Abuse of Power

[delldude]

His threats of going ahead without Congress is in itself showing his intention of abusing the legislative process of checks and balances.

Here's an interesting prospect:

Before the American people were protesting the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act, the president managed to sign an international treaty which would permit foreign companies to demand that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) remove web content in the United States without any legal oversight. Entitled the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the treaty was signed by Obama on October 1, 2011, but it is currently a subject of discussion because the White House is circulating a petition demanding that senators ratify the treaty.

What’s worse is that the White House has done some maneuvering — characterizing the treaty as an "executive agreement" — thereby bypassing approval by members of Congress. Concerned by this action of the administration, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore., above left) sent a letter to President Obama in which he declared:

It may be possible for the U.S. to implement ACTA or any other trade agreement, once validly entered, without legislation if the agreement requires no change in U.S. law. But regardless of whether the agreement requires changes in U.S. law ... the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement covering issues delegated by the Constitution to Congress' authority, absent congressional approval

Story

 

[tech2101]

Story

Here is some more stellar reporting from the guy who you quoted above:

Blacklisted News explains that the Pentagon’s war games are just one of many examples that show the direction in which the world is headed. Others include the decentralization of FEMA from a single distribution facility in Washington to 15 regional facilities across the nation. Blacklisted News also claims, “Anecdotal evidence indicates that the U.S. government has been the leading buyer of freeze dried foods for the last couple of years, and private emergency shelter contractors have reported a shortage in equipment and supplies for building personal-sized bunkers.”

Other global powers are apparently preparing for “Doomsday” scenarios. Russia has reportedly been preparing for the development of 5,000 new underground bunkers for the city of Moscow, while the European Union commissioned the building of a “Doomsday Seed Vault” in a mountainside several hundred feet above sea level in 2006

. :blink:

Raven

I know he is right up your alley.

Here is the actual letter from Senator Wyden on the issue.

BTW, how is that 2011 depression going?

 

[delldude]

Here is some more stellar reporting from the guy who you quoted above:

. :blink:

Raven

I know he is right up your alley.

Here is the actual letter from Senator Byden on the issue.

BTW, how is that 2011 depression going?

Keep your eye on Europe Hot dog.......If you have not noticed, Euro has kicked the can down the road just like they've done here, so we have a temporary reprieve.....It is coming though, take it to the bank, 'er I mean Federal Reserve.....

Do you have a picture of Obama on the wall in your office?

We petition the obama administration to:

Please Submit ACTA to the Senate for Ratification as Required by the Constitution for Trade Agreements

The Administration has opposed SOPA and PIPA due to the damage these laws could do to the Internet. But many view the Anti-Counterfeiting Trace Agreement (ACTA) to be far worse.

This Administration supported the negotiation of ACTA in secret with a selected group of nations and with input from many corporate interests. The public and consumers were excluded from this process. FOIA requests were denied because of "National Security" concerns.

We object to the Administration's negotiation of ACTA in secret, and approval of ACTA by Executive Agreement.

We petition the Administration to submit ACTA to the Senate for approval, as dictated by the constitution for the proper ratification of Trade Agreements.

Duh.....

Thank you for providing clarification on Obama circumventing the COTUS in the letter your link provides. I suggest you should take time to read what you post.
BTW, its Senator Wyden.
Thanks a bunch Dude....

 

[SparrowHawk]

Regardless of the source, it remains unclear to me upon a brief review that a requirement exists to submit the agreement in discussion for Senate approval.

I;n still researching this topic but on the surface this particular agreement may be one whose approval/ratification should be tested before the SCOTUS as we haven't had much on the way of clarification lately.

The info reads like Clinton telling us "It depends on what Is, is!"

 

[delldude]

Regardless of the source, it remains unclear to me upon a brief review that a requirement exists to submit the agreement in discussion for Senate approval.

I;n still researching this topic but on the surface this particular agreement may be one whose approval/ratification should be tested before the SCOTUS as we haven't had much on the way of clarification lately.

The info reads like Clinton telling us "It depends on what Is, is!"

Obama is doing these COTUS end arounds on advice from his WH legal advisers. Its a friggin shame we have a Constitutional Scholar President being advised in the hows and whys to circumvent the Constitution.

 

[delldude]

Oh my God....it looks like they're at it again........ :blink:

Union Thugs Gone Wild

Peter Schaumber appeared on Fox’s Your World with Neil Cavuto to discuss a troubling new development within the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Board Chair Mark Pearce is introducing a series of new regulations. One of these regulations, if passed, would require businesses to surrender their employee’s personal contact information to campaigning union heads.

