Political Cartoons

I don't agree, he made everything worse.
The congress has right to disagree with executive branch, but executive branch cannot brake the laws to push his agenda.

From:

fizzyland.livejournal.com

Sorry, President doesn't have a third term to wait for the GOP to stop obstructing everything. Unless the SCOTUS says otherwise, he can issue Executive Orders. If Republicans don't like it, they can get off their sorry asses and do some actual legislating.

No other President has had to operate under such hostility. Democrats bitterly opposed the Iraq war but they didn't deny W the funding to do so. Sadly, such respect has gone out the window and President Obama's re-election just made them worse.

From:

Isn't this country of laws? I don't care about reasons and excuses:
Dura lex sed lex.
He is supposedly a constitutional law professor, he should know better not to barke the laws.
I would say that there is another side of coin-no other president was so hostile to congress or disrespectful to scotus.

From:

fizzyland.livejournal.com

Ridiculous. What has been hostile to Congress in regards to? Or the Supreme Court?

You're just making this up now. Democrats have tried at every turn to negotiate with Republicans. All Republicans want to do is repeal the ACA and force Obama out of office. Neither is going to happen.

From:

That's right, you don't watch TV. Every time I hear him talking, he makes fun of reps, in best case scenario, but usually just vicious.
Supreme court reference is the state of the union three, I think. After that some of them stopped attending SOU-s. If you ask me, rep-s are wimps and don't do enough going in the other direction.

From:

I take it you haven't heard him talking for the first five years of his presidency, then?

It's really only been in the last couple of months that he's given up trying to work with them... which is far longer then I would have held out.

From:

he should know better not to barke the laws.

Again, exactly what laws have been broken? What can you prove?

From:

Are you aware of 9 to 0 (zero) decision on NLRB?

From:

Making a recess appointment while the Senate was "in session" (Granted, one-minute a week sessions, but still, sessions) is technically illegal. Granted, there are a huge amount of appointed positions that have gone vacant for years now, because of the congressional approval process, but yes, he did overreach when trying to fill one position. Hoorah for due process.

What else do you have? All these "laws" (plural) that he keeps breaking?

From:

I know, that's only one thing.
How about Dream act? I know, that's only two...

From:

What about the Dream Act? It didn't pass congress. Any of the three times it came up.

There is the DACA, which as far as I know, is a perfectly legal executive order.

From:

He has a discretion to delay deportation of certain people. But if he does this for every single illegal immigrant or whole class of them, then he's no longer exercising his discretion. Executive action is only valid when he is exercising discretion, like pardons.

From:

Oh, nonsense.

It's like the current trend in New York and other states, where while marijuana is illegal, the police have a standing policy that they are de-emphasising the pursuit of people with small amounts of pot. It's smarter use of limited funds.

Or are you actually saying that you'd rather they spend time and resources going after high school kids rather then focusing on people who are actually doing criminal acts here??

From:

They aren't going after anybody, moreover, they are encouraging others to come. I rather they deport everybody, not by going after them, but creating conditions, like ID-s, so most will leave voluntarily. If the state needs anybody, they can bring people over legal ways. Of course, it takes years and boxes of documents, but that is the right thing to do.

From:

Okay, now you are just being dishonest. 15 seconds on Google would have told you that the Obama administration has been deporting record numbers of people.

And, if you actually cared about the issue rather then the person(s), then you would be all for increased supervision of the large corporations who are openly flauting federal law and hiring illegal workers in unsafe conditions for less then minimum wage.

Oh, yeah. And as for this "terrible problem"
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/

From:

Who are the "persons"? Did I ever said anything about letting corporations to hire illegals? Actually, if you were honest, or maybe deeper thinker, you would realize that ID-s would decrease, if not eliminate, illegal hiring.

(no subject)

From:

blackdwarv.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-07-11 03:01 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From:

madam-shapo.livejournal.com - Date: 2014-07-11 03:07 am (UTC) - Expand

From:

Yes, I am, but that wasn't breaking a law, as it is defined legally. He took an action, there was question as to the constitutionality of it, and it was decided by the court that it was unconstitutional. But that's a civil action; there was no law-breaking there. It was a perfectly legitimate question of constitutionality, which can only ever be determined after the fact.

In order to break a law, as you put it in the common vernacular, you have to specifically commit a crime, be accused of it, and be convicted for it. What specific crimes has Obama committed, been accused, and been convicted of?

From:

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America.

From:

You really don't understand a thing you say, do you?

The Constitution is NOT a set of laws, nor was it ever meant to be.

The founders wrote the Constitution with the concept that citizens had *unlimited* rights, and the Constitution was a set of limitations upon the government to ensure that there would be no infringement thereupon. That's why you don't see things like theft and murder in the Constitution.

Which is why Constitutional law is a very specialized field, in that unlike a more mundane law, which says 'taking things from others is bad' or 'ending the life of an individual is bad', Constitutional law requires interpretation. "Is X a violation of this Amendment?"

This being the case, you can't "break" Constitutional law. You can be found to have overreached, or certain acts and actions declared unconstitutional, but there is no crime in breaking the Constitution.

From:

Genius, that's not what I say, that's the definition of the constitution.

From:

...amazing you know the definition of the Constitution yet seemingly don't know how it works...

From:

Did I ever say he broke the criminal code?

From:

The Constitution is also interpreted, supplemented, and implemented by a large body of constitutional law. And issues of whether a law is constitutional or not does not cause law-breaking. You can overreach constitutionality, you can have acts or actions declared constitutional or unconstitutional, but there is no crime or law-breaking committed as defined by law and the legal industry.

From: