Posted on Sep 16, 2015
Is It Time To Prosecute Republicans For Violating the U.S. Constitution?
5.23K
162
86
4
-5
9
"An oath of office is an affirmation a person takes before undertaking the duties of an office, usually a position in government or within a religious body, and it is typical to believe the person taking the oath not only intends on fulfilling that “affirmation,” they actually comprehend what they are swearing to uphold. It is increasingly evident that since the American people twice elected an African American man as President, Republicans not only have no intent in fulfilling their oath of office, they may have no idea what they are swearing to support and defend. This is particularly true, once again, now that Republicans are questioning the need for the United States government to pay all its debts; something that the Constitution prohibits legislators to do....Now, there is no dispute on whether refusing or questioning the need to raise the debt ceiling or not paying the nation’s debts is Constitutional or not. According to the 14th Amendment, Section 4, “The validity of the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned.” As if the Founding Fathers foresaw that in the 21st Century a cabal of racist conservative legislators would balk at or question paying the nation’s debts because an African American was twice elected as President, they included in Article 1, Section 8 the task assigned to all members of the federal legislature. Section 8 says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.”
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/12/time-prosecute-remove-republicans-violating-u-s-constitution.html
So, aren't the Republicans who advocate shutting down the government in violation of their oaths?
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/12/time-prosecute-remove-republicans-violating-u-s-constitution.html
So, aren't the Republicans who advocate shutting down the government in violation of their oaths?
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 23
14
14
0
I think that if we made it a sport to impeach elected officials for violating the Constitution or their oath of office, we would have a new national pastime. It is a failing not confined to a particular party, either. What I know for certain is that if we allow ourselves to fall into this cesspool, little or nothing will get done other than that.
It would be nice if we had a legislative branch that could deliberately ponder the 14 major appropriations bills through committee, scrutinizing every dollar by questioning the agency heads, and passing those bills in a timely manner for the President to sign.
It would be nice if the Executive Branch would enforce the nation's laws, duly passed by the Congress. And further, not to attempt to circumvent the Congress through executive orders, policy, or regulation fiat.
It would be nice if we had a Judicial Branch that interpreted the nation's laws, not attempt to legislate from the bench by creating laws from the ether.
I for one want the entire government to do its job and stop with the gotcha games. The good of the whole country should be the priority, not undermining the other side for political triangulation and posturing. I do not believe that any person or party has a monopoly on good ideas. So long as we work together for the common defense and general welfare, we can get there. We'd only disagree on how to do it.
We can do better than this.
It would be nice if we had a legislative branch that could deliberately ponder the 14 major appropriations bills through committee, scrutinizing every dollar by questioning the agency heads, and passing those bills in a timely manner for the President to sign.
It would be nice if the Executive Branch would enforce the nation's laws, duly passed by the Congress. And further, not to attempt to circumvent the Congress through executive orders, policy, or regulation fiat.
It would be nice if we had a Judicial Branch that interpreted the nation's laws, not attempt to legislate from the bench by creating laws from the ether.
I for one want the entire government to do its job and stop with the gotcha games. The good of the whole country should be the priority, not undermining the other side for political triangulation and posturing. I do not believe that any person or party has a monopoly on good ideas. So long as we work together for the common defense and general welfare, we can get there. We'd only disagree on how to do it.
We can do better than this.
(14)
(0)
9
9
0
Yes, right after Obama goes to jail for failing to uphold all the laws of our nation, not just the ones he wants to.
(9)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
//Immigration for one//
And yet, deportations are at an all-time high, year after year with Obama. I think maybe you're referring to the Executive's well-recognized legal ability to direct priority of effort with the resources at his disposal; that said prioritization isn't a 100% match for yours is not the same as not upholding the laws.
And yet, deportations are at an all-time high, year after year with Obama. I think maybe you're referring to the Executive's well-recognized legal ability to direct priority of effort with the resources at his disposal; that said prioritization isn't a 100% match for yours is not the same as not upholding the laws.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Alex Robinson
Ok specifics.... He bypassed the court system and the congress and permitted illegal aliens to stay.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
(6)
(0)
SGT(P) (Join to see)
SGT(P) Secorah Arbuckle SN Greg Wright SSgt Terry P. He came to the right place...
(3)
(0)
6
6
0
Oh Lord you have done stepped into it now Capt Miller.... How about we start with a president who believes he can make laws? Or a Attorney General who ignored many issues and concentrated on those involving blacks? How about we consider the fact that, while the Democrats had both houses, and rammed thru Health care without a single Republican vote, and have gone so far to use the "Nuclear option" by ignoring every Republican in office.
This administration has divided this country by color, by personal views, and now you are actually stating that the Republicans should be taken to task?
Please note, those people you comment on, are not refusing to pay our debts, they are demanding that someone STOP spending money we don't have. Yes, the government will probably be shut down again... but listen to the reasons for this... consider the options... and then look at your kids, who were born owing thousands from their first breath. \
Sorry, Captain... your question hit me, just as I was considering 18 trillion in debt, and my six year old grandson already owing over fifty thousand dollars to the government to pay his share of the debt.
This administration has divided this country by color, by personal views, and now you are actually stating that the Republicans should be taken to task?
Please note, those people you comment on, are not refusing to pay our debts, they are demanding that someone STOP spending money we don't have. Yes, the government will probably be shut down again... but listen to the reasons for this... consider the options... and then look at your kids, who were born owing thousands from their first breath. \
Sorry, Captain... your question hit me, just as I was considering 18 trillion in debt, and my six year old grandson already owing over fifty thousand dollars to the government to pay his share of the debt.
(6)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
Cpl Glynis Sakowicz Corporal, this man (I won't dignify his rank) is a well-known far-left extremist troll on RP. I wouldn't stress too much over anything he posts.
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
CPT Ahmed Faried
Strict constitutionalists are hacks. After all the constitution is supposed to be a living breathing document that is supposed to adapt to changes right?
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Changes to the Constitution are meant to be difficult. it can only adapt/breath in one of two ways and you took an oath to defend it as it's written. Article V hasn't been amended which leads me to believe you don't take your oath seriously.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Your opinion is flawed Sir. Much of the debt is directly, 100%, contributed to the democratic administration. The Pres is the head of the law enforcement branch, not the law creating branch. The debt has more than tripled due to Democratic influence. I have to ask; are you a true naval officer or are you a troll?
(5)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
I couldn't find a source with a breakdown by who held majorities in Congress, but I suspect that would be very informative. There is plenty of blame to spread around on debt accumulation.
To directly refute MSgt (Join to see), while the current administration has added more debt in dollar terms than any previous administration, it is "only" responsible for about 1/3 of the total amount.
In percentage terms, the runaway leaders are FDR and Woodrow Wilson, mostly financing the war efforts. Details below:
Amount Added to the Debt for Each Fiscal Year Since 1914:
Barack Obama: Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.
•FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
•FY 2013 - $672 billion.
•FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
•FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
•FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
•FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)
George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.
•FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
•FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
•FY 2007 - $501 billion.
•FY 2006 - $574 billion.
•FY 2005 - $554 billion.
•FY 2004 - $596 billion.
•FY 2003 - $555 billion.
•FY 2002 - $421 billion.
Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.
•FY 2001 - $133 billion.
•FY 2000 - $18 billion.
•FY 1999 - $130 billion.
•FY 1998 - $113 billion.
•FY 1997 - $188 billion.
•FY 1996 - $251 billion.
•FY 1995 - $281 billion.
•FY 1994 - $281 billion.
George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase to the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.
•FY 1993 - $347 billion.
•FY 1992 - $399 billion.
•FY 1991 - $432 billion.
•FY 1990 - $376 billion.
Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.
•FY 1989 - $255 billion.
•FY 1988 - $252 billion.
•FY 1987 - $225 billion.
•FY 1986 - $297 billion.
•FY 1985 - $256 billion.
•FY 1984 - $195 billion.
•FY 1983 - $235 billion.
•FY 1982 - $144 billion.
Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase to the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.
•FY 1981 - $90 billion.
•FY 1980 - $81 billion.
•FY 1979 - $55 billion.
•FY 1978 - $73 billion.
Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase to the $475 billion debt level at the end of Nixon's last budget, FY 1974.
•FY 1977 - $78 billion.
•FY 1976 - $87 billion.
•FY 1975 - $58 billion.
Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase to the $354 billion debt level at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.
•FY 1974 - $17 billion.
•FY 1973 - $31 billion.
•FY 1972 - $29 billion.
•FY 1971 - $27 billion.
•FY 1970 - $17 billion.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase to the $312 billion debt level at the end of JFK's last budget, FY 1964.
•FY 1969 - $6 billion.
•FY 1968 - $21 billion.
•FY 1967 - $6 billion.
•FY 1966 - $3 billion.
