Obama Unveils National ObamaLaw Plan

a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree with the Congressional interpretation. If enough Congressmen agree that they do not want him in office for whatever reason, they file and vote on articles of impeachment. Then it is up to the Senate to pass judgement on those articles.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Fact of the matter is that slapping Obama's name on something is not a new thing. People have been making up new words for a long time. Obamacare goes back to HillaryCare.

So, getting back to the ostensible topic of the OP ...

Link to the Task Force's Actual Website

Link to the Actual Report on Recommendations Made 3/2/15 by the Task Force

Thus far, in my review of these sites and documents, I am unable to find any reference to President Obama federalizing the nation's local and State police forces, or countermanding the US Constitution, or ... anything outlined in this discussion thus far.

Did I miss it?

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree with the Congressional interpretation. If enough Congressmen agree that they do not want him in office for whatever reason, they file and vote on articles of impeachment. Then it is up to the Senate to pass judgement on those articles.

Do you think it's really as simplistic as what the House majority "wants" ... or should there actually be something resembling, you know, "high crimes" or at least "misdemeanors"?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Fact of the matter is that slapping Obama's name on something is not a new thing. People have been making up new words for a long time. Obamacare goes back to HillaryCare.

Uh ... okay.

Does this have to do with anything I've claimed regarding the OP's concerns about the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hey, fair enough. And thank you for your input...

But, I believe I've stated my opinion. There has been a wee bit of back and forth on it. Debate, no? Where some come here looking for a debate, I come here to see new opinions, try them out for a quick spin, and allow myself time to go "Hmmm".

I do not come here to say "I am right, I win."

If some find value in what I offer as contribution, fantastic. If my views weren't directly adopted, but somehow provided meaningful insight that resulted in a person reading to create a new and unique viewpoint, fantastic.

And with regards to taking things seriously...

Nope. I've got far too much other sh*t going on in my life at the moment than to be concerned what a faceless avatar throws at me.

This, is a diversion, a respite...from the grind of my life.

Nothing more.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazysh0t, I feel like we've come to amicable terms of disagreement. Which is, in and of itself, cool IMHO

I'd much rather come to a sense of mutual understanding than that of winners and losers. I'd rather come to a sense of mutual respect.

I have a highly valuable friend in my life, I value him, his input, and his views. We disagree on MOST things. But, we respect each other and know where each other is coming from. And we love each other like brothers. Family.

Just a qusetion here...
Would releasing an enemy commander who then moved back into combat against the United States constitute aiding and abetting them?

a reply to: Gryphon66

It must not be as simple as you are playing it out to be. Only 3 Presidents have faced it.

Let's say that a President was elected and decided to have fun and make decisions that were not in the best interests of the country.... but broke no laws.

Would it not be in the best interests of the nation to remove him from office?

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Seems that would need much more context that just that simple question.

Bringing up an accusation like that is more then just asking a question and hoping for a yes.

a reply to: Sremmos80

It would seem that you are projecting our current POTUS into the question.

The question posed by the member is complete enough to give a yes or no answer.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Just a qusetion here...
Would releasing an enemy commander who then moved back into combat against the United States constitute aiding and abetting them?

Just on a bald guess, and in reference to a diplomatic action
you may be referring to, Trooper: I'd give it 5:1 odds, yes.
BTW
I wonder how many of those released and told to sin no more
are back out there as instructors again? Maybe an occasional
brief interlude of individual trigger time? Can't really tell, can we?

BOOKMARK::EDIT::: I can't thank everybody enough for pushing
this issue. It digs right at the cornerstone of what we are, and
why we argue. For everybody who shows up, my thanks. It
proves that no matter what our opinion or ideology, we cared enough
to show up... no matter how ugly or pretty the rhetorical process.
I personally have a lot of you to thank for making me dig deeper---
and learn more of what I thought I knew need more work.

a reply to: butcherguy

I hope we can all see a loaded question when it presents its self.

The ongoing topic here is grounds for impeachment of the current POTUS, then that question gets asked.

Seems pretty simple to see where that is going.

And even then it is not enough, do conditions of release not mean anything?

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66

It must not be as simple as you are playing it out to be. Only 3 Presidents have faced it.

Let's say that a President was elected and decided to have fun and make decisions that were not in the best interests of the country.... but broke no laws.

Would it not be in the best interests of the nation to remove him from office?

Sorry? "As simple as I am playing it out to be?"

Huh. Remind me, was I the one who said:

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66

If enough Congressmen agree that they do not want him in office for whatever reason, they file and vote on articles of impeachment.

Seems like you're the one taking a complex process of the gravest national importance, and making equivalent to a popularity contest.

As far as the rest of what you said, I have a counter question:

Should it be that when a President faces a Congress with a majority of the opposition party that they should be able to exercise one of the most solemn acts available in our system as a mere political stunt?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Just a qusetion here...
Would releasing an enemy commander who then moved back into combat against the United States constitute aiding and abetting them?

Common sense would tell you no or every President starting at the Revolution itself that has served during hot ot cold wars would be considered aiding and abetting them. Prisoner exchanges are the norm in wartime. And during things like the cold war exchanging spies for spies was and is still is common. Does anybody bother reading American history anymore?

As for the OP- same silly story that has been floated around about the last few Presidents. The gullible eat it up and the logical roll their eyes and say not again.

originally posted by: derfreebie

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: derfreebie

So, you cannot link to this "ObamaLaw" or detail the actions allegedly taken, right?

You yourself cited the Executive Order, establishing the
Task Force to give oversight to enhanced public relations
between the local police and populations. Sounds benign
and noble enough.... but
Where this is open-ended is where it will be abused, just
as the rhetoric of every other EO since Jefferson.

Ambiguity fosters controversy; controversy delays corrective
action. And it's so delightfully lucrative for our government:
made up of 70% lawyers that thrive on arguments while
steadily usurping more control every time over the dimwits
like me who actually have a problem with big governance.

Oversight implies control. Whether it will eventually include
policy and conduct is up to the collective moral restraint of
the administration, wouldn't it?

THAT WAS AWESOME!

a reply to: Sremmos80

You know, that's a great point Sremmos80!

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the Federalization of the State and Local Police forces along with all the other anti-Constitutional horrors to be found in:

Recommendations of the Task Force on 21st Century Policing

I haven't been able to find anything like that in there ... but it must be there, right?

If it isn't, it would kind of call the validity this whole discussion into question, wouldn't it?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Should it be that when a President faces a Congress with a majority of the opposition party that they should be able to exercise one of the most solemn acts available in our system as a mere political stunt?

I am saying that it can be done within the framework of the Constitution.... and I am OK with the Constitution.
You asked my opinion and you got it.
The process is relatively simple.
The politics is what makes it complicated.

Now, tell me, how many Presidents have been removed from office against their own decision on the matter?

That is correct... zero.
BTW,

As far as the rest of what you said, I have a counter question: 

But you skipped answering mine.
So I'll ask you one back...
How many Presidents have been removed from office for purely political reasons?
Oh, yeah we already answered that... Zero.

a reply to: Sremmos80

The ongoing topic here is grounds for impeachment of the current POTUS, then that question gets asked. 

It isn't the topic of the OP and I am just fine with getting back to that.

a reply to: Sremmos80

On the basis of the words you read,not any accusation.