Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,896 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
We deserve what we're getting folks, but the better question here is this: Are there any Representatives in The House who will file an Article of Impeachment for this blatant disregard for our Constitutional principles? Are the any Senators who will come out publicly for this to occur, and will they vote to convict?

Or are we to the point where any act taken by a President is considered "perfectly ok" so long as he has a majority in the House and Senate?

If, in point of fact, we have reached the latter point, we no longer live in a Constitutional Republic.

The implications of that should wake you in a cold sweat tonight.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=166930

The article is about Obama's unconstitutional act of adding Elizabeth Warren as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without Senate approval. Dodd didn't agree with her appointment, so Obama just figured he'd bypass it.

Read more for clarification in the article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,051 Posts
That was one of the worst written articles I've read in some time. Leaving that aside though, calling a staffing and advisory position as "director" is kind of like saying the head of HR is the CEO. Calling the appointment un-Constitutional is absurd and leveling charges like that with such poor support, bouncing around to multiple different issues unrelated to the topic conveys that the article not only has little merit but is more of a rant than a legitimate complaint.

No part of the bill required Congressional approval of a glorified H.R. position.
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,896 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
jlcnuke said:
That was one of the worst written articles I've read in some time. Leaving that aside though, calling a staffing and advisory position as "director" is kind of like saying the head of HR is the CEO. Calling the appointment un-Constitutional is absurd and leveling charges like that with such poor support, bouncing around to multiple different issues unrelated to the topic conveys that the article not only has little merit but is more of a rant than a legitimate complaint.

No part of the bill required Congressional approval of a glorified H.R. position.
It is unconstitutional. He purposefully bypassed Senate confirmation, while giving her the CEO position, but only calling it another name. A very common thing the progressives do. They change the wording. Give her the CEO position, but call it HR.

I guess you think that the government can force us all to buy a product as well because we are breathing, huh? That's not unconstitutional, either is it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,051 Posts
EJR914 said:
jlcnuke said:
That was one of the worst written articles I've read in some time. Leaving that aside though, calling a staffing and advisory position as "director" is kind of like saying the head of HR is the CEO. Calling the appointment un-Constitutional is absurd and leveling charges like that with such poor support, bouncing around to multiple different issues unrelated to the topic conveys that the article not only has little merit but is more of a rant than a legitimate complaint.

No part of the bill required Congressional approval of a glorified H.R. position.
It is unconstitutional. He purposefully bypassed Senate confirmation, while giving her the CEO position, but only calling it another name. A very common thing the progressives do. They change the wording. Give her the CEO position, but call it HR.

I guess you think that the government can force us all to buy a product as well because we are breathing, huh? That's not unconstitutional, either is it?
Un-Constitutional things- Government buying private companies. Government run health care. Government mandated individual spending. Government mandated retirement programs. Government preventing ownership of certain firearms.

Not un-Constitutional- The President appointing someone to do initial hiring for a new agency and talk to that person on occasion.

I know you like to label people so I'll oblige. Every time the conservatives get in an uproar about the minor things and blow stuff like who is staffing a new agency out of proportion and call it un-Constitutional while comparing it to legitimate concerns it lessons their credibility on the legitimate concerns. Just like the progressive I saw yesterday morning who tried to say there was no way insurance costs are being increased due to the health [s:h6noyujo]care[/s:h6noyujo] insurance reform bill reduced his credibility. Either he didn't understand the bill, hadn't read the bill or couldn't understand the consequences of the bill to the insurance companies. Whichever is the case, his opinion and take on the issue made me lose respect for his blatantly wrong commentary.

Appointing someone who will have a total of 1 responsibility of the director (which is allowed to be delegated), out of the 11 responsibilities spelled out in the financial reform bill, is not un-Constitutional and comparing it to those weakens the credibility of the person making that argument imo. The health insurance reform crap, the bailouts, social security, medicare and plenty of other things are easy to argue as un-Constitutional. This is a rant about those things without the sustenance. No quoting the Constitution. No quoting the bill and showing how this appointment is equivalent as the "director" position (because it's not). No facts. Just ranting.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top