24 total posts
Re: not need Congress anymore
not need Congress anymore to make changes to existing laws,
From you link
In fact, he persuaded lawmakers to pass the Fair Sentencing Act,
Would that be Congress? The lawmakers that passed a law/made changes to a law?
persuaded...doesn't sound like he's running over anyone.
BO set to release via pardons
Check with FOX News...their legal expert says it's clemency NOT pardons that is being talked about.
the headline of your story differs from the body of the story
President Obama plans to grant clemency
Perhaps they don't realize there is a difference.
we don't need the judicial system that actually imposes the punishments when those laws are broken.
In order of your stupidity
1. Persuaded Congress.....that would have been easy to do since both Houses of Congress were led by Dems in 2010.....just like passing Obamacare.
2. Clemency might as well be a pardon, since it ends with the same result....release.
3. It wasn't only Fox.
4. The punishment for Bundy was fines.....not armed personnel....and yet that's what showed up (and they used some of the captured cattle as target practice and buried them in shallow graves to cover that action up). That's NOT a judicial system at work.
And yet you haven't refuted that Obama didn't bypass the judicial system.
Not so stupid then.
Of course he has/will
This isn't just a one or two criminals that have, as in the past, been given a pass by a President........this is a massive and sweeping 'give away' again because it meets his and Holder's agenda regarding picking and choosing 'winners and losers' and calling it 'inequality' of the laws on the books. HE decides that the law isn't 'equal' and is 'unjust' so he unilaterally 'changes' it to fit his belief.
If you don't like the laws, you change it via Congress if it's a Federal law....otherwise, the States change them within their jurisdiction. You don't have a leader playing God and 'forgiving the sin'.
And Bush is way ahead in the Executive Order stakes. Why
isn't he the poster child for anti-Constitutional anti-Democratic weilding of the pen?
Current total for Barack Obama, 175. Total for Bush at the end of his term 291. Or do you have some sort of occult connection which tells you that he's going to rack up 40 per year this year and for the next two? It would certainly be nice if you could stick to the truth. Just now and again, for contrast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order Nice table indicating how many each signed.
Obama has been force into this position, first by the filibuster during those 2 years where Dems held the House and Senate, and subsequently for 4 years with an uncooperative Republican House. Remember the filibuster, when no legislation got passed, and after when supermajorities were requiered for the passing of anything.
The total number of EO's mean nothing, Rob
A good many of Bush's were for 'naming a bridge or creating a resolution'....BO's majority are for literally changing laws at his whims. There is a huge difference, which you refuse to acknowledge.
BO hasn't been forced into anything.....filibusters didn't stop him from doing anything he wanted to do, it only slowed him down, which is exactly what is supposed to happen when there is opposition no matter which party is in the Oval Office. As for 'uncooperative'.....he refused to even take suggestions from the Republicans regarding Obamacare and he didn't receive even one vote for that crap from either house from Reps BECAUSE none of their suggestions were even considered. Democrats have used the filibuster many times themselves....but they get a pass as usual.
Obama would have sent Bundy to jail...BUT
ALL the cells are full...now he's using clemency to free up some floor space to make room for new criminals.....AKA Cliven Bundy.
Where does the aggrieved party go AFTER the guilty party refuses to pay their fines? How long to they wait?
As pointed out on the Daily Show last night....
WHAT is Bundy doing waving an American Flag?...He doesn't believe in the American Government.
Makes perfect sense
He needs to secure a few more voters this coming Fall.
The only way to do that
is to, after the clemency is given, also present another EO that now gives convicted felons, who have 'done their time', the ability to vote again.....which, once more, will bypass Congress.
How many murderers and rapists have been released
because of prison overcrowding? Which would you prefer to let go - a murderer or a non-violent pot smoker with a required 20 year sentence? I would let them all go. Which one is the most dangerous?
I wouldn't let any of them go
I would build more prisons....on unused Federal land....and put people to work.
I thought you were a fiscal conservative
Do you realize how much it costs to keep someone in prison and these people didn't do harm to anyone and are forced into decades in prison. In short less than the violent criminals. These are people's sons and daughters - even mothers and fathers - who smoke a joint after work like others have a glass of beer or wine. If they are black, they are three times as likely to be thrown in jail and given the maximum sentence than whites.
You can move to the states that have for profit prisons because they get paid whether the prison is full or not - so might as well as throw them in jail forever. It happens esp. if the judge owns shares in it.
A good many of those
locked up, even for personal use, is because of the 'three strikes' laws....if they weren't repeat offenders they wouldn't be in that position in the first place. Will liberals ever decide that people other than conservatives need to be held accountable for their actions?
Have you never heard of 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime'?
You just want to find tenants
for that empty prison in your area....
Have you never heard of 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime'?
And IF you can't figure out how to do it in 3 tries without getting caught....you go to jail forever...no more tries?
3 arguments with a family member...and they're gone?
Our jail is full....it's been open for a year now.
You don't look at jail time (unless you want to count being grounded for longer and longer periods of time) when you repeat the offense.
RE: Our jail is full....it's been open for a year now.
That's the first I heard of that....I know you complained when it sat empty...no Atta' boy for when it was put to use?
How do you feel about the ones currently in jail
for pot possession in Colorado now that it's legal? One day you get a mandatory jail sentence and the next you buy it legally.
[http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/]"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"
"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
So it caused extreme violence and pacifism and communist brainwashing.
Until the 30's hemp has been grown since 7000 B.C.
It was outlawed, not because of anything scientific or medical. It was outlawed because of racism and money. William Randolph Hearst hated Mexicans and had just invested in timberland for his papers and didn't want cheap hemp paper replacing his trees. He threw all of his papers behind outlawing hemp and he and Harry J. Anslinger, the new head of the Bureau of Narcotics got it outlawed.
I don't care
Laws are not meant to be cleared with 'backward mobility'....unless states (like the death penalty) or Congress actually change them. You don't have a president making the decision to unilaterally sweeping the slate clean and letting convicted criminals free, such as he has done with illegals as well. You break the law today and get a sentence and all of a sudden the rules change tomorrow doesn't give you a free pass..........especially if you are a repeat offender in the first place. How many of your numbers that are locked up are there for a first offense anyhow? You have no problem with freeing repeat offenders who had no regard for the law, as it was written at those times? How many illegals have to be set free by this administration, even those with felony charges, before you realize that this president continues to overreach his authority?
Yes...and prior to BO
this was done on an individual case by case circumstance based on the merits of the case......no president before him has ever done a massive, thousands at a whack, sweeping clemency or pardon just because he didn't agree with the law because it didn't meet his personal belief or agenda. He isn't doing this just with 'drug sentences'....he's done it for illegals that have either already been convicted or prior to trials that now never happen, and they were released back into society and not deported either.
You said the laws have to be changed
they don't have to be changed....that's my point.
The rest of your post is just me giving you a platform to rant.
Then why have a Congress
or State Senates that create laws at all, if you believe that a President has the power/authority to enforce or ignore laws at will when they go against his personal agendas? That's not a rant....it's a question to you. Would you be happy with a Canadian leader who willy-nilly chose which laws he would obey?
RE: willy-nilly chose
willy-nilly. adverb or adjective \ : in a careless and unplanned way. : in a way that does not allow any choices or planning ...
Is that what you think Obama is doing? Willy-nilly choosing?
You don't think he has a "plan"?