•FY 1965 - $6 billion.
John F. Kennedy: Added $23 billion, a 8% increase to the $289 billion debt level at the end of Eisenhower's last budget, FY1961.
•FY 1964 - $6 billion.
•FY 1963 - $7 billion.
•FY 1962 - $10 billion.
Dwight Eisenhower: Added $23 billion, a 9% increase to the $266 billion debt level at the end of Truman's last budget, FY 1953.
•FY 1961 - $3 billion.
•FY 1960 - $2 billion.
•FY 1959 - $8 billion.
•FY 1958 - $6 billion.
•FY 1957 - $2 billion surplus.
•FY 1956 - $2 billion surplus.
•FY 1955 - $3 billion.
•FY 1954 - $5 billion.
Harry Truman: Added $7 billion, a 3% increase over FDR's debt level of $259 billion at the end of FY 1945.
•FY 1953 - $7 billion.
•FY 1952 - $4 billion.
•FY 1951 - $2 billion surplus.
•FY 1950 - $5 billion.
•FY 1949 - slight surplus.
•FY 1948 - $6 billion surplus.
•FY 1947 - $11 billion surplus.
•FY 1946 - $11 billion.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Added $236 billion, a 1,048% increase over $23 billion, the debt at the end of Hoover's last budget, FY 1933.
•FY 1945 - $58 billion.
•FY 1944 - $64 billion.
•FY 1943 - $64 billion.
•FY 1942 - $23 billion.
•FY 1941 - $6 billion.
•FY 1940 - $3 billion.
•FY 1939 - $3 billion.
•FY 1938 - $1 billion.
•FY 1937 - $3 billion.
•FY 1936 - $5 billion.
•FY 1935 - $2 billion.
•FY 1934 - $5 billion.
Herbert Hoover: Added $6 billion, a 33% increase over $17 billion, the debt at the end of Coolidge's last budget, FY 1929.
•FY 1933 - $3 billion.
•FY 1932 - $3 billion.
•FY 1931 - $1 billion.
•FY 1930 - $1 billion surplus.
Calvin Coolidge: Subtracted $5 billion from the debt, a 26% decline from $21 billion the debt level at the end of Harding's last budget, FY 1923.
•FY 1929 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1928 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1927 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1926 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1925 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1924 - $1 billion surplus.
Warren G. Harding: Subtracted $2 billion from the debt, a 7% decline from the $24 billion debt at the end of Wilson's last budget, FY 1921.
•FY 1923 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1922 - $1 billion surplus.
Woodrow Wilson: Added $21 billion to the debt, a 727% increase over the $3 billion debt at the end of Taft's last budget, FY 1913.
•FY 1921 - $2 billion surplus.
•FY 1920 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1919 - $13 billion.
•FY 1918 - $9 billion.
•FY 1917 - $2 billion.
•FY 1916 - $1 billion.
•FY 1915 - $0 billion (slight surplus).
•FY 1914 - $0 billion.
FY 1789 - FY 1913: $3 billion debt created. (Source: OMB, Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits: 1789–2017)
To directly refute MSgt (Join to see), while the current administration has added more debt in dollar terms than any previous administration, it is "only" responsible for about 1/3 of the total amount.
In percentage terms, the runaway leaders are FDR and Woodrow Wilson, mostly financing the war efforts. Details below:
Amount Added to the Debt for Each Fiscal Year Since 1914:
Barack Obama: Added $6.167 trillion, a 53% increase to the $11.657 trillion debt level attributable to President Bush at the end of his last budget, FY 2009.
•FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
•FY 2013 - $672 billion.
•FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
•FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
•FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
•FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)
George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101% increase to the $5.8 trillion debt level at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.
•FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
•FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
•FY 2007 - $501 billion.
•FY 2006 - $574 billion.
•FY 2005 - $554 billion.
•FY 2004 - $596 billion.
•FY 2003 - $555 billion.
•FY 2002 - $421 billion.
Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase to the $4.4 trillion debt level at the end of Bush's last budget, FY 1993.
•FY 2001 - $133 billion.
•FY 2000 - $18 billion.
•FY 1999 - $130 billion.
•FY 1998 - $113 billion.
•FY 1997 - $188 billion.
•FY 1996 - $251 billion.
•FY 1995 - $281 billion.
•FY 1994 - $281 billion.
George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54% increase to the $2.8 trillion debt level at the end of Reagan's last budget, FY 1989.
•FY 1993 - $347 billion.
•FY 1992 - $399 billion.
•FY 1991 - $432 billion.
•FY 1990 - $376 billion.
Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, 186% increase to the $998 billion debt level at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.
•FY 1989 - $255 billion.
•FY 1988 - $252 billion.
•FY 1987 - $225 billion.
•FY 1986 - $297 billion.
•FY 1985 - $256 billion.
•FY 1984 - $195 billion.
•FY 1983 - $235 billion.
•FY 1982 - $144 billion.
Jimmy Carter: Added $299 billion, a 43% increase to the $699 billion debt level at the end of Ford's last budget, FY 1977.
•FY 1981 - $90 billion.
•FY 1980 - $81 billion.
•FY 1979 - $55 billion.
•FY 1978 - $73 billion.
Gerald Ford: Added $224 billion, a 47% increase to the $475 billion debt level at the end of Nixon's last budget, FY 1974.
•FY 1977 - $78 billion.
•FY 1976 - $87 billion.
•FY 1975 - $58 billion.
Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34% increase to the $354 billion debt level at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.
•FY 1974 - $17 billion.
•FY 1973 - $31 billion.
•FY 1972 - $29 billion.
•FY 1971 - $27 billion.
•FY 1970 - $17 billion.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Added $42 billion, a 13% increase to the $312 billion debt level at the end of JFK's last budget, FY 1964.
•FY 1969 - $6 billion.
•FY 1968 - $21 billion.
•FY 1967 - $6 billion.
•FY 1966 - $3 billion.
•FY 1965 - $6 billion.
John F. Kennedy: Added $23 billion, a 8% increase to the $289 billion debt level at the end of Eisenhower's last budget, FY1961.
•FY 1964 - $6 billion.
•FY 1963 - $7 billion.
•FY 1962 - $10 billion.
Dwight Eisenhower: Added $23 billion, a 9% increase to the $266 billion debt level at the end of Truman's last budget, FY 1953.
•FY 1961 - $3 billion.
•FY 1960 - $2 billion.
•FY 1959 - $8 billion.
•FY 1958 - $6 billion.
•FY 1957 - $2 billion surplus.
•FY 1956 - $2 billion surplus.
•FY 1955 - $3 billion.
•FY 1954 - $5 billion.
Harry Truman: Added $7 billion, a 3% increase over FDR's debt level of $259 billion at the end of FY 1945.
•FY 1953 - $7 billion.
•FY 1952 - $4 billion.
•FY 1951 - $2 billion surplus.
•FY 1950 - $5 billion.
•FY 1949 - slight surplus.
•FY 1948 - $6 billion surplus.
•FY 1947 - $11 billion surplus.
•FY 1946 - $11 billion.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Added $236 billion, a 1,048% increase over $23 billion, the debt at the end of Hoover's last budget, FY 1933.
•FY 1945 - $58 billion.
•FY 1944 - $64 billion.
•FY 1943 - $64 billion.
•FY 1942 - $23 billion.
•FY 1941 - $6 billion.
•FY 1940 - $3 billion.
•FY 1939 - $3 billion.
•FY 1938 - $1 billion.
•FY 1937 - $3 billion.
•FY 1936 - $5 billion.
•FY 1935 - $2 billion.
•FY 1934 - $5 billion.
Herbert Hoover: Added $6 billion, a 33% increase over $17 billion, the debt at the end of Coolidge's last budget, FY 1929.
•FY 1933 - $3 billion.
•FY 1932 - $3 billion.
•FY 1931 - $1 billion.
•FY 1930 - $1 billion surplus.
Calvin Coolidge: Subtracted $5 billion from the debt, a 26% decline from $21 billion the debt level at the end of Harding's last budget, FY 1923.
•FY 1929 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1928 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1927 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1926 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1925 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1924 - $1 billion surplus.
Warren G. Harding: Subtracted $2 billion from the debt, a 7% decline from the $24 billion debt at the end of Wilson's last budget, FY 1921.
•FY 1923 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1922 - $1 billion surplus.
Woodrow Wilson: Added $21 billion to the debt, a 727% increase over the $3 billion debt at the end of Taft's last budget, FY 1913.
•FY 1921 - $2 billion surplus.
•FY 1920 - $1 billion surplus.
•FY 1919 - $13 billion.
•FY 1918 - $9 billion.
•FY 1917 - $2 billion.
•FY 1916 - $1 billion.
•FY 1915 - $0 billion (slight surplus).
