When Obama was President, the right argued that the Constitution limited the power of Government.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, Jan 20, 2020.

  1. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nor am I. You don't want to answer with a simple yes or no... don't answer. Makes no difference to me.
     
  2. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonresponsive, you are putting words in his mouth, not surprised. Third sentence is a straw man, not surprised. My prior post couldn't have been more clear, not surprised at your dodge and refusing to address it directly and honestly.
     
  3. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,883
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    They don't say that at all. If you want to charge him with abuse of power, you need to point that out. Like Obama abused his power.

    Top 10 Ways Obama Violated The Constitution During His Presidency
    thefederalist.com/2017/01/19/10-ways-obama...
    Top 10 Ways Obama Violated The Constitution During His Presidency The Obama administration has been the most lawless in U.S. history. Here are just a few examples to prove it.
     
  4. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,000
    Likes Received:
    3,839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    -What good does the constitution setting limits on federal power (such as the checks and balances of government) do? If you dont understand the benefits of checks and balances by now, I am not going to be able to teach you in a response on a message board.

    -I already said I have no desire to get into the weeds of a constitutional law debate, and I have no intention of doing so. I am not even interested in this particular topic, and have not bothered to hear Dershowitz's position on the subject. I will say though that if there was a debate between yourself and Dershowitz where you can ask all the questions that you wish, my money is on him; and I would GLEEFULLY bet the proverbial farm that he would knock every question you posed out of the ballpark.

    -Nonsense in that paragraph? You mean me saying that one can correctly state that the Constitution puts various limits on Federal power, while still asserting that it ALSO does not put this particular limit on power that you are claiming? You and I must be talking past each other in some form or fashion. You must not understand what I am saying, and/or I do not understand what you are trying to say, because by my understanding your assertion is idiotic, yet I know that you are not an idiot....at least not completely.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
  5. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    13,350
    Likes Received:
    11,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with you. Obama should have been impeached.
     
  6. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,286
    Likes Received:
    48,681
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's an incredibly dishonest game he likes to play.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  7. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What the hell are you talking about? You SAID you hadn't formed an opinion. If you changed since then... fine. Then state it. But don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth just because I pointed out that, if you didn't have an opinion, your post was useless in this thread. Because this thread is for opinions.

    If you now do have an opinion then state it. Quit dancing around.
     
  8. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What the f... hell? That's exactly what he said:

    "Abuse of power is not an Impeachable offense..."

    Focus!
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
  9. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who's O'Bama?
     
  10. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you actually not understanding this thread?

    Start from the OP!
     
  11. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,883
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    That isn't what you said "Now, they argue that the Constitution gives the President unlimited powers." He never said that. I noticed you didn't say anything about the 5 abuses of power Obama did , much like you didn't say anything about Hillary's crimes.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
  12. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They don't say it.... they argue it.

    Again: Focus!
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
  13. Marine1

    Marine1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    31,883
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm taking what your claiming. He also never hinted that a President has unlimited power.
     
  14. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He didn't "hint" it. He argued it! That is their argument.

    You think that by reading the first line of a post you understand it?

    Read what follows the video. Read the whole post! It's what you should always do before responding to any post.
     
  15. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,000
    Likes Received:
    3,839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What I dont understand is your notion that saying that the Constitution places various limits on Federal power ( which is incontrovertibly true), is somehow incompatible with the notion that it does not put limits on any one particular power that you claim that it does; in this case alleged Presidential Abuse of Power. You can argue whether or not a specific action is limited by the Constitution without turning it into a discussion about whether the Constitution puts limits on ANY action or government power. Obviously it limits some actions, and does not limit others. The only debate is whether this specific action is limited by the Constitution. Your notion about turning this about Obama because someone made a general statement that the Constitution limits Federal powers during Obama term, and then now they argue that the Constitution does not specifically put a limit on (alleged) Presidential abuse of power, does NOT automatically show an intellectual contradiction. Tying those two things together seems entirely illogical. They are wholly separate issues and concepts.

    Just because the Constitution places limits upon governmental power, does NOT mean that therefore it limits EVERYTHING that you could ever imagine might impact governmental power. Hence, there is not a contradiction in correctly stating the former, while denying the latter, and thus it does NOT automatically equate to changing of one's mind as you have asserted.

    I have already explained this, which is what makes me think that YOU do not understand what I am saying, and why I asked if we are somehow talking past each other.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
  16. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is explained on the OP. If the President is allowed to abuse power... i.e.: there is no way to stop it and no consequences... then what keeps him from abusing power on everything? If there is no impeachment, what "checks and balances" are there?

    Yeah... Treason! Because Dhershowitz has a very particular view of "bribery" too. But that's not relevant here. Short of treason (i.e.: giving aid and comfort to an enemy in times of war), the President can do whatever the hell he wants. That's the "So What" argument.

