General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDavid Swanson: Obama Crowned Himself King on New Year’s Eve
(Brief Excerpt)
Obama Crowned Himself on New Years Eve
By: David Swanson
December 31, 2011
To prevent the U.S. government from behaving like a king, the drafters of the U.S. Constitution empowered an elected legislature to write every law, to declare every war, and to remove its executive from office. To further prevent the abuse of individuals rights, those authors wrote into the Constitution, even prior to the Bill of Rights, the right to habeas corpus and the right never to be punished for treason unless convicted in an open court on the testimony of at least two witnesses to an overt act of war or assistance of an enemy.
President Barack Obama waited until New Years Eve to take an action that I suspect he wanted his willfully deluded followers to have a good excuse not to notice. On that day, Obama issued an unconstitutional signing statement rewriting a law as he signed it into law, a practice that candidate Obama had rightly condemned. The law that Obama was signing was the most direct assault yet seen on the basic structure of self-governance and human rights that once made all the endless U.S. shouting of Were number one! significantly less ludicrous. he National Defense Authorization Act is not a leap from democracy to tyranny, but it is another major step on a steady and accelerating decade-long march toward a police-and-war state.
President Obama has claimed the power to imprison people without a trial since his earliest months in office. He spoke in front of the Constitution in the National Archives while gutting our founding document in 2009. President Obama has claimed the power to torture if needed, issued an executive order claiming the power of imprisonment without trial, exercised that power on a massive scale at Bagram, and claimed and exercised the power to assassinate U.S. citizens. Obama routinely kills people with unmanned drones.
My chief regret is that we have not seen the major resistance we could have, and without any doubt would have, seen to this if only Obama were a Republican.
Please read the full article at:
http://my.firedoglake.com/davidswanson/2011/12/31/obama-crowned-himself-on-new-years-eve/
xchrom
(108,903 posts)man, it's getting crowded.
Donnachaidh
(19,749 posts)And a loft section by the crankshaft
bigtree
(86,005 posts)not interested . . . too many other substantive discussions, evaluations of the implications and meaning of the provisions out there to read to waste energy debating diatribes.
trash can
treestar
(82,383 posts)Then he'd better bow to his king.
If Obama is King, how come David can write this? When will he be hauled off to the dungeon?
FarPoint
(12,437 posts)David Swanson ...he use to be a real progressive who understood the political dynamics. I'm disappointed in Mr Swanson these days.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)...welcome!
treestar
(82,383 posts)He can have worse than the bus ready for poor David!
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)keep defending those who strip our freedoms... sad so many are criticizing him for that. Get real.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Do you intend to quit criticizing the President? He seems to keep allowing Glen to do it with a much larger platform, so I guess you're not really scared.
Why aren't you scared to make that post, now that your freedoms are gone?
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)But why aren't you more concerned? Now that your freedoms are gone, you know what is at stake. The POTUS has the power now to declare you a terrorist and lock you up indefinitely - aren't you a little concerned?
I guess I'll have to worry if you're not posting tomorrow.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Democrats keep trying to miss him, but he just rruns out into traffic and jumps under the wheels.
Good thing though, he's not much to worry about, no one hardly notices the bump anymore.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)King, eh? Well, I guess that means that single-payer healthcare is just around the corner. Way to inflate something to the breaking point, there, David.
Gitmo will now be closed, finally. Bush and Cheney will be put into the FEMA camp along with the bank-sters.
Just go through the list of any complainer and now their wishes can be granted! No more having to balance a deal with Republicans to keep the country running!
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Edweird
(8,570 posts)MineralMan
(146,329 posts)I believe that he had to modify his goals to get anything at all through Congress. A pity. But what did get passed has already benefited millions, and will benefit more as provisions kick in. President Obama has been blocked from doing all the things he'd like to do. Perhaps we can give him a better Congress in 2012. That's my plan, and I'll be doing all I can to make that happen.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)As I understand it, that is the definition of 'faith'.
Obama had a good Congress in 2008, but lost it in 2010 as a result of his actions and failures to act. The RW individual mandate - which he CAMPAIGNED AGAINST(!) is part of that. Some polls during the 'health care' debacle showed 70% support for single payer but health care professional advocates were excluded in lieu of insurance industry lobbyists. Spare me your BS.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)so, take everything he writes with a grain of salt. Much of his written diarrhea rightfully ended up in the conspiracy dungeon back at DU2.
Sid
having ppl read detailed policy info to understand would be awful
Octafish
(55,745 posts)He contributes information of value and accurate analysis. He also calls the wars for what they are: immoral, illegal, unnecessary and disastrous.
If you disagree with him, great. Say "Why." Don't call his work "diarrhea" that "rightfully ended up in the conspiracy dungeon back at DU2."
As for you wanting to toss his work into the dungeon: That shows exactly where you are coming from, SidDithers. You'd like to shut people up for what they think by shutting down the number of people who get to read their thoughts. That is most un-democratic.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)by David Swanson | Jul 28 2007 - 2:01pm |
It's remarkably common for a grandson to take up his grandfather's major project. This occurred to me when I read recently of Thor Heyerdahl's grandson taking up his mission to cross the Pacific on a raft. But what really struck me was the BBC story aired on July 23rd documenting President George W. Bush's grandfather's involvement in a 1933 plot to overthrow the U.S. government and install a fascist dictatorship. I knew the story, but had not considered the possibility that the grandson was trying to accomplish what his grandfather had failed to achieve.
Prescott Sheldon Bush (1895 to 1972) attended Yale University and joined the secret society known as Skull and Bones. Prescott is widely reported to have stolen the skull of Native American leader Geronimo. As far as I know, this has not actually been confirmed. In fact, Prescott seems to have had a habit of making things up. He sent letters home from World War I claiming he'd received medals for heroism. After the letters were printed in newspapers, he had to retract his claims.
If this does not yet sound like the life of a George W. Bush ancestor, try this on for size: Prescott Bush's early business efforts tended to fail. He married the daughter of a very rich man named George Herbert Walker (the guy with the compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, that now belongs to the Bush family, and the origin of Dubya's middle initial). Walker installed Prescott Bush as an executive in Thyssen and Flick. From then on, Prescott's business dealings went better, and he entered politics.
Now, the name Thyssen comes from a German named Fritz Thyssen, major financial backer of the rise of Adolph Hitler. Thyssen was referred to in the New York Herald-Tribune as "Hitler's Angel." During the 1930s and early 1940s, and even as late as 1951, Prescott Bush was involved in business dealings with Thyssen, and was inevitably aware of both Thyssen's political activities and the fact that the companies involved were financially benefiting the nation of Germany. In addition, the companies Prescott Bush profited from included one engaged in mining operations in Poland using slave labor from Auschwitz. Two former slave laborers have sued the U.S. government and the heirs of Prescott Bush for $40 billion.
DETAILS: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1468311
LINK to BBC programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml
Like Danziger, I don't find the BFEE funny.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)nationals telling american voters what to be happy with?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Osama Bin Laden should have been arrested, taken to the Hague and tried for war crimes. Instead he was a photo op to show that Obama can murder as well as any Republican.
Does that seem seem over the top, to call President Obama a murderer? President Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here." Perhaps that's an outdated idea, but considering that President Obama seems to be embracing the Unitary Executive model with both arms, then, yeah, the buck stops with him.
I would have had unlimited respect for him had he arrested Osama and extradited him and had him tried. But he didn't do that. He killed him.
This country was once a country of laws, not of men.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"David Swanson: Obama Crowned Himself King on New Years Eve"
...this mean the election is over?
I'll just point to my comment here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=103613
elleng
(131,103 posts)Signing statement, OR NOTHING w veto-override.
Strategies, tactics, difficult for many to understand.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Can we all pack it up for 2012, then?
It doesn't matter WHO the GOP runs - no more "Romney wins in 2012" threads, woo hoo!
...or not because this article is whiny blathering.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)elleng
(131,103 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I can't find it anywhere.
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)I can't find it anywhere.
sad sally
(2,627 posts)Constitution gives any legal value to them.
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)So I'm not sure why you felt compelled to mention it.
But in any case, the issuing of a signing statement is not prohibited by the Constitution. So your use of the word "permits" is a bit of a red herring.
sad sally
(2,627 posts)poor choice of the word (permit) - again, sorry if I offended...
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)I think we were just talking past each other there.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Dewey Finn
(176 posts)through the wrong end of the telescope on this. "Infinite" or not, presidential signing statements date back to the 1820s. They have no force in law, but that's usually beside the point. They're mostly either purely political gamesmanship or political gamesmanship thinly disguised as "moral suasion". They weren't noble during the Bush years and I think one would have to be a little naive to think they're suddenly noble under President Obama. They simply are what they are. Suasion is achieved, or (much more likely) is not.
There is no "test" with this. It's settled law. This signing statement is not intended, IMO, to challenge same. It's PR, period, PR good, bad or otherwise.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Dewey Finn
(176 posts)from your initial insinuation. But do carry on holding feet to fire and speaking truth to power or whatever you think you're doing.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)You're thinking of someone else, above.
Signing statements are not in the Constitution. If the president wants to attach a personal interpretation to a law, then this extraconstitutional, or really we should say: pretty much null and void. Meaningless, since there is no provision that gives power to signing statements. And thus irresponsible bullshit. If the president uses one to state ways in which he intends to disobey the very same law that he just constitutionally signed into law, as Bush often did, then yes, that is unconstitutional, and smacks of divine right pronouncement.
FSogol
(45,525 posts)make you hysterical?
mythology
(9,527 posts)I doubt it's facts that are making people hysterical. Unless I missed the coronation and crowning and the election being canceled. The author mentioned in the original post deserves little more than derisive mocking for his unsubstantiated premise.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)repercussions. I still love that about America.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Or you or I for that matter?
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Edit: I actually like most of Swanson's articles.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)It seems that you don't think the government is engaged in any spying and other operations against non-terrorist political activities.
Is that right?
It's ture that the government isn't rounding up liberals and radicals .... yet. But, they are certainly conducting many other types of secret operations designed to isolate and limit our effectiveness and the government hasn't exactly been supported of the OWS protests.
However they can make life very rough for us.
One of their favorite tactics back in J. Edgar Hoover's day was to plant news and other stories smearing progressives along with counter-intelligence operations designed to politically isolate individuals and organizations which were picked up and repeated not only in the mass media but also liberal journalists and publications!
Does that sound familiar?
And the government is certainly engaged in many different types of "intelligence" operations against progressive groups and individuals. Just look at their ongoing operations against Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. That's just the tip of the iceburg.
They are charging Manning with aiding terrorists and Assange with being a rapist!
Right ..... that's what the feds are going after .... rapists and terrorist collaborators!
Charlemagne
(576 posts)He was at the 68 dem convention in chicago......in the back of a "florist van" listening in on key people in the crowd AND what was going on inside the convention.
we spy on americans
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)still writing away madly? Why are they not in indefinite detention? I'm confused here.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I mean if Obama is king, and he's setting up FEMA work camps for dissidents ... this place should be much quieter.
Perhaps we should give the persecuted masses here on DU this ...
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)And that only the indefinite imprisonment of progressives will convince you that something our Bill of Rights is being undermined?
Well, when that happens it will be too late to stop the establishment of a police state .... it will have already happened in America.
Our rights are being taken away one step at a time.
If you don't believe me check out the American Civil Liberties Union .... unless you think they are anti-Obama professional leftists or right-wingers.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)The moron train's a comin;
Comin' round the bend.
We'll all be in the slammer
On that you can depend...
Yeah, we'll be stuck in FEMA prison,
That surely where we're bound.
Stuck in FEMA prison,
So let's just have another round.
(My sincere apologies to Mr. Cash...)
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)no_hypocrisy
(46,182 posts)Obama didn't draft the odious law. The law somehow got passed without his intervention by a republican-dominated House and democratic-dominated Senate with enough votes to overcome a veto. Obama went on record against the indefinite detention of American citizens up to the Signing Statement. From his words on record, it doesn't sound like he's too excited about being given this new authority.
How does Swanson extrapolate that Obama is reveling in his new power to imprison (gasp!) republicans who disagree with him? And isn't that what it boils down to? You think Swanson would have a problem with Muslims (domestic and international), democrats, socialists, communists, etc. being indefinitely detained (and without access to a tribunbal and due process) by the U.S. Military pending the orders of the Commander in Chief?
tabatha
(18,795 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)He's almost amazingly intellectually dishonest. I've been challenging him for years.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I mean, it's terrible, I don't want a king, but now that we have one, and it is Obama, I would think that Mittens will be jailed shortly! I at least would like to see that entertainment! Gringich, Cheney, Michele Bachmann - can't wait until they are under the bus.
Orly Taitz - going to be fun to see her hauled off to a FEMA camp. Obama has been King two whole days and he hasn't done this yet! I'm disappointed!
elleng
(131,103 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)And/or you can send him a private message right here! He's a DU'er.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)That's my question for you.
RZM
(8,556 posts)When it is, I think he will post it.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)And, now that I think of it, I don't think I've seen David Swanson on DU3. Maybe I just missed something.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)I guess you did miss something!
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)I do not read every post on DU3, so it's entirely possible that I missed his. I don't think my statement is all that remarkable, really, nor open to argument. It wasn't a statement of fact. It was a statement that I didn't know, and hadn't seen something.
It's difficult to access journals here without a post from an individual visible, though, so I probably won't bother trying unless I see a post by Mr. Swanson that interests me. I've never accessed his journals on DU2, so that seems unlikely to me.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)I'll post when I want and how I want as will David Swanson without your advance approval if you don't mind.
Have I ever prevented you or anyone from posting on DU?
The answer is absolutely not!
And have I ever attempted to get any posts by you or any DU'ers hidden or locked on Democratic Underground?
The answer again is absolutely not!
Now how about yourself?
Have you ever attempted to get any posts by me other other DU'ers hidden, or locked in any matter?
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)do or not do anything. I can ask questions here, I believe. You asked me a couple of questions, too, which I will answer. As a host in two main forums, I have locked posts that did not match those forums' Statements of Purpose. That's what hosts do. I've also left many standing after someone has alerted on them. I have also alerted on a few posts on DU3, which I felt violated community standards or were TOS violations. Some were hidden as a result of those alerts. Others were left standing. Juries decided those alerts, not me.
Both actions are within the rules of DU3 and are available to all hosts and DU members, in the case of alerts. Asking questions of posters in threads is also within the rules of DU3, and is common in discussions here.
So, the answer to your question is that no, I'm not telling DUers to do or not do anything. Especially in this thread.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Good grief.
getdown
(525 posts)the unconstitutional powers Bush n Cheney claimed for themself
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Even Obama is not constrained by his statement, much less so for future administrations.
Let Congress override the veto under the fire of a viscious campaign against the bill.
Let's not act like any pressure was applied or that the public was whipped. This shit was passed without any public shitstorm. The price of the vote could have been raised quite a bit and at the least a large scale conversation could have been forced.
Reveling in the power isn't important, accepting it is. The veto is absolutely required wheter or not it would be overriden. The President signed the bill, he owns it as surely as every "Yea" vote. Excuses are excuses. There was no leadership at all and nary a wave made.
Find it acceptable all you want but I cannot. A fucking constitutional expert??? Add this to willfully and openly taking on the authority to order the death of citizens without even the benefit of a charge, much less a trial based on his own unchecked power and these are the powers of a tyrant, regardless of how such power is used.
Such power was purposefully disallowed and is at fundemental odds with our entire system and basic principles.
No one should be trusted with such power and anyone who excersises it or even accepts it should hold even the office of dog catcher in our system.
Granted, every TeaPubliKlan would eagerly accept the powers and gleefully abuse them. That being the case it was our fucking job to select a Democrat that would fight this shit to the last, instead our "leaders" were busy drafting this garbage.
tabatha
(18,795 posts)after reading some of his hysterical, distorted articles in the past.
Me, too. Self-serving, melodramatic hyperbolic nonsense.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The media's manufactured outrage machine runs 24/7, spitting out an endless stream of "Obama bad" widgets.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)"President Barack Obama waited until New Years Eve to take an action that I suspect he wanted his willfully deluded followers to have a good excuse not to notice."
Fuck that noise.
He's now a mind-reader, and dumbass doesn't even recognize a time-table for signing legislation into law.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)one_voice
(20,043 posts)and thought fuck that shit. I'm getting tired of being insulted by other Democrats. I get enough of that shit from Republicans....SAME. FUCKING. INSULTS. FROM. BOTH.
Number23
(24,544 posts)"willfully deluded followers"
I'm a little bit shocked this entire OP hasn't been locked yet.
treestar
(82,383 posts)King Obama can decree single payer! Now that he has that power, it's on!!!
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)on the 1%, too. Obama is King! Hurrah for us all.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Perhaps he will gut Social Security as he has tried by setting up multiple commisions and failed deals with TeaPubliKlans.
There has been no substantive effort to have the wealthy, rich, well off, and upper classes to pay their fair share. I submit that it was a fake position like the fake positions of many politicians.
treestar
(82,383 posts)a simple pattern
(608 posts)FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Sometimes I feel as though these people would in fact be HAPPY with a KING instead.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The bully pulpit, you know. Use that passionately and the Presidency is equal to a kingship anyway.
So why they are now upset that Obama is a King is a mystery.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)That pendulum swings very fast around here doesn't it.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)He needs that insurance industry cash in his coffers.
treestar
(82,383 posts)getdown
(525 posts)when Bush n Cheney laid the groundwork for this?
"My chief regret is that we have not seen the major resistance we could have, and without any doubt would have, seen to this if only Obama were a Republican."
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Their "resistance" was feeble at best.
getdown
(525 posts)and the SCOTUS
mfcorey1
(11,001 posts)rocktivity
(44,577 posts)about George Bush Jr. crowning himself despot in 2000.
rocktivity
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)"Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union"
http://www.sevenstories.com/book/?GCOI=58322100034730
rocktivity
(44,577 posts)That explains it -- he used up the advance the publisher gave him for his next book, so he had to write one fast!
rocktivity
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)deacon
(5,967 posts)fill peoples head with shit for a living.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Let Me Be Clear
By David Swanson
January 1, 2011
Obama has always claimed the power to wage war on anyone anywhere, to search, seize, imprison, rendition, torture, or murder anyone. He has in fact openly murdered US citizens, among many other human beings.
Obama asked Congress to legislate the power for U.S. presidents to imprison anyone without any trial or any legal-looking process whatsoever, and to not make an exception for U.S. citizens.
Obama then engaged for the umpteenth time in an abuse as dangerous in itself as any other. He rewrote the law as he signed it. In doing so, Obama gave himself the power to imprison without even military kangaroo courts and without even the formality of pretended "status review hearings."
And the vast majority of organizations and individuals who would have raised hell and resisted this had Obama been a Republican, did not do a god damned thing about it.
Read the full blog at:
http://davidswanson.org/node/3509
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Obama asked Congress to legislate the power for U.S. presidents to imprison anyone without any trial or any legal-looking process whatsoever, and to not make an exception for U.S. citizens.
