[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Break up the Google-Facebook-Amazon web monopoly

ICE Director: Suspected Wine Country Arsonist Is Illegal Alien Mexican National

Awful: Thad Cochran reportedly disoriented in the Senate

Will people now believe Corey Feldman about Hollywood abusers?

Obama’s name to replace Jefferson Davis on Jackson elementary school

Team Obama’s stunning cover-up of Russian crimes

Scalias All the Way Down

Kid Rock’s Senate Competition Is The Infamous Libertarian Convention Streaker

No Charge

Why hydrogen is becoming a big deal

Americans Are Winning: Empty Seats All Around The NFL In Week 6: You Have The Power!

Hillary Clinton Could Still Be Installed as President

When you die you know you're dead: Major study shows mind still works after the body shows no sign of life

Dressing as a clown could get you killed at Halloween, warns Florida sheriff who says people have a right to defend themselves

The human brain tripled in size over the last 8 million years because we ventured further afield and NOT because our social groups got bigger

Wounded casino security guard vanishes from Las Vegas — and reappears on the set of 'Ellen'

Does TV's obsession with fictional American traitors affect our view of government?

The twilight of the elites...in the European Union

Broadcast Networks Push An Anti-Gun Agenda After Vegas Shooting

6 Questions About the Vegas Massacre That Will Make You Wonder What They’re Hiding

Eyewitness account of rapid gunfire, muzzle flash, people shot at Tropicana, ‘blood on walls’: Las Vegas shooting

The helicopter gunner theory: Are Las Vegas police hiding the fact that a helicopter gunship stormed the festival?

Florida declares state of emergency ahead of Richard Spencer speech

Cops Respond to Bank Robber by Shooting His Hostage 9 Times

Florida girl, 9, dies after 325-pound woman sits on her as punishment

'I was running downstairs in heels with a cup of coffee and fell backwards!': Hillary Clinton appears on British TV show to promote her book hobbling on crutches and wearing a protective boot after BREAKING her toe

Man Busted for Meth That Was Actually Donut Glaze Gets $37,500 for His Trouble


Collins: 'I just felt that I couldn't walk away' from Senate (I do play a key role)

Polkark,from Masterpiece Theater on PBS

Cops Attack Fellow Cop, Handcuff, Shackle, Taser Him—for Being Sick

Clinton Foundation to keep Harvey Weinstein's $250,000 donation

Bergdahl declared jihad in captivity, secret documents show

Trump and the dismantling of Obama's legacy

Austrian 'whizz-kid' in election triumph

Trump Given A Subpoena For All Documents Relating To Assault Allegations

FBI 'Hand-In-Hand' With Vegas PD, Begin Damage Control: "There Is No Conspiracy... Nobody Is Attempt to Hide Anything"

Young Man Arrested for Underage Sex Was Re-Arrested for Sharing a Pizza with a 17-Year-Old

Donald Trump Is Handicapping Supreme Court Vacancies

Austrian Vote Nudges Europe's Balance to Right as Populists Gain

Why So Many People Believe Conspiracy Theories

The Las Vegas massacre narrative has more holes than a Mandalay Bay hotel hallway

Assange to be kicked out of embassy? Wikileaks founder clashes with Ecuador over Catalonia

Colin Kaepernick Reportedly Files Grievance Against NFL Owners for Collusion

Trump golfs with Rand Paul

Federal Judge Re-affirms Tradition of Congressional Prayer

Vicente Fox is Running for President of the United States

Melissa Etheridge Arrested For Having Cannabis Oil She Used to Help With Cancer

Clinton: We made a person who committed sexual assault president

Once promised paradise, IS fighters end up in mass graves

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles

Title: Its Official: Presidency Now A Dictatorship
Source: beforeitsnews
URL Source: http://beforeitsnews.com/story/2265 ... idency_Now_A_Dictatorship.html
Published: Jun 15, 2012
Author: Kurt Nimmo
Post Date: 2012-06-16 15:06:13 by whyofcourse
Keywords: None
Views: 3318
Comments: 9

Its Official: Presidency Now A Dictatorship
Saturday, June 16, 2012 1:50

Kurt Nimmo

June 15, 2012

Obama’s latest outrageous violation of the laws of the United States demonstrate that the nation has arrived at its destination: a dictatorship lorded over by an imperial ruler.

On Friday, Obama instructed the government to ignore an influx of illegal aliens streaming over the border. The move was implemented to sway Latino voters into the Obama camp in preparation for the upcoming election against fellow establishment candidate Mitt Romney.

Obama’s violations of law and the Constitution make his predecessor look like a piker by way of comparison. Since he was voted into office by deluded citizens who believed he would pay for their rent and food, Obama has enacted by fiat or worked with Congress to pass a number of bills that have increased the power of the executive and the unconstitutional authority of the federal government.

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

This monstrous statute allows the government to circumvent the Fifth Amendment. The NDAA gives the government the authority to designate American citizens as terrorists and indefinitely detain them without recourse to courts or due process of law and without specific charge.

“Permit me to state the obvious,” writes Sheldon Richman. “The government shouldn’t be allowed to imprison people indefinitely without charge or trial. It shouldn’t be necessary to say this nearly 800 years after Magna Carta was signed and over 200 years after the Fifth Amendment was ratified.”

Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta states that “[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” The concept of due process first appeared in English common law in 1354 and inspired the Fifth Amendment more than 400 years later.

The time honored principle that the state must try citizens in a court of law is now dead – and with surprisingly little resistance from our supposed representatives.

Unconstitutional wars

Not only did Obama continue and amplify Bush’s unconstitutional, illegal and immoral wars against nations that did not present a danger to the United States, he also initiated an overt war of his own in Libya (under NATO cover). He did not go to Congress and seek a declaration as required under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Instead, he used the fig leaf of the United Nations to cover his illegal action.

In May, the Secretary of War, Leon Panetta, said Obama will “seek international permission” to launch new wars.” He declared the “commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the vital interests of this country” without consulting the American people.

In March, Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, introduced H. Concurrent Resolution 107, which calls on the House, the Senate Concurring, to prevent Obama from starting another war without authorization from Congress. It has since languished in committee.


Obama’s health care mandate forcing Americans to buy insurance from large monopolistic corporations represents the height of his arrogance and contempt for the American people and the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution is known as the Commerce Clause. It states that “Congress shall have the power… to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states and with the Indian tribes.” It does not permit the government to force you to buy insurance from a government preferred and protected monopoly.

In Federalist No. 45, James Madison wrote that the clause spells out that the powers delegated to the federal government are “few and defined,” while those left to the states “are numerous and indefinite,” although you wouldn’t know that if you listen to Democrats and far too many of their Republican colleagues.

The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to facilitate commerce between the states and prevent tariffs, quotas and taxes. It was not designed to help a lumbering and dictatorial federal government force “mandates” on the people at gunpoint.

Our supposed representatives are wholly ignorant of the Constitution and its unmistakable principles of limited government intervention. Rep. Nancy Pelosi made this clear when she was asked if the Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate.

“Are you serious?” she responded, demonstrating her complete ignorance of the Constitution.

Following legal challenges to the law and its consideration before the highest court, Obama threatened to cut off Medicare payments if the Supreme Court does not rule in his favor.


Obama has shown his contempt for the law, Congress, and the people by negotiating globalist treaties.

He would subvert the American judicial process by implementing the International Criminal Court. It will ultimately be used against American citizens. Professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame University Law School has stated that we will be confronted by “a monster” that effectively “repudiates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.”

