United States Heading towards a Depression?

It would be interesting to see how many people the unemployment insurance of 553b covered as opposed to the welfare system at 707b. I'm assuming employed people get paid more so the former will cover a lot less ppl?

 

..............

The decision not to defend a law by the Executive in regards to the Legislative branch is nothing new and is the prerogative of the Executive and the separation stated above indeed prescribes the Judiciary has no jurisdiction over the Executive's policies.

The Right wingers should someday understand the Constitution than everyday misrepresent its meaning and dilute its intent for self-ingratiation and momentary grandstanding.

 

This is Obama blatantly violating his oath of office. Impeachable.

The decision not to defend a law by the Executive in regards to the Legislative branch is a blatant violation of the President's oath of office and is an impeachable offense. Of course, I could ask Breeze to cite a legal precedent for his silly claim, but we would just get back the stunned silence of ignorance, right?

 

I think receiving welfare or any other assistance should come with a drug test. You have to take one to get or keep a job in the real world, but you do not in order to receive aid. It ought to be a condition. Might shake things up just enough to be worthwhile.

 

Obama and the Justice Dept are defending the Constitution by their action - so may the legislative branch defend their law themselves if it so pleases them.

As usual, political posturing by Republican politicians in this case for the religious zealots they wrote the law for is their goal and attained at the expense and intent of the Document they have no real understanding for or its meaning in terms of the general welfare for all its citizens.

 

Want to show me the part that makes Obama more powerful than the Judicial and the Legislative Branches combined while you're at it?

 

Sorry breeze. As usual, you lack a very basic understanding of how the law works here in the US. Obama's job is to enforce(Execute) the laws of the land. Congress' job is to make (Legislate) the laws of the land. It is the court's job to interpret the laws of the land and determine what is unconstitutional and what is in defense of the Constitution.

You are also in error when you say the legislative branch can defend(enforce) this law. That is most definitely not in the scope of their powers. I'm not sure how the government works in whatever country you come from, but this is the structure here in America.

What we are witnessing is the executive branch refusing to do their job while assuming the duties of the supreme court. Its like hiring someone to change your oil and having them decide to paint your car..... purple..... with flames.

 

Hey Breeze :

​

 

I think I would change that judicial part to (ENFORCE), not interpret. I know a lot of judges (the 9th Circus Court specifically) tend to interpret and thus legislate from the bench, however technically they should be carrying out and enforcing the rule of law. Leaving them open to interpret it is what undermines the legislative branch IMO. Could be wrong.. Just an observation.

 

Hehe. I did twist it a bit, but nevertheless, it is the job of our supreme court to interpret the applicability of the constitution to any given law. It seems some pretty big leaps have been taken by both conservative and liberal justices in that regard, especially in regard to interstate commerce. Regardless, making those calls remains in their job definition. The 9th circuit is a whole different story.

 

O, you are a joke.


As stated, the Republicans and their proxies the religious zealots have no real understanding for the Constitution as it is applied to the general welfare for all its citizenry or its role in government.

The Republicans can hardly stand still in defending the law - the present Administration is correct in its judgment not to defend a law found unconstitutional and is the leadership the nation sourly is in need of.

 

Breeze, you are a joke.

As stated, Breeze has no real understanding for the Constitution as it is applied to the general welfare for all its citizenry or its role in government.

The present Administration is CRIMINAL in its judgment not to defend a law. it is unconstitutional and IMPEACHABLE.

Oh, Donald Trump was on Letterman yesterday and reinforced the common knowledge that real unemployment is around 20% or 21%.

 

So long as that applies to Obamacare too, and finding by a Federal Judge as it pertains to its unconstitutional manner, then so be it!

 

!!!!! - The Executive will defend any law found worthy under its own interpretation irregardless the ruling of a Judge is the leadership the present Administration properly employs than pandering to religious zealots for political gain as the present (R) legislative branch of gov't.

If you are referring to: H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act, that is hardly a guess the proper role the present Administration will select.
........

By the way Corwin, Februaries unemployment rate will be published tomorrow - maybe you and Donald Duck can learn something of real value for a change.

 

A law found unconstitutional.... by who?

 

From above.

 

Stop it man, you're killing me. My entertainment for the day. You're such a tool!

 

Interesting. I hadn't read the part about a Boston judge making a ruling on the law. This really opens up opportunities. For instance, in abut 18 months from now when we have a Republican president, he can just drop the appeal on the new health care legislation, opting instead to stick with the lower court's decision that it is unconstitutional.

Hell, I bet you could challenge just about any law on the books in the right federal court (deep south for civil rights and abortion, coastal courts for gun control), get the judgement you want, and then terminate your defense of the law by sticking with the lower court's decision. Who needs the supreme court? Who needs the judicial branch at all? The president can usurp the power of the judiciary branch at will with such techniques.

What type of person shirks his duties of office while holding the highest office in the nation? It throws into question whether we have rule of law at all. Next thing you know, he will declare himself president for life.

 

The seperation of powers and premis for the preceeding posts is the answer to the above inquiry - the present Administration's adherence to its Oath of Office.
............

The nation can only guess the additional consequences of calamity had the Republicans won the 2010 election and continued the ruinous policies and principles of the previous Administration.

The present recovery and its expansion is the task at hand, not the grandstanding of the present Congress that will determine the economic future and livelihood for future generations as a vibrant and healthy Nation.

Balancing the budget is what the Democrats accomplished under Clinton and will again be accomplished by reasonable legislative enactments and the continued economic policies of the present Administration.

 

That's cause all the people on unemployment for 2 years now, are now OFF of unemployment and not counted as "NOT WORKING"...

Be a little honest here for once.

FYI, Republicans balanced the budget not Clinton. He only took credit for it.