    Unless you can tell me what would stop him What keeps a President from abusing power to do whatever the hell they want? Like cheating themselves into getting re-elected, as Trump has attempted to do.

    Who's Obama?

    The title refers to what Republicans defended 3 years ago. Not about anybody other than Donald Trump and his followers. I could have said the same about 10 years ago.... or 20 years ago... Not sure 15, though
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
  17. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,699
    Likes Received:
    21,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    stopped doing it (to me) for a good while... back at it, apparently
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
    FatBack likes this.
  18. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,992
    Likes Received:
    11,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have heard no say, imply or argue that Trump has unlimited power. Just one of your exaggerations.
     
    Sanskrit likes this.
  19. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    5,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Ehh. Don't care how Democrats get screwed after all the abhorrent crap they have done.
     
  20. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonresponsive, not surprised.
     
  21. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    56,871
    Likes Received:
    22,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So obama was guilty of "abuse of power"? And the dems did not impeach him.....lolz indeed.
     
  22. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You make so many mistakes, it's not even fun anymore to correct you. Republicans controlled the House during the Obama administration. If Republicans didn't impeach him I can think of only two possibilities: either he didn't abuse power, or House Republicans were secretly in cahoots...
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  23. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,000
    Likes Received:
    3,839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So your contention is that if there is not a specific ability to charge the President with "abuse of power" therefore there are no limits on the President? This is preposterously silly. His contention is that impeachment requires a specific crime, and abuse of power is NOT a specific crime. Abuse of Power is a very generic term. According to his logic, if the alleged abuse of power involved a crime, then it would be impeachable as that specific crime, but if there is not a specific crime alleged, the generic term "abuse of power" does not qualify. Similarly, we could not impeach a president for being a Supreme Meany. Why?because Supreme Meany is not a specific crime, unless of course the allegation of being a supreme meany involved a crime like lets say Treason. In that case, the President could be impeached for his treasonous act, but could NOT be impeached for the allegation of being a Supreme Meany. By his logic, you would have to charge him with whatever specific crime that you are alleging that you think constitutes abuse of power, in order to move forward with impeachment, rather than charging him with the generic term "abuse of power".

    To answer your questions...
    -With the above logic, you can keep a generic president from committing crimes that you could turn into a valid reason for impeachment. If however, a generic president does NOT commit a crime, you have no reason for impeachment. If you feel a generic president has committed a crime, then charge them with that specific crime. You cannot however, charge him with the generic term "abuse of power.

    -There IS impeachment. Impeachment IS the check and balance on the presidency. It merely requires a specific crime. Abuse of power does not qualify.

    I have addressed everything you have said. It is important to not lose sight of what I had actually said that precipitated this response from you because I do not feel like you have actually addressed it....As a reminder...

    "What I dont understand is your notion that saying that the Constitution places various limits on Federal power ( which is incontrovertibly true), is somehow incompatible with the notion that it does not put limits on any one particular power that you claim that it does; in this case alleged Presidential Abuse of Power."

    There is absolutely not one thing that is incompatible with correctly stating that the Constitution places limits on Federal power, AND that it does not place a limit on what is not a specifically alleged crime, of which "abuse of power" does not qualify. If you want to argue that abuse of power specifically should be an impeachable offense regardless of the fact that it is not a specifically outlined crime, then trying to make the above statements somehow into incompatible thoughts is a REALLY strange and inneffective way of making that argument. That tact TRULY does not make any sense.


    ...


    Arent you asking me the same questions that I just answered? See above.

    Has Dershowitz said that the only crime worthy of impeachment is treason? If so, I have never heard that argument. On the face I would be skeptical of that argument. If he has not specifically said that, are you purposefully lying?


    You didnt say anything about 20 years ago. You said "When Obama was President, the right argued that the Constitution limited the power of Government.

    With that specifically being the title that YOU crafted for this thread, why are you asking me who is Obama? Why are you implying that something is amiss in someone saying 5 years ago that the Constitution puts limits on federal powers, and then now saying that "abuse of power" is not an impeachable offense? Why are you making a connection between those things at all?

    The entire concept of your OP DOES NOT MAKE LOGICAL SENSE. If you want to argue that abuse of power is an impeachable offense, starting off with Obama and then following by implying that Republicans " have changed their mind" is a REALLY strange way of going about achieving that aim. Later in the conversation asking "who's Obama" is even more bizarre. Are you feeling okay? You need some rest.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
  24. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,178
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    why, did Trump do that? I know he was Putin's puppet, but never heard that
     
  25. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,178
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    using the power of the Presidency to effect a us election via foreign interference was something the founders feared and would most definitely be an impeachable offense

    dems let Trump get by with a lot of bad stuff, but that was over the line
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020

Share This Page