The Law of the Sea Treaty will create another international bureaucracy that will limit the sovereignty of the United States and impose globalist regulations. “The autonomy of the United States is threatened if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body that is not accountable to the American people,” writes Julie Borowski. “The U.N. is openly hostile to our national sovereignty and republican form of government. The ratification of LOST [Law of the Sea Treaty] would open up a Pandora’s Box of problems. It would impose global taxes and regulations that cripple economic growth while exposing ourselves to high-stakes environmental lawsuits.”

The Small Arms Treaty would circumvent the Second Amendment, the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. If ratified, it will impose even tougher licensing requirements, confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms, ban semiautomatic weapons, create an international gun registry, and override our cherished national sovereignty.

Startling details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership were revealed earlier this week in a leaked document. This treaty would allow transnational corporations to skirt American banking, investment, environmental and labor laws. The laws would still apply to corporations based in the United States, however. “The leaked document shows that in all of the major respects, this is exactly the same template that was used in NAFTA and other agreements that President Obama campaigned against,” Todd Tucker, the research director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch division, told Slate.

Flurry of Executive Orders

Although he lied and said he would not issue executive orders, Obama has signed a large number of them:

Council of Governors. “An Obama executive order that creates a council of state governors who will work with the feds to expand military involvement in domestic security, together with PDD 51, a Bush era executive order that gives the President dictatorial power in times of national emergency, eliminate the last roadblocks to declaring martial law in the United States,” Paul Joseph Watson summarized in January of 2010.

National Defense Resources Preparedness: This EO, signed in March of 2012, renews and updates Obama’s authority to seize control of all civil energy supplies, including oil and natural gas, and control and restrict all civil transportation. It essentially reaffirms a large number of FEMA-related executive orders issued since the national security state was installed in 1947 and is another element in an intricate structure that will enable martial law at the president’s discretion.

Less significant – although equally unconstitutional – executive orders include creating a council on bioethics, implementing a policy on space exploration, creating a mathematics advisory panel, and numerous other issues that should be addressed by Congress.

Advanced Effort to Kill the Constitution

From the Department of Justice’s high-handed attempt to prevent Arizona from protecting its borders to restrictive EPA rules that impose unreasonably burdensome financial costs on the states, Obama’s federal government has turned into a tyrannical leviathan dictating policy and law at gunpoint.

Since the reign of Bush, the federal government has shifted into high gear the effort to degrade and dilute the separation of powers. Obama was installed precisely to oversee the further destruction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and empower the imperial presidency.

His latest move to further weaken the immigration laws of the United States is simply more evidence that the federal government will continue to run roughshod over the Constitution and the natural rights of the American people, an incremental plan implemented by the elite that is now approaching its zenith.

www.infowars.com/its-official-presidency-now-a-dictatorship/ (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: whyofcourse (#0)

Actually, the article is based on a false foundation. It takes Congress to support the EOs. The EOs are subject to Congressional approval.

buckeroo  posted on  2012-06-16   15:43:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#2. To: buckeroo (#1)

Actually, the article is based on a false foundation. It takes Congress to support the EOs. The EOs are subject to Congressional approval.

Not exactly.

Until now, no E.O. could make law.

We are passing the Rubicon on the lawlessness of our god-emperor. The Senate and the republic are passing into history.

Tooconservative  posted on  2012-06-16   16:46:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#3. To: TooConservative (#2)

Not exactly.

Until now, no E.O. could make law.

Constitutional Powers of the President

The powers and duties of the president are outlined in Article II of the Constitution. Although the Constitution grants far fewer explicit powers to the president in Article II than it does to Congress in Article I, the ambiguity and vagueness of Article II have made it possible for presidents to expand their authority greatly beyond that specifically listed in the Constitution.

The two passages in the Constitution that have provided the basis for the expansion of presidential authority are Article II, Section 1, which grants “the executive Power” to the president, and Section 3, which makes the president responsible for the enforcement of federal laws: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

The uncertainty in the Constitution about the president's powers reflects the ambivalence of the framers of the Constitution over the office they were creating. On one hand, the framers saw the president as a nonhereditary, elected official responsible to the people, while, on the other, they were concerned about the effects of too much democracy and the possibility that the president would respond to popular demands in ways that hurt minority rights. Similarly, the Constitution gives the president sweeping powers over the administration of the federal government, while also subjecting it to congressional constraints.

The following brief descriptions cover the chief categories of presidential powers created by the Constitution.

Chief Executive

Although the founders placed a high priority on the president's executive duties, the Constitution provides very few instructions about the president's tasks as head of the executive branch. Specific presidential administrative powers have evolved as the presidency has matured.

The Constitution does not make direct provision for the vast administrative structure that the president must oversee. It does, however, authorize the president to demand written reports from the “principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject, relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.” This clause implies a division of labor within the executive branch and clearly establishes a hierarchy with the president as the chief administrative officer.

Appointment and Removal Power

One of the most important administrative powers of the president is to appoint people to fill high-level positions in the administration. Article II, Section 2, gives the president the power to select top officials, subject to Senate approval.

In the nineteenth century presidents and Congress had much greater appointment powers, sharing in the use of the patronage system to distribute all types of government jobs to their friends and political supporters. The enactment of civil service laws largely put an end to that practice, so that today about 90 percent of executive branch positions are covered by the merit systems, leaving only the most senior positions to be filled by presidential appointees. Nevertheless, presidents' powers to choose personnel for these positions enable them to help set the direction for the bureaucracy. The Constitution does not explicitly authorize the president to remove federal officeholders, even though that power with respect to top officials would seem to be a major aspect of the president's administrative control. The president's removal power was not confirmed by the Supreme Court until 1926, and the Court has since limited this power over certain federal agencies. (See The Presidency A to Z Appointment and Removal Power.)


The Constitution does not clearly establish a budgetary process or spell out the presidency's role in such a process. Because of this ambiguity, presidents have been able to bring much of the process under their control. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress power over taxes and spending, while Article II, Section 3, gives presidents the power to recommend fiscal policies.

The power to control the budget process is one of the most important administrative prerogatives of the presidency. Often, it is the president who decides where and how money should be spent. In the last part of the twentieth century, the presidency assumed an increasingly important role in determining federal spending.

The Constitution lays out the powers and duties of the president. Here the founders take turns signing their names. (Source: Library of Congress.)

Law Enforcement

The president's role in law enforcement rests on the constitutional requirement that the president “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The president serves as chief executive of what has become a vast law enforcement apparatus. Should assistance be needed, the president can invoke the authority of “commander in chief” and deploy the armed forces, including units of state militia, to enforce the law.

Presidential law enforcement powers have grown in rough proportion to enlargements in the responsibilities and power of the national government itself. Over the years Congress has added greatly to the law enforcement duties of the president. One dramatic example of this use of presidential power came in 1962, when John F. Kennedy ordered U.S. marshals and regular army troops to quell riots protesting a court order that required the University of Mississippi to integrate its student body by admitting a black student, James Meredith.


The Constitution gives the president the “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” The framers specifically included this power to enable the president to make well-timed offers of pardon to those in domestic rebellion against the government, when such a move might help restore order.

The clemency authority of the president is extensive. It applies to any federal process or offender, except officials who have been impeached. The best-known use of the clemency power in recent decades was Gerald R. Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon for offenses committed during the Watergate affair. In addition, Ford and Jimmy Carter issued amnesties, which are pardons covering a whole group of people, for draft evaders during the Vietnam War. Bill Clinton ran into controversy when he issued 140 pardons and 36 commutations on January 20, 2001, his last day in office.


The Constitution is reticent about the president's role in legislating, yet the relationship between Congress and the executive is the most important aspect of the U.S. system of government. More than two hundred years of history have seen an immense and fundamental expansion in the array of resources the president can use to influence public policy.


Perhaps the chief legal weapon presidents have in their relationship with Congress is the veto power, which enables presidents to prevent all but the most popular pieces of legislation from becoming law against their wishes.

Under the Constitution, presidents may respond to a bill passed by Congress in one of three ways. They may sign it, veto the bill by returning it to Congress, or do nothing. If they do nothing, the bill becomes law after the passage of ten days, excluding Sundays. If Congress adjourns sooner than ten days after the bill passed, however, the bill dies, under the “pocket veto” provision. If the president vetoes a bill, Congress can still enact it into law by repassing the measure with two-thirds majorities in both chambers. Such overrides are relatively rare, however; from 1789 through 2002, only 106 of 2,551 presidential vetoes were overridden, about 4 percent.

Legislative Proposals

The Constitution also authorizes the president to “recommend to [Congress's] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Unlike the veto, which is a limited and somewhat negative instrument for stopping legislation, the duty to recommend legislation has over time become the primary mechanism by which chief executives influence the nation's political agenda. Given the presidency's relatively weak array of formal devices for mandating government policy, no other facet of the office today is as critical to presidential success or failure. The ability to shape the agenda of government—to decide what is or is not a priority—is in essence the power to influence what government will or will not do.

Throughout most of the nineteenth century, the president had little power to define the national agenda. Congress dominated government, and presidents were not expected to formulate legislative proposals. The turning point in the transformation of the presidency into the chief initiator of major legislation came in 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt responded to the crisis of the Great Depression with a flood of legislative proposals, known as the “first hundred days,” that both dominated the congressional agenda and brought about a historic change in the role of the federal government in national life. Although few presidents since have been as successful as Roosevelt, his tenure has become the model for the office.

Executive Orders

The section of the Constitution that allots to the president “executive power” is one of the least specific but potentially most important in the document. When paired with the provision requiring presidents to take care that laws are faithfully executed, the executive power clause provides for a range of implied powers whose extent and potency have grown beyond anything the framers could have foreseen.

An offshoot of the implied powers doctrine is the The Presidency A to Z executive order. This critical instrument of active presidential power is nowhere defined in the Constitution but generally is construed as a presidential directive that becomes law without prior congressional approval. It is based either on existing statutes or on the president's other constitutional responsibilities. Executive orders usually pertain specifically to government agencies and officials, but their effects often reach to the average citizen. For example, in 1965 Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required companies that win federal government contracts to create programs for hiring more minorities, significantly affecting private sector employment practices. For the most part, presidents issue executive orders to establish executive branch agencies, to modify bureaucratic rules or actions, to change decision-making procedures, or to give substance and force to statutes.

Emergency Powers

In times of crisis presidents often lay claim to extraordinary powers to preserve the nation. Such emergency powers are neither granted expressly to the president nor delegated to Congress by the Constitution. Instead, they are judged to reside purely in the need for leaders to protect national sovereignty and domestic order. The mandate in Article II that the president “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution and uphold its provisions is considered to contain implicitly the notion of emergency powers.

The most significant use of presidential emergency powers was made by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Faced with the secession of the southern states, Lincoln claimed numerous emergency war powers to save the Union, in the process becoming what some have called a “constitutional dictator.” The most controversial use of the emergency power in the twentieth century came in 1951 when Harry Truman, who had put the nation on emergency footing after North Korea invaded South Korea, ordered the seizure of strike-threatened steel mills to avoid potential shortages. Truman based his action on the president's inherent authority to meet national emergencies. However, the Supreme Court later ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional.

In November 2001, in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, George W. Bush authorized the use of military tribunals for trying foreigners accused of terrorist acts against the United States. Bush said that emergency powers under the commander-in-chief clause gave him the latitude to put these measures into place.

Foreign Affairs

The Constitution grants few foreign affairs powers to the president. Although it gives the president authority to make treaties and appoint ambassadors, it allots Congress a range of powers in the area that are at least equal to those of the president. Indeed, the constitutional division of foreign affairs power has been described as “an invitation to struggle.”

Nevertheless, presidents in recent decades have won interbranch struggles for primacy in foreign relations. Although Congress sometimes can block or modify presidential foreign policy initiatives, the president has dominated the formulation and initiation of foreign policy.

Treaty Powers

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, gives the president power to make treaties with other countries, subject to ratification by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. This provision sets up a classic division of power between the legislative and executive branches. The primary responsibility for conducting treaty negotiations lies with the president, but the president cannot bring about a final agreement without the concurrence of most senators.

Nevertheless, the executive branch has established itself as the dominant branch in treaty making. As the sole organ of communication with foreign countries, as the commander in chief, and as the head of the foreign policy bureaucracy, presidents are equipped with the means needed to control most phases of the treaty-making process. Presidents can stop the process at any time, if they think the pact would be voted down on a full Senate vote, or if they dislike any changes the Senate has made. In 1980, for example, Jimmy Carter withdrew the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union from Senate consideration after Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan.

Executive Agreements

An The Presidency A to Z executive agreement is a pact other than a treaty made by the president with a foreign government. Presidents have asserted that their constitutional powers give them authority to make these pacts without Senate approval. For presidents, the executive agreement is a particularly powerful foreign policy tool because it allows them to act without seeking congressional backing. The chief limitation on executive agreements is that, unlike treaties, they do not supersede any U.S. laws with which they might conflict.

The executive agreement power was used as early as 1803, when Thomas Jefferson arranged for the Louisiana Purchase without congressional approval. Throughout the nineteenth century presidents made little use of the power, concluding on average only one executive agreement per year. The use of such agreements grew dramatically in the twentieth century. Between 1945 and 1996 only 6 percent of all international agreements entered into by the United States were treaties. Executive agreements are now used to conduct business once reserved for treaties. For example, trade agreements, the annexation of territory, military commitments, and arms control pacts have all been concluded through executive agreements.

Recognition and Appointment Powers

Although the Constitution does not explicitly grant presidents the power to recognize foreign governments, it is generally accepted that they have this power as a result of their authority to send and receive ambassadors. Because the acts of sending an ambassador to a country and receiving its representative imply recognition of the legitimacy of the foreign government involved, presidents have successfully claimed exclusive authority to decide which foreign governments will be recognized by the United States. It follows, then, that they have the power to terminate relations with another nation as well.

The constitutional power to appoint ambassadors is also important because the success of a president's foreign policy depends somewhat on the personalities and abilities of the people who fill important diplomatic posts. Many ambassadorships are given to foreign service officials with years of experience, but presidents also take advantage of this power of appointment for various purposes. For many years, ambassadorships to small countries, preferably those with pleasant climates, have been used as rewards for major financial contributors or political allies of the president. Presidents also have used high-visibility appointments to make political statements, such as when Jimmy Carter appointed civil rights activist Andrew Young to be ambassador to the United Nations, or when Ronald Reagan picked conservative foreign policy analyst Jeane Kirkpatrick for the same post.

Commander in Chief

Reflecting the clear consensus at the Constitutional Convention that the nation's highest civilian officer should have charge of the military, the Constitution states that 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.” That is the only statement in the document about the president's war-making power. Because the precise authority of the office of commander in chief is left undefined, presidents have been able to argue that they possess any power needed to improve the nation's defenses in peacetime or to help it prevail over an enemy in wartime, without usurping the power of the other branches or violating the law.

The Constitution does not give the president complete domination over the war-making function. The power to declare war is reserved for Congress, as is the ability to raise and maintain an army. Nevertheless, presidential use of the power to order U.S. forces into combat without a congressional declaration of war increased greatly during the twentieth century. Particularly during the half-century of cold war conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, presidents claimed the right to deploy military forces on their own initiative. Presidents also had the support of congressional resolutions authorizing them to use force, such as the Tonkin Gulf resolution which Lyndon Johnson claimed as his legal authority for carrying out the war in Vietnam.

In 1973 Congress responded to Richard Nixon's continuing prosecution of the Vietnam War by passing the War Powers Act over Nixon's veto. The most important and controversial provisions of the law outlined the situations under which presidents could commit troops, permitted Congress at any time to order the president to disengage troops involved in an undeclared war, and required the president to withdraw armed forces from a conflict within sixty to ninety days unless Congress specifically authorized its continuation. The law has failed to substantially change presidential war-making prerogatives, however. Presidents since Nixon have strongly refused to invoke the law, and only once—in speeding the removal of U.S. forces from Lebanon in 1982—has the law forced a compromise over the use of military power. In 1991 George Bush allowed a dramatic debate and vote in Congress over authorization of his use of force in the Persian Gulf without admitting that his actions were subject to the War Powers Act. In the fall of 2002, George W. Bush sought, and eventually received, congressional authorization to use military force against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Chief of State

The president also serves as the chief of state of the United States, presiding over ceremonial functions. This office, which in countries with constitutional monarchies is carried out by the king or queen, serves as a symbol of the permanence of the national state. The president's role as chief of state as described in the Constitution includes the obligation to take the oath of office, deliver an annual State of the Union message, and receive ambassadors from other countries. Although the president's ceremonial functions do not constitute a major source of power, they elevate the office above other offices and institutions and create a leadership mystique that can be of great help to a president in achieving policy goals.

All along the way in American history, the Congress accepts or rejects a Presidential EO. Normally the Congress does NOTHING as a method for rubber-stamping approval of a formal process. Congress has a 30 day period from EO submission to Congressional disapproval; if no disapproval, the EO is law. President's are NOTHING without Congressional approval.

buckeroo  posted on  2012-06-16   17:01:53 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#4. To: whyofcourse (#0)

The move was implemented to sway Latino voters into the Obama camp in preparation for the upcoming election against fellow establishment candidate Mitt Romney.

But Yukon says Latinos are natural Republicans?

LOLAYDS (Laugh Out Loud At Yukon Drinking Sperm)

nativist nationalist  posted on  2012-06-16   20:24:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#5. To: nativist nationalist (#4)

yukon has never said a kind word about any one.

whyofcourse  posted on  2012-06-16   20:36:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#6. To: buckeroo (#1)

Actually, the article is based on a false foundation. It takes Congress to support the EOs. The EOs are subject to Congressional approval.

You are uninformed on this matter Buckeroo. The piece of cat shit that goes by the alias Barack Obama issues the illegal executive orders. Then if congress wants to overturn it they need 2/3 in both houses. Unconstitutional, immoral. But that is what happens when we let pieces of shit from other countries come here and breed and vote. The time will come some day when we must have a race war and exterminate the enemies. It is stupid of our people to let foreigners come here and breed like cockroaches then try and tell us what to do. Deport the anchor babies. Deport the their parents. Try for treason the politicians that try to coddle them and make them "legal".

Stock up on guns and ammo. The time will come when you have to kill.

A K A Stone  posted on  2012-06-17   16:41:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#7. To: nativist nationalist, whyofcourse (#4)

But Yukon says Latinos are natural Republicans?

yukon has never said a kind word about any one.

Why don't you nutless cowards and dishonorable assholes stop your pansy-assed sniping and grow a pair?


Were you libturds hatched in a manure pile?

"if you're not cop, you're little people"

Deckard  posted on  2012-06-18   22:09:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#8. To: Deckard (#7)

Pretty good.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2012-06-18   22:24:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#9. To: Deckard (#7)

Why don't you nutless cowards and dishonorable assholes stop your pansy-assed sniping and grow a pair?


Were you libturds hatched in a manure pile?

You must show a sarcasm tag when performing phunney antics or some may think YOU *ARE* LP's infamous yukon.

buckeroo  posted on  2012-06-18   22:26:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com