socialism. By the way, Socialism whether Americans want it or not, and I believe a huge majority do not want it, is unconstitutional. The preamble to the Constitution makes it clear:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
(guarantees a republican form of governance)
I know there are other unconstitutional acts to add to this list, including: the budget an earmarks, the stimulus expenditures that do not create jobs, eminent domain, snatching rights designated only to states, and other unlawful federal rights granted that are clearly unconstitutional – such as “special interest” legislation. If you have thoughts about this or other additions, please leave them in comments. I’ll continue updating this list and give you credit, unless you prefer that I not. Help me compile a complete list. While the U.S. Constitution is not a living, breathing document, this post will be.

knuckleboner

06-23-2010, 12:00 AM

Yeah, SNOPES just says he didn't make the "false statements" that have been attributed to him denouncing the flag. I don't claim he said that either. But the video is authentic, and he DID NOT hold his hand over his heart during the national anthem, while everyone else did.

Now you are the dummy.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp

holy hell. are you serious here? do you think this is actually reflective of anything?

i mean, seriously, it's fine to go and rile people up on the internet. but if you actually believe that this video indicates obama's appreciation, or lack thereof, of America, then you either WAY gullible or a obsurdly partisan.

Dr. Love

06-23-2010, 12:06 AM

you're right -- you told us you had more. You just forgot to tell us it was more of the same.

Nickdfresh

06-23-2010, 12:12 AM

Oh contrare, homeboy! Dr. Slip And Fall doesn't own jack shit!

.....I told you, I had more!
How Unconstitutional is Barack Obama? Let me count the muthafuckin' WAYS!!!

....

:handjob:

Dr. Love

06-23-2010, 12:12 AM

removed what was already covered, no need to rehash...

Oh contrare, homeboy! Dr. Slip And Fall doesn't own jack shit!

.....I told you, I had more!
How Unconstitutional is Barack Obama? Let me count the muthafuckin' WAYS!!!

1) Bailouts
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to spend the taxpayer’s money. Without the consent of Congress, the President cannot legally spend taxpayer money.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.
Two Presidents had a hand in the auto industry bailout: 1) President G. W. Bush by using TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money authorized by Congress and 2) President Barack Obama, not using TARP funds, but declaring that he would use monies from somewhere, and do so with the authority and power of the Executive Branch. At the time, CNSNews.com correspondent Fred Lucas asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs where President Obama derived his authority to use taxpayer funds to bail out GM and Chrysler.

I think the determination has been made both by the previous administration and the current administration that this assistance is legal, and our goal is to ensure that the taxpayers in any instance when this is used feel confident that it’s being done in a transparent and accountable way,” Gibbs said.
President Bush’s use of congressionally approved TARP funds is suspect also, although the money was “legislated” by Congress. The bug in the ointment is that the TARP funds were authorized only for use by the Treasury to purchase “troubled assets” from “financial institutions.” The auto industry does not qualify as a “financial institution.”

CNSNews.com once again seeks an answer, this time from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:

The administration clearly believes it does have the authority to use some of the remaining TARP funds for the automobile industry,” Hoyer told Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com.

I don’t know, technically. I would be kidding you to mouth some words on that, because I don’t know technically where that authority would be,” said Hoyer. “But my own view is that if it is perceived they don’t have that authority and it is perceived by the Congress they need to have that authority, the Congress would probably be willing to give that authority. But I don’t know technically the answer to that question.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) introduced a Bill in the House to give the President Constitutional authority for the bailouts. Sixty Senators were required to vote for the legislation to overcome a Senate filibuster. Those votes were not there and the legislation was dead.

Then comes the Time of Obama. There was no attempt to get the Senate Banking Committee to introduce the needed legislation.

Rep. Barney Frank washed his hands of all responsibility of the administration’s trampling the Constitution. Again, when CNSNews.com asked Frank about Obama’s intentions to do the bailout without Congressional approval, Frank allegedly said:

It’s an administration situation so I’m not very well informed on it,” Frank told Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com

Then the correspondent asked Frank if Obama’s promised guarantee of the auto warranties for GM and Chrysler needed “legislative authority,” Frank was even clearer in his answer:

Do the words ‘I’m not very well informed on it’ have any meaning to you? Am I speaking a language you don’t understand?”

It’s not something I’m focused on,” said Frank. “The committee, which I chair, keeps me busy. I have not had a chance to look at that. I do not have an informed opinion on it. It’s not my understanding that Congress is going to get to vote on it. So I tend to focus on things that are under the jurisdiction of the committee and that we’ll have to vote on. When things are neither, I don’t have a very well-informed opinion.
So much for constitutionally-mandated Congressional oversight.

Back in October 2008, the CATO Institute looks at the constitutionality of the auto bailouts. After exploring the fact that the government “created this crisis with everything from artificially low interest rates to political pressures for affordable housing, quick loans for bad credit risks, and the subsidization of agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Nevertheless, CATO Institute’s chairman, Robert A. Levy, says, no, the bailout is not constitutional.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to spend taxpayers’ money to buy distressed assets, much less to take an ownership position in private financial institutions. And Congress has no constitutional authority to delegate nearly plenary legislative power to the Treasury secretary, an executive branch official.Congress can proceed only from legitimate authority, not from good intentions alone. That means we must find a constitutional pedigree for each proposed law.
Levy then discusses the rationale of using the commerce clause to legitimize the spending, but he clearly decides that any reasoning for this position is a misinterpretation.

Moreover, it is not a commerce clause argument to say that Congress created the mess and, therefore, Congress can do whatever it wants to fix the mess. Legislators’ misdeeds do not ipso facto justify the socialization of private banks, brokers, mortgage companies, and insurance companies-and who knows where it stops.

Even if Congress could defend the bailout as a means of preventing interstate impediments to commerce, that would not legitimize any and all means.
Under the sub-heading No Intelligible Principle, Levy says (snippets):

Indeed, the bailout quite clearly violates the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principle-in particular, what has become known as the nondelegation doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to any other entity, including the Cabinet departments of the executive branch….A plain reading of that text shows that lawmaking is for the legislative branch, which does not include the Treasury Department. Yet when Congress authorized the bailout package, it gave Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. unprecedented power to act as a super-legislature.
But Congress itself, not an executive official, must be accountable for the consequences of laws that Congress puts in place. That tenet has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for more than two centuries. John Locke got it right in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690): The separation-of-powers principle means that “the legislative [branch] cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands.” The legislative power, wrote Locke, is “to make laws, and not to make legislators.”

Despite that sound advice, the Treasury secretary is now the one calling the shots as he partially nationalizes a significant sector of our economy.
Here’s the link again to Mr. Levy’s article.

agree

4) Government ownership in private business

The seizure of ownership of private business is unconstitutional. The government ownership of GM is unconstitutional. We’ve beat this horse to the ground. No need to say more.

agreed

7) Interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing” document

The only way to make the Constitution take a breath occasionally is to amend it. The Constitution limits government, and to expand government, that expansion must be appropriate under the document,

That's just an unsubstantiated opinion.

We live among idiots, and I guess, we are idiots

agree

I ask this question: Who will limit the expansion of government? President Obama and the Executive Branch? Speaker Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Reid? The Supreme Court? For the moment, The Supreme Court is the only chance we have. Once Sonia Sotomayor, an activist judge is confirmed, Ruth Bader Ginsberg will resign and then we have not one branch of government to stop the wild ride to Socialism. By the way, Socialism whether Americans want it or not, and I believe a huge majority do not want it, is unconstitutional. The preamble to the Constitution makes it clear:

agree, America has went way downhill since Sotomayor was confirmed, and since healthcare was passed ... we used to be such a great nation, now it seems we're just a bunch of great whiners.

The rest of it was nonsense, which has already been covered.

Nitro Express

06-23-2010, 04:23 AM

America went downhill as soon as the Federal Reserve Act and Income Tax Act were signed into law. President Wilson fucked us good. Later came FDR who fucked us some more and then Lindon Johnson and after him pretty much a steady line of shitty presidents some worse than others. For me it's a draw between Obman and Bush Jr. for most shitty president ever. They both have been horrible.

BigBadBrian

06-23-2010, 07:20 AM

7) Interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing” document

The only way to make the Constitution take a breath occasionally is to amend it. The Constitution limits government, and to expand government, that expansion must be appropriate under the document,

That's just an unsubstantiated opinion.

Not really.

Dr. Love

06-23-2010, 12:21 PM

Care to back up that statement with anything more than your opinion? :)

Dr. Love

06-23-2010, 12:24 PM

Or should I construe that you believe now the only way to limit or illegalize abortion is not to change the members of a court that has already "decided" its legality, but to now amend the constitution?

Nickdfresh

06-23-2010, 12:35 PM

Or that the U.S. Air Force is unconstitutional, and has been since 1947, since they're not mentioned...

BigBadBrian

06-23-2010, 12:45 PM

Or that the U.S. Air Force is unconstitutional, and has been since 1947, since they're not mentioned...

National Security Act of 1947

Nickdfresh

06-23-2010, 12:51 PM

National Security Act of 1947

That's interpreting the Constitution as a "living, breathing document." :)