Barry Obama declaring Marshal Law

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Tasslehofp99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Right, so aside from appointing supreme court justices (which in itself is not that powerful because history dictates that more times than not Supreme court justices don't always follow party lines) I dont see anything here that suggests the president holds any true power? I mean, nullifying treaties is cool...but if that were to be damaging/against the best interest of the people I doubt it would stick...after all thats what "Checks & Balances" are for right? Or is that just another illusion of American "Democracy" as well? Also -- How can a president start a war without funding from congress?



As far as determining policy direction as you put it goes, the president is a mere icon for whichever political party he represents. The president has no real agenda, other then the one that is given to him by the people who put him into office.

Supreme Court appointments are incredibly powerful. Where do you get the concept that Justices jump their philosophical lines more often than they follow them? Of course deviations exist everywhere and large exceptions can be found, but these are exceptions. Had Romney been elected, you very likely would have seen Brett Kavanaugh appointed to the court and Roe overturned within a decade.

Regarding treaties, I notice you bolded the part "with the advice and consent of the Senate." Are you trying to suggest that part is a severe limited power on the president? In practice, the Senate's hands can often be tied in treaty making because the president may alternatively pursue a unilateral executive agreement raising a basketful of headache issues, so the treaty option is instead used.

The term "Checks and Balances" never appears in the constitution. True, the concept does exist within our government, but the three (or four, if you want to get cute and count agencies) branches of our government tend to be supreme within their own spheres. The checks and balances come into play when an action crosses spheres of supremacy. Within his own sphere of power, the President is incredibly powerful.

Executive agencies can make your life a living hell if they want. The President can issue commands and edicts telling those agencies exactly what to do. Yes, the President can go nuts with the following agencies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_and_Bureaus

As I said above, the President can unilaterally commit acts of war and there's a very sticky set of issues regarding his actual war powers. Monica Missiles anyone?

Also, there's the whole issue of emergency powers. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. True, your checks and balances can come into play here (See: Truman & Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer or Korematsu and the Internment Camps).

If your arguments is that the President's power is often exercised in consideration of political ramifications, I agree. Much of the power he might otherwise wield is limited by his political concerns. However, the claim "They are just a symbol with no true power." is utterly baseless.

You cannot seriously suggest that the President is an interchangeable entity that has no bearing upon our political direction. To believe that is the height of unawareness or perhaps cynicism. Neither of which is terribly healthy.

[Slug]

Originally Posted by dscar23 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Gun oppression just the start.

Gun oppression - like how he expanded our right to carry and discharge firearms in national forests and on federal lands?

You know you can personally renounce your citizenship at any local or federal government office and be done with it - get a move on.

[dredge]

its a fact that 99% of the morons bitching about Socialism don't even know what it means

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by dredge [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

its a fact that 99% of the morons bitching about Socialism don't even know what it means

Most of the condemn socialist policies while simultaneously "supporting the troops."

Makes me lol.

[Black Jesus]

Originally Posted by dredge [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

its a fact that 99% of the morons bitching about Socialism don't even know what it means

We are actually a centrally planned socialist economy with tons of welfare statism. Not completely Obama's fault, but it is what it is.

Originally Posted by Lazortag [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you even know what the name of the incumbent political party in Canada is, and what its policies are?

Incumbent party is irrelevant, the country is a British colony. Your monarch is Queen Elizabeth.

Originally Posted by Lazortag [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Typically if you're trolling about the president, it's best to use the name "Barack", and add unnecessary references to his middle name to make him sound more muslim-y. This site does it best: http://www.gingpac.org/

That's a reference to the name he used when he renounced US citizenship in favor of Indonesian schooling (invalidating his presidency, regardless of Kenyan birth); Barry Soetoro.

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Black Jesus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We are actually a centrally planned socialist economy with tons of welfare statism. Not completely Obama's fault, but it is what it is.



Incumbent party is irrelevant, the country is a British colony. Your monarch is Queen Elizabeth.



That's a reference to the name he used when he renounced US citizenship in favor of Indonesian schooling (invalidating his presidency, regardless of Kenyan birth); Barry Soetoro.

It's almost impossible for a minor to renounce U.S. citizenship. The relevant law is the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Obama was seven when he went to Catholic school in Indonesia.

Wingnut.

[Hitchens]

Any time I see someone talking about standing up against the federal government with their guns, this is what comes to mind:

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DprFYMvWXLo?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DprFYMvWXLo?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Although I guess now it would be a drone rather than a helicopter.

[Black Jesus]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's almost impossible for a minor to renounce U.S. citizenship. The relevant law is the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Obama was seven when he went to Catholic school in Indonesia.

Wingnut.

The U.S. is a signor of the Hague Convention's standards for international adoption, and those rules do allow the legal parents and guardians to renounce any former citizenship of a custodial minor. Upon reaching the age of 18, the minor can go before the appropriate US State Dept Official and apply for re-instatement of citizenship, and swear allegiance to the US.

There is no evidence of Obama ever doing that , and even if he did, he would then be a "Naturalized citizen" at that point and NOT "natural born" and even if ever was "natural born" would have lost that status forever and therefore regardless is NOT eligible for Office of The President of the United States of America.

[Vynn]

Originally Posted by Black Jesus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is no evidence of Obama ever doing that , and even if he did, he would then be a "Naturalized citizen" at that point and NOT "natural born" and even if ever was "natural born" would have lost that status forever and therefore regardless is NOT eligible for Office of The President of the United States of America.

Are you claiming to know more than our federal government? Are you ex CIA with inside info? Pretty sure he's still the president bro. I think that's a pretty obvious problem that would have disqualified him from presidency on his 1st term. Our government may be poorly run, but it's far from unintelligent. Your current president didn't just happen to fall through a crack in the system.

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Black Jesus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The U.S. is a signor of the Hague Convention's standards for international adoption, and those rules do allow the legal parents and guardians to renounce any former citizenship of a custodial minor. Upon reaching the age of 18, the minor can go before the appropriate US State Dept Official and apply for re-instatement of citizenship, and swear allegiance to the US.

There is no evidence of Obama ever doing that , and even if he did, he would then be a "Naturalized citizen" at that point and NOT "natural born" and even if ever was "natural born" would have lost that status forever and therefore regardless is NOT eligible for Office of The President of the United States of America.

You're wrong. Here's the law: INA Sec. 349.