•FY 1914 - $0 billion.
FY 1789 - FY 1913: $3 billion debt created. (Source: OMB, Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits: 1789–2017)
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
You couldn't find a break down of who held majorities in Congress when Reagan tripled the national debt? Well, we know who controls it now.
Walt
Walt
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Capt Walter Miller, not the way I wanted to make my point, no. For the record, Democrats held the House by a comfortable margin the entire Reagan Presidency, and held the Senate by a few seats for all but the last two years.
Congress passes budgets; the President just signs them.
Without doing in-depth analysis, I see that Democrats ran both houses during nearly all of the points of accelerated debt accrual. The exception that sticks out is the first six years of the GW Bush administration. It should be noted that nearly half of the deficits incurred under Bush were in the last two years, when the Pelosi/Reid majorities took over.
Just saying.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
I make no excuses for the current Republican majorities in Congress. Their inaction is mind-boggling to me, considering what they ran on. In my opinion, much would be solved by passing the regular 14 appropriations bills through normal order and daring the President to veto them. Alas, it appears that will not happen.
Congress passes budgets; the President just signs them.
Without doing in-depth analysis, I see that Democrats ran both houses during nearly all of the points of accelerated debt accrual. The exception that sticks out is the first six years of the GW Bush administration. It should be noted that nearly half of the deficits incurred under Bush were in the last two years, when the Pelosi/Reid majorities took over.
Just saying.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
I make no excuses for the current Republican majorities in Congress. Their inaction is mind-boggling to me, considering what they ran on. In my opinion, much would be solved by passing the regular 14 appropriations bills through normal order and daring the President to veto them. Alas, it appears that will not happen.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Captain Miller-I'm struggling to make the connection between the fact that an African-American was twice elected to the Presidency, and Congressional approval of a budget. Perhaps you can help me understand what it is you are suggesting.
To be plain, sir...please allow me to ask you what you would suggest the long-term plan should be for ensuring that the national debt does not exceed the ability for the national economy to pay for it? I believe I'm within the bounds of logic to request that that answer speak to the amount of available income at at even a 100% taxable rate towards paying off the national debt...whether or not you would support total enclave of all privatized business into the public sector...and if so accomplished, how one would expect to ensure a sustainable distribution of skills in the work force to support it?
The only other conceivable suggestion is that you are asserting that the national debt essentially "doesn't matter", and it is the duty of Congress to bottom line any funding (with the exception of course of national defense, because didn't the CIC ask for reductions there?) required as the result of executive order. This too, evokes constitutional over-reach.
To be plain, sir...please allow me to ask you what you would suggest the long-term plan should be for ensuring that the national debt does not exceed the ability for the national economy to pay for it? I believe I'm within the bounds of logic to request that that answer speak to the amount of available income at at even a 100% taxable rate towards paying off the national debt...whether or not you would support total enclave of all privatized business into the public sector...and if so accomplished, how one would expect to ensure a sustainable distribution of skills in the work force to support it?
The only other conceivable suggestion is that you are asserting that the national debt essentially "doesn't matter", and it is the duty of Congress to bottom line any funding (with the exception of course of national defense, because didn't the CIC ask for reductions there?) required as the result of executive order. This too, evokes constitutional over-reach.
(4)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
LCDR (Join to see) You won't get an answer, Commander, because this guy is a troll, and your answer requires logic, not rhetoric.
(3)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Sure he is, but when he makes some of the statements that he does, there is an opportunity to correct the "misunderstandings" he and his ilk have. I welcome them and thank them for their service. :)
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
Unbelievable! Let's just do away with Congress and coronate Barack Obama. He'd fit in just fine next to King George.
(3)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
Wait, is this a fantasy forum? No one gets prosecuted for violating the constitution anymore...just ask Hillary and her private email server administrator, or her "husband". Nah, I don't have that kind of time to waste.
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
It may remain to be seen if HRC gets to pay the piper for the server thing. She's stupid, stupid, stupid for getting in the situation she is in, even if no laws were broken.
Don't forget that Gen. Petraeus DID go to trial for compromising national security.
Walt
Don't forget that Gen. Petraeus DID go to trial for compromising national security.
Walt
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Those same Founding fathers that you quoted also hated government and thought it was a necessary evil. Since it was a necessary evil they wanted it as small as possible. The Constitution that you quoted Sir, were put into place to limit government.
The Next question is why just throw the republicans in jail? Why not everyone that holds elected office? Democrats are just as guilty of violating their oath as Republicans are. They have all long since stopped representing the common man, if they ever did.
The Next question is why just throw the republicans in jail? Why not everyone that holds elected office? Democrats are just as guilty of violating their oath as Republicans are. They have all long since stopped representing the common man, if they ever did.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
1. Obama crammed down our throats with a majority Democratic Congress and senate the UN Affordable act....un lawful and hurt way way more people than it's helping...and by the way...the people that it's helping....a gazillion dollars of tax payers money is going towards these people so they can have the un affordable care act.
2. Dodd Frank passed through and within the Un Affordable care act...crashed the real estate market in 2008...if you were in the industry and you understood what happened...how it happened, then you would know and realize this really screwed things up and is still screwing it up.
3. Obama crammed down our throats his amnesty act...unlawful
4. Associating with known criminals...associating with RACIST pastors and many other unsavory characters
He's made so many un lawful deals and decisions, but no one will do anything about it....especially for the longest time since he had a Majority vote all of the time...there is no such thing as Bi Partisan in his arena.
He was the cause of the government shutdowns...and turned around and made it seem it was only the Republicans behind it.
Like all Politicians he lies...lies and lies....but he is the worst of all...he puts people in place that are his puppets like Eric Holder...who, he himself should be in jail.
OH PLEASE...You just! Really? I find you to be ridiculously funny.
2. Dodd Frank passed through and within the Un Affordable care act...crashed the real estate market in 2008...if you were in the industry and you understood what happened...how it happened, then you would know and realize this really screwed things up and is still screwing it up.
3. Obama crammed down our throats his amnesty act...unlawful
4. Associating with known criminals...associating with RACIST pastors and many other unsavory characters
He's made so many un lawful deals and decisions, but no one will do anything about it....especially for the longest time since he had a Majority vote all of the time...there is no such thing as Bi Partisan in his arena.
He was the cause of the government shutdowns...and turned around and made it seem it was only the Republicans behind it.
Like all Politicians he lies...lies and lies....but he is the worst of all...he puts people in place that are his puppets like Eric Holder...who, he himself should be in jail.
OH PLEASE...You just! Really? I find you to be ridiculously funny.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
1. The law has been upheld on challenge; therefore, not unlawful. That's kind of how these things work. The independent professional analyses have had it routinely come in under budget, and have dramatically helped millions get coverage and care.
2. Dodd-Frank was in 2010, so it could not have caused the 2008 crash. That's a cause-effect violation. The destabilization was most directly related to the sub-prime BS, which was an industry creation made possible by a lack of any regulation that would prohibit it. Dodd-Frank was, in part, a fixing of that regulatory oversight that the crash made so clear.
3. The Executive is granted the authority to prioritize effort with the available resources. There is nothing contested about that ability. He did not grant amnesty, which would require that a person's unlawful status be explicitly removed; he deferred the deportions of certain key groups and refocused that effort elsewhere.
4. Not illegal, but if it were, *every single* conservative lawmaker alive would need to be behind bars along with him.
As for bi-partisan, he has faced deliberate obstructionism -- as in, in many cases we have the intent to do so by conservatives *on record* -- on everything, and yet in item after item he has given away the strongest position right from the beginning.
As for the shutdowns being HIS fault? Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Thanks for the chuckle, as that is about as ridiculous as it gets. The Republicans are on record -- repeatedly -- planning the DETAILS of the shutdowns.
2. Dodd-Frank was in 2010, so it could not have caused the 2008 crash. That's a cause-effect violation. The destabilization was most directly related to the sub-prime BS, which was an industry creation made possible by a lack of any regulation that would prohibit it. Dodd-Frank was, in part, a fixing of that regulatory oversight that the crash made so clear.
3. The Executive is granted the authority to prioritize effort with the available resources. There is nothing contested about that ability. He did not grant amnesty, which would require that a person's unlawful status be explicitly removed; he deferred the deportions of certain key groups and refocused that effort elsewhere.
4. Not illegal, but if it were, *every single* conservative lawmaker alive would need to be behind bars along with him.
As for bi-partisan, he has faced deliberate obstructionism -- as in, in many cases we have the intent to do so by conservatives *on record* -- on everything, and yet in item after item he has given away the strongest position right from the beginning.
As for the shutdowns being HIS fault? Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Thanks for the chuckle, as that is about as ridiculous as it gets. The Republicans are on record -- repeatedly -- planning the DETAILS of the shutdowns.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google