Religious nut Rick Perry said during a recent speech that if we elect him, "I will immediately issue an executive order to do away with as much of Obamacare as I can." Uh, that would be none, gov'nor.  Perry must have some really dumb followers.  It doesn't take a political wonk to see the stupidity in his claim.  A president cannot summarily do away with laws they do not like, or arbitrarily take parts out that they don't agree with.  If they did, they would be violating the separation of powers doctrine.  They would no longer be presidents but kings, and if this shit-kicking moron from Texas thinks we will stand for that, he is sadly mistaken.  Bush Jr. came close enough.  Fool me twice and all that.

Views: 123

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Perry isn't so smart -- I think he wants to appeal to his dumb followers by just telling them things they want to hear -- even though he can't deliver.
I think Perry is dumb, but he has good handlers.  Naturally, he will attempt to swing back to center if he is actually nominated, and I think he has a chance for that.  I think the Repugs do not want a smart candidate: they are less easily manipulated once they get into the White House.  George W. Bush was dumb as a post, but he had Cheney and Rove telling him what to do.  We really don't want another president who can't think for himself.

The last presidential race saw campaigns that slandered their opponents creating hate based mobs that screamed out, "Kill him!" Why do we have laws that govern the legitimacy of commercial advertisement but no law regulating the integrity of campaign adds? 

 

If a farm boy from the midwest can see this then I would assume all of those Harvard, Yale and Stanford lawyer/politicians see it as well but refuse to acknowledge it.  

 

I think the office of president has seen it's day. The US government is a quill pen and parchment operating system trying to manage a fiberoptic world. It's ridiculous and it's time for a reboot. 

Amendment XXVIII (Government OS 2.0) What'ya think?


James, you mentioned a president cannot abrogate laws they don't like. Are you 100% sure of that?

When "Dubbya" was in office, by presidential fiat, he over rode the 4th Amendment of the Constitution with illegal wiretaps, and the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment with waterboarding. I never did hear of any impeachment proceedings for those. He's living out his days in peace and prosperity on his pension. And, President Obama supported the use of Bush's illegal wiretaps when they were challenged in Court.

Presidential powers have greatly expanded by virtue of simply taking what you want with after the fact justification. Starting, I might add, with Lincoln's attempt at abrogating the writ of habeas corpus against suspected confederate sympathizers, going to the warrantless Palmer raids under Wilson and Harding, US open warfare without congressional declaration on Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico (Veracruz under Wilson), Nicarauga, Guatemala, Grenada, Iran (under Eisenhower), Iraq (I'm not buying the war powers act - Congress is required to declare war), and most recently, Libya (Obama).

The only impeachment in recent memory was for a blow job - not for subverting the US Constitution and laws made thereunder.
I suspect that a fiat by Perry relating to health care would bring a lawsuit.  Of course, given that Scalia is, for all practical purposes, the Chief Justice, and given that he belongs to the so-called New Majority (at least when Kennedy swing votes to the right), they would support anything Perry did as president.  But you make a good point.  I know a bit about the Veracruz incident, having researched it very thoroughly many years ago.  The worst thing about it was that Wilson ordered Marines into Veracruz because his ambassador, Henry Lane Wilson (no relation) despised the usurping soldier then heading the Mexican government: Victoriano Huerta.  He told the press, "It's time we taught the Mexicans to elect good men."  Actually, the lesson was, "Lay off Standard Oil."
And Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson in Guatemala.  "Lay off of United Fruit!" Over 200,000 dead for American households to get fresh bananas.
What are you, a communist?  :-)
The republican presidential candidate group is a hot mess. The only "reasonable" one among them is Ron Paul, and he is getting almost no media coverage. I guess dominionism is the new fad in conservative politics...
Paul has some valid ideas, but I find his positions on some things unpleasant.  I certainly agree with you about his refusal to court Tea Party votes; after all, in a lot of ways, he was their spiritual godfather.

I completely agree. He is way too libertarian for me, but his ideas about removing the Fed, withdrawing from international wars and opposition to free trade are all things I can get behind.

Why remove the Fed?  Opposition to free trade would produce unintended consequences such as Walmart Chinese products so inflationarily high nobody could buy them, at least not Walmart's target customers.  Worse, a trade war might be set off and I could no longer get my cheeses from France, my wines from Argentina, and my lamb from Australia.  These unintended consequences work both ways, however.  When NAFTA went through, thousands of ejido farmers in Mexico were "bought off" their land by huge agribusinesses, land that their forefathers had fought with blood during the two revolutions.  It amazes me when I am in Mexico to pass by mom and pop tortillerias in some cities where families make fresh tortillas with machines, selling to long lines that gather outside the shop.  But almost every one has bags of masa marked "Maseca."  The ejidos are disappearing.  The multinationals like Maseca are proliferating.
Free trade allows for countries like China that produce goods with artificially low labor rates, which causes manufacturing companies to relocate to more profitable locations. Sure, the goods at WalMart are cheaper, but at the cost of US jobs. Can't buy much French cheese if you're unemployed :P

The Federal Reserve Bank is not actually a Federal Institution. It is an institution owned by foreign and domestic bankers. Money is printed by the Treasury (We, the people), and handed over to the Fed to loan out with interest to banks at the inter-bank rate. These banks then lend to the people and companies at inflated rates. We basically have 2 middle men in our monetary system, each taking its cut. Since currency belongs to the people of this country, I don't believe that a handful of wealthy bankers should make a buck loaning our own property back to us. ;)

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service