You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #53: Well, a denial of funds is not the equivalent to passing a law. [View All]

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
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-07-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. Well, a denial of funds is not the equivalent to passing a law.
Edited on Mon Mar-07-11 04:28 PM by varkam
A law requires bicameralism and presentment -- so far as I understand, the House of Representatives denying an allocation of funds does not meet those requirements. I've also already addressed the american soil issue and military tribunals are not Article Three courts. The President as CIC has plenary power over the military and its operations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -NYT: White House Says Tribunals Can Resume at Guantnamo varkam  Mar-07-11 02:48 PM   #0 
  - k/r  Solly Mack   Mar-07-11 02:49 PM   #1 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Mar-07-11 03:26 PM   #16 
  - 'Obama also issued an executive order...to continue to hold detainees who have been neither charged.  Bluebear   Mar-07-11 02:50 PM   #2 
  - This guy just does NOT have a clue as to how to get voters to show  Rex   Mar-07-11 02:51 PM   #3 
  - I must be fringe for being against this  JonLP24   Mar-07-11 02:53 PM   #4 
  - Obama vows to close Guantanamo  Tatiana   Mar-07-11 02:58 PM   #5 
  - And the Congress blocked closure with the passage of a law. How is Obama supposed to override the  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 03:28 PM   #17 
     - To be fair, that's not what Congress did.  varkam   Mar-07-11 03:57 PM   #31 
        - He isn't allowed to bring them on to American soil. Nor is there any funding for  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 04:05 PM   #36 
           - Well, there's a number of options...  varkam   Mar-07-11 04:15 PM   #45 
              - You are, IMHO, utterly incorrect on all counts.  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 04:33 PM   #56 
                 - Well, I can rest easy knowing it's your humble opinion.  varkam   Mar-07-11 04:43 PM   #62 
                    - Again, you haven't supported any of your speculations.  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 05:12 PM   #66 
                       - If you're going to be a jerk, I don't see a reason to keep talking to you.  varkam   Mar-07-11 05:30 PM   #69 
                          - Well, name-calling when on the losing end of an argument certainly bolsters your assertions. Again,  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 05:53 PM   #74 
                          - You made a smart decision.  Bluebear   Mar-07-11 08:32 PM   #97 
                             - Yup. When in a hole, stop digging...  SidDithers   Mar-08-11 01:14 PM   #103 
  - Hope and change  Canuckistanian   Mar-07-11 02:59 PM   #6 
  - Tribunals - great way to scapegoat the innocent .  nosmokes   Mar-07-11 03:08 PM   #7 
  - Well, he did just recently hug and kiss old man bush and his spawn,  roguevalley   Mar-07-11 03:25 PM   #14 
  - Not only is this NOT what I voted for...  FiveGoodMen   Mar-07-11 03:08 PM   #8 
  - Exactly how I feel  JonLP24   Mar-07-11 03:11 PM   #10 
  - Somebody should tell the President that Video is Forever.  bvar22   Mar-07-11 03:09 PM   #9 
  - obama remained committed to eventually closing the prison at guantanamo, at some point  frylock   Mar-07-11 03:13 PM   #11 
  - Obama and Congress remain at odds on closing Guantanamo  jaxx   Mar-07-11 03:13 PM   #12 
  - Where there's no will, there's no way. n/t  EFerrari   Mar-07-11 03:28 PM   #18 
     - Oh there's plenty of will and plenty of congress people getting in the way.  jaxx   Mar-07-11 06:16 PM   #76 
        - No, Obama started down this road before Congress acted at all. n/t  EFerrari   Mar-08-11 12:51 PM   #100 
  - Here's the whole statement on Guantnamo from the  sufrommich   Mar-07-11 03:21 PM   #13 
  - The whole statement is even worse.  Tatiana   Mar-07-11 03:32 PM   #21 
  - Thanks for that.  jaxx   Mar-07-11 06:22 PM   #77 
  - Can anyone on this board explain how President Obama is supposed to defy the laws of Congress?  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 03:26 PM   #15 
  - You won't get an answer. nt  sufrommich   Mar-07-11 03:29 PM   #19 
  - You mean, how is he supposed to use a signing statement?  EFerrari   Mar-07-11 03:30 PM   #20 
  - Really? A signing statement overrides Article 1, Section 8? Tell us how.  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 03:35 PM   #23 
     - You must be joking.  EFerrari   Mar-07-11 03:48 PM   #29 
        - Again, explain to us all just how a signing statement moves detainees from Gitmo?  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 04:00 PM   #35 
           - why don't you ask obama?  frylock   Mar-07-11 05:52 PM   #73 
           - I'm asking the person who offered up a solution to explain it.  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 06:01 PM   #75 
           - Bullshit. Obama moved to preserve Bush's practice before Congress did anything.  EFerrari   Mar-08-11 11:21 AM   #99 
  - So Congress issues Executive Orders? n/t  Tatiana   Mar-07-11 03:33 PM   #22 
  - No, they pass laws. Specifically, laws that prevent closure of Gitmo and forbid the President  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 03:38 PM   #25 
     - Excuses. Bottom line, the President made yet another promise he didn't keep.  Tatiana   Mar-07-11 03:42 PM   #26 
        - The vote in the Senate was 90-6. Graham and McCain supported CLOSURE.  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 03:46 PM   #27 
        - Try the detainees in civilian court. Nothing is prohibiting that action.  tekisui   Mar-07-11 04:09 PM   #39 
           - The law prevents detainees from setting foot on American soil.  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 04:12 PM   #42 
              - Yeah, the WH messed up on letting Congress do that. They  tekisui   Mar-07-11 04:15 PM   #44 
                 - He passed an Executive order within 2 days of inauguration.  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 04:24 PM   #52 
                    - Are you talking about those found guilty, innocent or never tried?  tekisui   Mar-07-11 04:29 PM   #54 
                       - You do realize that their hone states don't want them back, right?  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 04:35 PM   #57 
                          - THis is what diplomacy is for.  tekisui   Mar-07-11 04:41 PM   #61 
        - More to the point, Obama is not going to the mat over this issue. He's  coalition_unwilling   Mar-07-11 03:47 PM   #28 
           - He issued an Executive Order for closure. His own party sponsored a 90-6 vote in the Senate  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 03:54 PM   #30 
              - Resign on principle. Some issues are more important than  coalition_unwilling   Mar-07-11 08:03 PM   #91 
  - Move detainees to the states for civilian trials. Imprison those convicted  tekisui   Mar-07-11 03:58 PM   #32 
  - He cannot move Gitmo detainees to American soil. Really.  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 04:10 PM   #40 
  - As pointed out above, closing Guantanamo would not be defying a law of Congress.  varkam   Mar-07-11 03:59 PM   #34 
     - Closing Guantanamo would be defying a law of Congress.  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 04:19 PM   #48 
        - Well, a denial of funds is not the equivalent to passing a law.  varkam   Mar-07-11 04:25 PM   #53 
           - Holy Crap. The Defense Authorization Bill is a friggen' LAW.  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 04:39 PM   #58 
              - Your humility is overwhelming.  varkam   Mar-07-11 04:49 PM   #64 
                 - You might try reading up in what you are arguing about. I assumed you knew the history of the law  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 05:21 PM   #67 
                    - Deleted message  Name removed   Mar-07-11 05:34 PM   #70 
  - Nothing like kangaroo courts to prove we're a nation of laws.  mmonk   Mar-07-11 03:36 PM   #24 
  - And some lucky ones won't even get the kangaroo court. They will just  tekisui   Mar-07-11 03:59 PM   #33 
     - That is correct.  mmonk   Mar-07-11 04:07 PM   #37 
     - Which, ironically enough, means they may have served a longer sentence...  varkam   Mar-07-11 04:09 PM   #38 
        - It is amazing there isn't more outrage on this. Some of these guys  tekisui   Mar-07-11 04:11 PM   #41 
           - I agree. They should all get a trial. Which is hopefully what the resumption  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 04:14 PM   #43 
              - They have no intention of trying them all.  tekisui   Mar-07-11 04:16 PM   #46 
              - Well, I should hope we would want them to get a fair trial, not just any trial.  varkam   Mar-07-11 04:21 PM   #50 
  - What? Is Gitmo still open?  Bake   Mar-07-11 04:19 PM   #47 
  - You didn't hear that! Impossible! Obama is correct about everything!  Rex   Mar-07-11 04:20 PM   #49 
  - But we're OUT of Afghanistan, right?  Bake   Mar-07-11 04:22 PM   #51 
     - First, take a deep breath...  Rex   Mar-07-11 04:40 PM   #59 
  - You can blame congress for Gitmo still being open. Obama  sufrommich   Mar-07-11 04:32 PM   #55 
     - Didn't Boy George do everything by "executive order?"  Bake   Mar-07-11 05:41 PM   #71 
        - A President cannot appropriate funding to close Gitmo via executive order.  ClarkUSA   Mar-07-11 07:02 PM   #82 
           - But the military can spend $1,000 on a toilet seat ...  Bake   Mar-07-11 07:23 PM   #83 
  - I thought Gitmo was closed...  GSLevel9   Mar-07-11 04:41 PM   #60 
  - The Congress blocked closure.  msanthrope   Mar-07-11 04:45 PM   #63 
     - oh yes that's right...  GSLevel9   Mar-07-11 04:52 PM   #65 
     - I want to congratulate you for sticking to the facts and presenting them well.  jaxx   Mar-07-11 06:34 PM   #79 
  - Weasel words. nt  ladjf   Mar-07-11 05:29 PM   #68 
  - K&R  leftstreet   Mar-07-11 05:42 PM   #72 
  - What's relevant: Congress forced his hand by refusing to allow detainees to be tried on US soil.  ClarkUSA   Mar-07-11 06:27 PM   #78 
  - A Democratic majority Congress gave the President the shaft, and he took it.  tekisui   Mar-07-11 06:36 PM   #80 
     - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Mar-07-11 07:00 PM   #81 
     - I disagree. I prefer the facts as elucidated by the AP story I quoted.  ClarkUSA   Mar-07-11 07:31 PM   #84 
     - They may be facts, but they are still just an excuse for failure.  tekisui   Mar-07-11 07:40 PM   #85 
        - That's your opinion. I disagree with you.  ClarkUSA   Mar-07-11 07:45 PM   #87 
           - He failed his promise. You can't disagree with that.  tekisui   Mar-07-11 07:48 PM   #88 
              - What promise? He signed an executive order to close Gitmo that Congress refused to fund.  ClarkUSA   Mar-07-11 07:58 PM   #89 
                 - The promise to close Gitmo.  tekisui   Mar-07-11 08:03 PM   #90 
                    - Obama is only two years into his presidency. To say he has "failed" at this "promise" is premature.  ClarkUSA   Mar-07-11 08:07 PM   #92 
                       - Okay, he is "failing" spectacularly. We can check in again in two years.  tekisui   Mar-07-11 08:09 PM   #93 
                          - I disagree. Pulitzer Prize winner Politifact disagrees w/your opinion as well, as I just pointed out  ClarkUSA   Mar-07-11 08:12 PM   #94 
     - Epic Fail, imho. He should have resigned immediately.  coalition_unwilling   Mar-07-11 08:17 PM   #95 
  - Should anyone be surprised?  mochajava666   Mar-07-11 07:43 PM   #86 
  - Actually, I was not too surprised. I knew I'd been schmucked when  coalition_unwilling   Mar-07-11 08:20 PM   #96 
  - Bush, Snarl and Neocons everywhere: "0bama has finally seen the light!"  chill_wind   Mar-08-11 09:52 AM   #98 
  - "eventually" "at some point"....just like punting on the tax gifts to the wealthy..  truebrit71   Mar-08-11 12:56 PM   #101 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Mar-08-11 01:10 PM   #102 
  - Winning!  AngryAmish   Mar-08-11 01:18 PM   #104 
 

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