...distortion is being "clear"?
msongs
(67,441 posts)johnaries
(9,474 posts)The statement UPHELD the Constitution, unlike Bush's signing statements which were based on the theory of a Unitary Executive (dictator).
Thanks to ProSense for posting this link to the full text of the signing statement itself earlier:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/31/396018/breaking-obama-signs-defense-authorization-bill/
I suggest everyone reads it for themselves before accepting FDL's spin.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)future Presidents with a different interpretation of the law. The law its self is binding and all that matters.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)whim dictating life and death and freedom and captivity and who "deserves" justice and who gets bumbed off or disappeared for life is a massive distortion of the whole civilization and the concept of rule of law.
The powers are dictatorial by their very nature and further codify the unitary executive which is close enough as to be no difference from the wrong end.
It is what it is. It may be realitively benign under this President (or not, who can actually say) but to hold out that expectation for the future coming directly off a fucking torturing, murdering, lying, cheating fuck seems insanely Pollyanna to me.
Pissed really can't pay the cover to this event, pissed is getting cut off by a moron in traffic or a slashed tire or a stolen lawnmower.
I'm not sure I have words, I find it laughable that any could be "over the top". What would make it okay? Mass graves? Wouldn't such be grossly understated for those depths of depravity?
Swanson was being about right or too mild.
inna
(8,809 posts)fishwax
(29,149 posts)"To prevent the U.S. government from behaving like a king, the drafters of the U.S. Constitution empowered an elected legislature to write every law, to declare every war, and to remove its executive from office. "
The elected legislature had no power to declare war or to remove the executive from office. The drafters left those powers exclusively in the hands of the unelected Senate (which also, of course, had the power to write laws).
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)It dimishes its own message
madamesilverspurs
(15,806 posts)Darned shame, too.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Akoto
(4,267 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)He is now Lord Master Commander of the entire universe and is about to have the Milky Way eaten by a black hole.
That's why Hawaii has vanished. It has been transported to the next galaxy over and is now Obama's private compound, from which he plans the destruction of all things progressive. But Swanson and Greenwald are first since they are SOOO politically dangerous.
Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)Did someone tell you that?
Well, those who may have told you that are totally wrong and unfamiliar with legislative procedures and presidential veto authority.
Obama had that right.
He refused to exercise it.
He could have forced Senators to take a stand on a bill he supposedly did not support with a simple veto and clear statement in defense of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
Akoto
(4,267 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Better Believe It
(18,630 posts)"Veto-proof majority" simply means people speculated that two thirds of the Congress would have voted to override a Presidential veto. That doesn't mean Obama was prevented from vetoing the bill.
Since Obama did not veto the bill we really don't know what Senators would have actually voted to override the veto.
Obama failed to force the Senators to take a stand for or against undermining our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Akoto
(4,267 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)United States Constitution:
SNIP
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Doesn't matter if it was unanimous. The president can always veto and force both houses to vote again. Then they see if both houses will vote to override. I can't think of a something more worth the doing that for than maintaining the inalienable rights of all citizens to life, liberty and due process under rule of law, can you?
Response to Better Believe It (Original post)
spanone This message was self-deleted by its author.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Dammit...I knew there was somethin' fishy about this Obama guy
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)It says he's gonna make me the Duke of New York!
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)He's this generation's Ralph Nader!
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Those that have sworn fealty will get to share in the spoils. Like me.
You didn't have a pool, by any chance?
The Duke of New York always wanted an in-ground pool.
That would be neat.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)wish he'd put a little more chicken in the chicken dinner. Talk to him about that.
Robb
(39,665 posts)"...The clearest congressional voice for peace at the moment, of course, is the voice of someone with a vision of domestic policy that many of us find dangerous if not delusional. Republican Congressman Ron Paul's voice against wars, empire, militarism, and abuse of power is helpful to those causes. Any success he has in the presidential primaries that is credited to his foreign policy positions will be all to the good. In the absence of progressives with backbones, more Libertarians like Paul would be welcome additions, I think."
Fuck Swanson.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)That's simply delusional.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Assume it's true that Ron Paul is for ideas that progressives are for. And then people like Ron Paul make up a big chunk of the congress. What does that mean? It means that if we get a progressive law passed, say, the neutering of Presidential war powers, the Libertarians are going to want something in exchange.
And you know what they'll want? They'll want hard deregulation, they'll want to end consumer protections, they'll want to end the EPA.
And I guarantee you that any sort of war machine reduction will come at a very high price.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)comes from those who find good things to say about Ron Paul.
Coincidence?
Sid
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)None whatsoever. We've been infiltrated.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)This troll was treated to quite the warm welcome.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101673
The jury voted 1 to 5 to KEEP IT!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101673#post41
...and finally
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101673#post105
9 recs to boot!
Some have just slithered in under the radar much the same way..... and stayed. Believe it.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)And I don't have a major problem with it, because are we willing to give up our freedom to post just because some fascists start posting? No. The system will handle it.
But we should be cautious. If they signed up after 2008 be extra cautious.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And surprise, surprise! See so many of the same names on both!!
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)Abandon all hope, all ye who lean to the left!
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)mzmolly
(51,004 posts)on the upper 1%.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)The President can now, on his own without ANY Congressional Authority, wage WAR on other countries.
He can order our military to meddle in On Going Civil Wars in countries that do NOT threaten the USA.
SEE:Libya
"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. ---Senator Obama, 12-20-2007
He can now execute American Citizens and their Families without a Warrant issued by a Court.
He can also detain them indefinitely without a hearing on "suspicion",
and does NOT have to show evidence of the cause of that "suspicion.
There are LOTS of things for which the Unitary Executive doesn't need Congress in this New American Century.
Are YOU able to discern direction by connecting these dots?
Are you familiar with the Magna Carta?
Those of us who have studied History understand the point that David Swanson was making in the OP.
Those who have NOT studied Western History, The Magna Carta, and the evolution of democracy in the Western World will NOT understand.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their apologists.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)The President of the United States has historically flexed his executive powers as Commander in Chief. It comes as no surprise when another President does what Presidents have been doing for decades.
Want to stop it? Elect congressmen.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)*protect America's Working Class from "deregulation"?
*Increase Government Spending instead of slashing it during a Recession?
*Raise taxes on The RICH,
not by 3%, but restore it to Pre-Reagan levels?
*Restore the Capital gains Tax to Pre-Reagan levels?
*Pay more than Lip Service to Universal health Care?
*Withdraw from the ruinous Free Trade Treaties
and protect American Jobs?
*Actually SUPPORT Organized LABOR with more than just phony campaign promises?
(SEE: EFCA)
Where can I vote for the Congressmen that will "Help" Obama do these things?
In 2010 in Arkansas,
we worked out tails off to give him a Pro-LABOR Senator.
Guess what happened.
We had to FIGHT the Obama White House that endorsed and directed Party funds to Anti-LABOR/Anti-HealthCare Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln. Lincoln had actually crowed about derailing the Democrat agenda in this Primary.
The White House even sent the Old Dog back to Arkansas to rescue Lincoln's failing campaign.
Adding insult to injury, An "anonymous White House Spokesman" actually ridiculed Organized LABOR
for "wasting 10 Million Dollars" by supporting a popular Pro-LABOR alternative to Lincoln, Lt Gov. Bill Halter.
So your response of "Elect Congressmen" is simplistic,
and demonstrates a shallow and naive grasp of the problems we are facing.
NONE of your above comments demonstrate an even superficial understanding of the Magna Carta, Western History,
or the evolution from Royal Monarchs to Democracies, which IS the point of Swanson's piece.
Go read up on the above topics,
and get back to me after you attain the knowledge necessary for an intelligent conversation.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)Et tu, Obama, et tu?
The Unitary Executive must end. And Obama just took it one giant step forward.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)Man I loves me some 4 tops!!
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)This is incredible.