Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I guess I'm gonna run for President.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:29 PM
Original message
I guess I'm gonna run for President.
Edited on Tue Mar-29-11 02:44 PM by Zorra
I don't really want or need much, so if y'all just pay me $10 an hour (just for 40 hrs a week, no OT) so I can pay for my food, and some reasonably affordable medical bennies, I'll work for you. I'll live in an RV powered by solar on the WH grounds so I don't have to cost y'all much to support me. I'll use my own car and bicycle, and take public transpo when flying somewhere necessary. I can make my own lunches, too.

I promise never to lie to you. You can put everything I do as President on live video, (except for some hours when I sleep, or shit like critical national security issues that can't be in the open cuz it would counterproductive, but you can televise all the entrances to my place 24/7 and monitor communications if you want) kind of like a reality show, only real reality. I don't really want anything, except for everyone to be as happy as posiible and have enough to eat and stuff like that. So I have nothing to gain except to serve my people and create a better world for everyone. I don't particularly want to do this cuz it will be a real hassle, but I think I would do a really good job at it, so I'd do it for awhile, I don't have much of anything better to do but contemplate existence and that gets old after awhile. And hey, if someone wants to shoot me, no BFD. I'm gonna die someday anyway. Can't scare me.

I will lean on Congress so hard that they will either do what is right for the American people or I will clearly expose their corrupt ulterior motivations (gaining wealth and power through service to wealthy private interests) individually and collectively for everyone to see.

The first thing I will do after my inauguration is issue an Executive Order ending all lobbying of public officials by anyone or anything (corporations are NOT people) and making it a major felony to offer public officials money (other than their salary/bennies of course). In the same EO, I will make it a major felony for a public official to accept money. Punishable by life in prison. I'll shoot it out with SCOTUS later.

The second EO will declare that the recent SCOTUS bench legislation allowing unlimited funding of political campaigns is an imminent threat and clear and present danger to our country, and that the SCOTUS bench legislation is moot. I'll shoot it out with SCOTUS later.

The third EO will outlaw electronic voting and establish a transparent voting system that will be as incorruptible and foolproof as is humanly possible, probably based on the Canadian model.

I'm real good at managing money. If Congress cooperates, I will balance the budget by ending wars, cutting defense spending, and taxing corporations and the wealthy at the same rate that was in effect during the Eisenhower administration. Balancing the budget really shouldn't be too hard if given an honest try. I will assemble a team of talented, dedicated, honest people with no ulterior motives (corporate interests) eliminating unnecessary spending that is not fully geared to the benefit of human beings. Banks and corporations will be regulated beyond their ability to cause deliberate economic harm or any significant economic harm caused by incompetence or unabashed greed. Fines for violating these regulations will be massive enough to be a very strong deterrent to corruption. Severe ciminal penalties will be in place where applicable. No company will want to risk it.

Then, New Deal II begins ASAP, with the cooperation of Congress, of course. Anyone that wants to, and is willing and able to work, will be able to get a job. Might be minimum wage, but that can't be helped. Rebuilding infrastructure and implementing alternative energy systems en masse will be main projects of New Deal II. A major investment in education will be at the top of the agenda.

Universal single payer healthcare will be established during my administration.

The primary key to the success of my administration will be absolute honesty, integrity, incorruptibility (is that a word? you know what I mean if it ain't) and all around ability . It will be all out in the open, no secrecy, no bullshit. Any pol tries to pull dishonest bullshit I'll personally call them out and shame them in public. You'll see exactly where your money is going, and what your government is doing.

I will do everything in my power to protect you from economic, social, political, and physical harm caused by wealthy private interests and any governments or terrorist agents they may employ to attempt to overthrow our government again.

Guess you already figured we won't be wasting our money on unneccessary wars anymore, so we close up shop in whatever countries we're occupying at the time, and bring the troops home.

Anyway, that's a start. We'll have to work some of the bugs out of course. But here's the thing: We can do this. Again, simple honesty and transparency, common sense, reasonable intelligence, will, dedication, imagination, sincere motivation, character, and ability are all we need to retake our government, and create for ourselves a really awesome nation to live in and raise our children in.

If someone caps me, the ball will still be rolling. I guarantee my VP will be smarter, more capable, more dedicated, and better looking than me.

If you want real change, the rough blueprint is above. That's pretty much all I have to say. Oh, yeah, don't ever send me any money.

So, anyway, vote for me, my name is Zorra, and let's get this thing done so I can get back to hangin' at the beach ASAP.

Thanks. Have an awesome day.

Peace

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Got my vote. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. Where's your birth certificate???????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Got the genuine article right here, but that won't matter to the dumbasses
who refuse believe what they see unless it is on Fox News.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. The president can't make anything a...
Edited on Tue Mar-29-11 02:39 PM by SDuderstadt
"major felony". That is the province of the legislative branch.