“If the National Labor Relations Board gets its way, companies could be forced to hand over your contact information, whether you like it or not, to union leaders,” Fox host Neil Cavuto said. “Union leaders having access to your phone number, your email address?”

Schaumber, himself a former NLRB chairman, joined Cavuto to discuss his great fear: that unions will use that information to harass people not in a union.

“I think it’s terrible. Workers have a right to be left alone,” Schaumber said.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Ultimately, these words endeavor to protect two fundamental liberty interests - the right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary invasions.

Can you sanction this?

 

[delldude]

Regardless of the source, it remains unclear to me upon a brief review that a requirement exists to submit the agreement in discussion for Senate approval.

I;n still researching this topic but on the surface this particular agreement may be one whose approval/ratification should be tested before the SCOTUS as we haven't had much on the way of clarification lately.

The info reads like Clinton telling us "It depends on what Is, is!"

Article. II.Section. 2.

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Article. II.Section. 2.

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Not quite so simple. Consider this:

Between 1946 and 1999, the United States completed nearly 16,000 international agreements. Only 912 of those agreements were treaties, submitted to the Senate for approval as outlined in Article II of the United States Constitution. Since the Franklin Roosevelt presidency, only 6% of international accords have been completed as Article II treaties. Most of these executive agreements consist of congressional-executive agreements.

 

[delldude]

Not quite so simple. Consider this:

Obama said he didn't like SOPA.....he didn't have to.

So that's the ways its been done? Don't you mean that's the way we've let them do it?

Well this one is a 'sole executive agreement' and they do that when they don't think they can get Congressional support.

And like he does when he knows it won't pass in Congress he finds a way to go around the Constitutional process.

Where was PIPA and SOPA in October? Getting lots of anti- lobbying.....duh.

ACTA first came to public attention in May 2008 after a discussion paper was uploaded to Wikileaks.
A group of 75+ law professors signed a letter to President Obama demanding that ACTA be halted and changed.

4160 people see it differently so far.

 

[tech2101]

Duplicate

 

[delldude]

I referenced sections of it before.

 

[tech2101]

I found an interesting report published by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2001. The Chairman at the time was Jesse Helms. The embers of the full committee at the time are listed below:

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
GORDON SMITH, Oregon
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri
BILL FRIST, Tennessee
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
PAUL WELLSTONE, Minnesota
BARBARA BOXER, California
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

The title:

TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS: THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE

It is a very in-depth and well written report. It is 448 pages so plan on spending some time digesting it.

Like many things that occur in how our governing branches operate, the erosion of advice and consent has occurred over many years. Obviously the Senate is trying to prevent this. This report is its justification.

Here is another well-written paper on the subject of "Sole Executive Agreement." the citations are excellent. It appears that the SCOTUS has weighed in on this recently and upheld the use of them. Disclaimer: I have not read the decision, and I am not a constitutional scholar or lawyer.
I am strictly going on my own understanding of the law and what I have independently researched.

Suppose President Bush—without seeking or receiving authorization from either House of Congress—made a sole executive agreement with the Prime Minister of Iraq purporting to extinguish all federal and state law claims arising out of the conduct of the Iraqi government, Iraqi corporations, coalition forces, and private contractors hired to rebuild Iraq. Would such an agreement bind federal and state courts, notwithstanding the availability of an otherwise viable claim under existing law? Until recently, many observers would have expressed serious doubts, on the theory that such an agreement exceeds the scope of the President’s authority and evades the Constitution’s carefully crafted checks and balances.1 A recent Supreme Court decision, however, appears to endorse just such a sweeping vision of presidential power. In American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, the Court invalidated California’s Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (“HVIRA”) on the ground that it was preempted by the policy underlying a sole executive agreement between President Clinton and German Chancellor Schröder that had set up a fund to compensate Holocaust victims.2 In order to assist Holocaust victims to identify insurance policies lost or confiscated during the Nazi regime, the California Act required insurance companies doing business in California to disclose all policies issued in Europe between 1920 and 1945.3 Although the executive agreement was neither approved by the Senate as a treaty nor enacted by Congress as a statute, the Court nonetheless stated that such agreements are generally “fit to preempt state law, just as treaties are.”4

 

[delldude]

You going to keep changing your posts all day to support going around the Constitution?

 

[tech2101]

I referenced sections of it before.

I did not see it linked or quoted. My apologies.

 

[tech2101]

You going to keep changing your posts all day to support going around the Constitution?

I do not know what you are talking about. The articles and links did not come through properly on the first post so I had to edit it to make sure they did.

I have simply posted scholarly information on this. One is from the Senate, and another is paper citing Supreme Court decisions and the background of the subject.

You are free to ignore any of the research in order to fit into your point of view.