With no better understanding of checks and balances or how our system actually works, don't expect many votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Yes Zorra can !!!
here :donut:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Please explain how Obama could...
make anything a "major felony"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backwoodsbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
46. of course you can
declare it some sort of National Security and you can do damned near anything you want as president
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
4. Vote Zorra!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angry Dragon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. 2 votes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
75. 3
Go Zorra!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
6. "The state of the Union is awesome!"
:woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Yeah, thanks, well, Lebowski should get most of the credit for that.
Edited on Tue Mar-29-11 02:50 PM by Zorra
He's pretty hard to find these days though.
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coyote_Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
9. 3 Votes
My present inclination is to throw out all the sorry bastards currently holding elected office at every level of government.

I figure you haven't been bought and are far more likely to at least try to advance and protect my needs and interests. That more than the current crop. The others just tell me to continue to lower my expectations and demands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. You'd throw Bernie Sanders out? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
37. Actually Bernie would make a good VP, and he could show Zorra around. nt
Edited on Tue Mar-29-11 03:36 PM by TBF
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coyote_Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
53. If there is a name on my Dem primary ballot
other than Obama then that candidate will get my vote. No write-ins are permitted here.

If there are no other names on that primary ballot then the issue is moot and there is no need for me to vote for Obama to get the party nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
12.  Vote for FSogol instead, I promise talking llamas and waffles will now be part of the
fruit and vegetable group. All in the 1st 100 days!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
13. Show me what you can accomplish at a lower office first.
Then I'll consider giving you my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. There's no time for that, so please just vote for whoever you like,
as long as they are not a republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RegieRocker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
15. It is time to elect someone through the power of the internet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loudsue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
18. That's very refreshing, and it seems so simple and good. The dark forces would
never allow it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Very refreshing?
Edited on Tue Mar-29-11 03:01 PM by SDuderstadt
Only if one totally ignores the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #20
49. Oh lighten up shirley. . . . .n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Well, can't hurt to try. Most they could do is shoot me, (or cause my plane to crash?),
or you know, whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
19. Give it a shot.
Minimal experience didn't stop the last guy who won the presidency.

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chef Eric Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
21. What party? Democratic? A third party? Independent? Inquring minds want to know. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Well, if Dems nominated me, I would run.
If republicans nominated me, I would run a lot faster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
22. Aren't "Executive Orders" only used for dictating policy/action within the "executive" branch?
Without cross-referenced legilative or judicial authority (court ruling or legislatively granted power) I don't believe executive orders can be directed to offices/agents outside of the executive branch. What happens when the legislative branch (congress) and judicial branch (SCOTUS) tell you piss off because you can't order them around?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. National Security. Hard to dispute that. SCOTUS would legislate against it
quickly.

But the public would get so behind the EO's and against SCOTUS in the ensuing legal fight that Congress could be pressured into enacting Constitutional Amendments overruling the SCOTUS legislation.

Especially since I already know all their dirty little secrets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Since the Supreme Court is...
Edited on Tue Mar-29-11 03:17 PM by SDuderstadt
the final authority and word on the Constitution, I'd love to hear how this "legal fight" would be waged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Can't rule against a Constitutional Amendment. Only way to beat SCOTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. You're ignoring separation of powers.
The core ideal of separation of powers would mean that the president can't directly order congress to SCOTUS to do anything. While the president is a very powerful person, he can't sit around barking orders like he's sitting on some throne. US presidents don't have that kind of authority - they just don't. Fore Example, Obama could be the biggest supporter of Marijuana legalization on the freakin' planet... and he would be directly powerless to make a trivial thing like MJ legal.

Quantitatively, I would have to say that compared to SCOTUS and Congressoinal body, the Office of the President has the least direct power of any government branch.

Want some real power? Get elected to the SCOTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #34
45. Not ordering SCOTUS to do anything. They'll simply have to rule on the EO's.
In the meantime, the ensuing legal battle will expose Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy as enemies of democracy in America.

Just google executive order and get info.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
25. This is hysterical...
unless all posters are doing this tongue in cheek, the OP is suggesting a dictatorship.

Too funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Well, would you explain to me exactly how this would be a dictatorship
based on the content of the OP and my responses to posts so far?

This shouldn't really scare anyone except wealthy private interests, corporations, corrupt politicians, and republicans/conservatives..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Huh?
Edited on Tue Mar-29-11 03:28 PM by SDuderstadt
Ever heard of the separation of powers?

If this OP is an intentional joke, no further discussion is necessary. If it's not, I would suggest conferring with Laurence Tribe. The president can't just unconstitutionally usurp defined powers of the other branches.

Please tell me this is a joke. Either way, it's not funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Of course it's not funny to you - you like having Obama in charge. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. I happen to...
love the Constitution.

Directed to all posters: is everyone just having fun here or are people taking this seriously?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. It's a joke, dude, but I totally meant it when I said she couldn't do
Edited on Tue Mar-29-11 03:44 PM by TBF
much worse.

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #39
52. forget it TBF
the guy is seriously humor impaired..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Yes. I clearly mentioned the "approval" of Congress.
Please explain to me exactly how this would be a dictatorship.

Part of being a truly effective President is knowing how to get Congress to do what you want.

FDR was a wizard at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Remember FDR's court-packing plan?
Last chance. Is this OP intended as a joke?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. So, I take it you think FDR was a dictator?
“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group,” FDR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. No...
quit putting words in my mouth.

Again, please tell me this is a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. Quite honestly, in reality, the intent of this post is as serious as it ever gets. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. Is the question about how it would be a dictatorship...
serious?

Please tell me this is a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. Yes. I'm sorry, but you seem to be side-stepping the issue.
Could you please clearly explain to me, in simple English, precisely, how what I have written in the OP and posted as responses indicate that my presidency would be a dictatorship?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Goodluck with that.
All you will end up with is a deleted subthread. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #47
55. For starters?
Edited on Tue Mar-29-11 04:20 PM by SDuderstadt
In the same EO, I will make it a major felony for a public official to accept money. Punishable by life in prison. I'll shoot it out with SCOTUS later.


That would be assuming the powers of a dictator.

I cannot believe we have to have this conversation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. It really is a matter of national security. SCOTUS can decide if my
argument is valid.

SCOTUS would definitely shoot it down. This is a given.

After the spectacle of a heated national legal battle between Scotus and me, I would do several FDR type Fireside Chats, explaining the situation very clearly, and exposing the corrupt conservative justices on the Supreme Court as the tools of anti-democratic wealthy private interests that they most certainly are.

No more rocks to hide under.

I would then put intense pressure Congress to adopt Constitutional Amendments to protect our country from the influence of wealthy special interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. Please provide the section of the Constitution that...
Edited on Tue Mar-29-11 04:38 PM by SDuderstadt
empowers the President to usurp the power of Congress.

Any president following this course of action hardly needs to worry about the Supreme Court. They would be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate so quickly, it would not only be the shortest presidency ever, it would be unanimous or nearly so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #60
67. There is none. But President's issue EO's all the time. SCOTUS overturned a
few of them.

Check it out with a search.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. I'm not the one that....
made the claim.

I'm still waiting to hear how the president can amend the United States Code by executive order. Please enlighten us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
31. Almost forgot. We could probably get a whole lot of Anonymous help.
I'm just sayin'...
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
35. I doubt you could do much worse - I'd vote for you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
40. Good idea, just don't become corrupt and give away the bank
on the first day. I love the responses to your thread btw! Priceless! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
41. "with the cooperation of Congress, of course"
There's the rub. Congress wouldn't agree with 95% of your proposals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #41
50. This part should take care of Congress
"I will lean on Congress so hard that they will either do what is right for the American people or I will clearly expose their corrupt ulterior motivations (gaining wealth and power through service to wealthy private interests) individually and collectively for everyone to see."


EXPOSE.


Worth a shot.:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. I'd vote for him on that alone.
Make all the cockroaches scuttle for a rock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. BTW, it's "her", just FYI, not that it makes any difference.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Oops...egg on my face!!
Sorry Madame President!!! :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #57
63. No problem, dude! Let's go get a beer. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
58. All three EOs violate separation of powers and one the bill of rights
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. SCOTUS would say so. But Presidents "legislate" with EO's quite often.
I would argue that it was a matter of national security, which is, in reality, very, very true.

SCOTUS would rule the EO's un-Constitutional.

The issue would garner major national attention.

I would then, with overwhelming public support, harangue Congress for Constitutional Amendments resembling the EO's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Please give a specific example n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. Nah, look it up. It's easy. Actually. Prez Obama's order to attack Libya
could be cited as a quick example.

Some people say that it was un-Constitutional, others that it wasn't. That's very clear.

Congress may rule at some point that the order was illegal.

The Prez ain't stupid, he knew this already.

He figured he'd shoot it out with the posse later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. That wasn't legislation....
Please explain how the president can amend the United States Code by executive order.

I'm all ears.


P.S. It's not too late to admit this is all a big joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #66
70. Look, this was fun, but I don't have time to explain EO's, something that is
easily found with a quick search. It's pretty interesting, check it out.

Have a great day!
:hi:

Don't understand what you mean by it's not too late, I.....OMG! IT'S THE DUDES FROM BLACKWATER REDUX!

gotta go!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. Yeah....
Edited on Tue Mar-29-11 05:14 PM by SDuderstadt
run away from the OP without explaining how an executive order can amend the United States Code.

Let me recommend taking some intensive civics courses.

P.S. I'm not the one who needs an education on executive orders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. "Congress may rule at some point that the order was illegal."
Edited on Tue Mar-29-11 05:07 PM by SDuderstadt
Could you please explain how Congress would rule anything the president does "illegal"?

Wouldn't it make sense to learn the difference between the legislative and judicial branches before making nonsense posts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. Dude, listen, don't believe me. Read the War Powers Act and it will explain it to you,
if you have a reasonable understanding of the English language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. The War Powers Act is....
legislation, not a "ruling".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. Not before being impeached and...
removed from office first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Modern_Matthew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-29-11 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
73. Be our dictator. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC