Obama Breaks Another Promise…KSM To Be Tried At Gitmo

Loading

With another broken campaign promise Obama has officially become Bush 2.0, with more spending added in for flavor.

But the left still loves him right?

Holder didn’t appear to be too happy with this decision eh?

…Holder took to the podium on Monday not only to announce the new decision — that KSM will be tried in a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay — but to blast those who criticized the notion of a federal, civilian trial.

“Those unwise and unwarranted restrictions undermine our counterterrorism efforts and could undermine our national security,” Holder said of the ban imposed by Congress.

Congress, in essence, doesn’t know what it’s talking about, he went on to say…

“Sadly, this case has been marked by needless controversy since the beginning, but despite all the arguments and debate that it has engendered, the prosecution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators should never have been about settling ideological arguments or scoring political points,” Holder said.

In other words: Shame on you.

What a dipwad. Unwise and unwarranted? The very fact that any leader would allow someone like KSM to be tried by civilian courts is the epitome of stupid.

I have to say the the timing of this stinks like politics. They understand that the Congressional makeup isn’t going to be going their way anytime soon so they begin the trial and hope for a verdict prior to 2012 to trumpet their success at not only NOT closing Gitmo but starting up military tribunals.

Exit quote:

What exactly does The One have to run on next year? We’re still neck-deep in Afghanistan and already ankle-deep in our new war in Libya. Gitmo not only remains open but will soon host military tribunals for mega-terrorists. Iran’s rolling on towards nuclear breakout capacity despite a Stuxnet-related hiccup, and with Mubarak gone and U.S. allies in Yemen and Bahrain teetering, the Middle East could soon be a much more dangerous place for American interests. Domestically, we’re straining under record deficits, thanks in part to our $800 billion stimulus. Cap-and-trade is dead and ObamaCare is so politically toxic, especially to seniors, that Democrats will certainly mention it only in passing next year.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
28 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Obama is counting on one thing:
Who can the Left go away to?

They got nothing but Obama.

They will get up off the road,
Wipe off the bus tire marks,
Go to their polling place,
And vote Obama.

Congress has banned the use of any funds to bring Gitmo prisoners to the United States, even to face trial; banned the use of any funds to purchase or build facilities to hold any prisoners currently held at Gitmo; and banned the release of any Gitmo prisoner cleared for release by the interagency Guantánamo Review Task Force to countries considered dangerous by lawmakers. (We all know that, I presume.) All three bans were inserted into spending authorizations necessary to provide continued funding for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, effectively eliminating the President’s option to veto them.

Of course Obama could have gone the George W. Bush route and issued presidential signing statements, simply ignoring whatever bits of duly enacted legislation he doesn’t happen to like. I guess that isn’t Obama’s style.

Essentially Congress has made civil trials in the U.S. impossible, and made it impossible to close Gitmo because there’s nowhere else to put anyone who is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.

Fighting this would result in delaying trials even longer. Obama, unlike Bush, is apparently unwilling to put the trials off forever, so Holder made the announcement. Obviously Holder didn’t like it.

If you don’t like whatever results may follow, keep in mind that none of it will be Barack Obama’s doing. He wanted Gitmo closed and the Gitmo detainees tried in a civil court, their guilt voted on by a jury, and their sentences pronounced by a judge. A majority of our elected Congressional representatives have decided to make that impossible.

Holter needs to shave off the stupid “stach and get a life. Gitmo, well opie, dumbo, big ears dummy, can blame GWB for everything. Oh! Getting ready for 2012 when he has not completed the job he was hired for..what do you expect..How much money has been wasted on the fiasco? Billions, in studies and multiple bs committees. When is Lt.Gen. Lewis Burwell “Chesty” Puller? We need you now. It is best to remember, Never wrestle with a pig, or argue with an idiot. Remember the seven time-tested response to avoid blame: 1. somebody did what?,2 Who, me?,3 I wasn’t there. 4 I didn’t do it.5 Nobody saw me do it. 6. You can’t prove a thing, 7. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it….Take your pick. I want my tax dollors back, with interst.

Holder is too familiar with Muslim names.
What’s the escape policy for Lib ya?

It’s a joy to watch the pathetic progressive trolls floating excuses and passing blame to cover the 2 years it took for the indecisive Administration to fold on “Campaign Announcement Day” and fall into line with the majority of Americans. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a war criminal and America wants him treated as such. This self-centered deaf, dumb and dumber Administration just takes a little more time than most to read the wind sock on the White House lawn.

@James Raider, #5:

Nobody needs to float excuses. The Obama administration made a decision on the trials, which was subsequently monkeywrenched in Title IX, Sec. 9011 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010.

The preceding administration–which left Obama with a trashed economy, two wars, and this FUBAR legal mess–slipped away to the ranch after 5 years of indecisiveness, video records of the interrogations that led to central “voluntary confessions” having been destroyed before they left.

# 6
Great come-back, . . . . no really. Title IX – yup, that does it. Billions just aren’t enough in slush funds to move some war criminals to Chicago. Of course, you’re right, THAT must be why the idiots in this Admin. have reversed their decision. Damn Congress. And of course, It’s had nothing to do with the public outcry at the abject stupidity. Sure, it was because there just wasn’t enough money for hotel rooms for war criminals in the windy city, home to the best corruption money can buy. Obviously you didn’t read the Appropriations Act. Read it. Nevermind, you can’t read.

So let me quote some parts of it, . . . to have access to any amount of billions he might want to have access to for the transfer and trial of these degenerates, . . . ” the President submits to the Congress, in classified form, at least 15 days prior to such transfer or release, the following information:
(1) The name of any individual to be transferred or released and the country or the freely associated State to which such individual is to be transferred or released….etc.”

Yup, that’s just too difficult. Congress just made it so tough. Genius.

——————————————–

” left Obama with a trashed economy” . . . .

You evidently have no clue as to who was Principally Responsible for the real estate bubble. None. Inability to read is a debilitating shortcoming. You instead copy and paste the blathering from idiots you probably don’t respect, but who pay your bills. If they weren’t buttering your bread, there’s no way anyone with even less than average number of functioning brain cells could possibly support such stupidity as that perpetrated on taxpayers by the Democrats in Congress over the last fifteen years.

They very effectively destroyed the economy, and amazingly, there are still some outside the union business, who support these goons. Sad. People like Dodd and Barney Frank should be behind bars. Instead, mindless trolls support them.

@James Raider, #7:

Yup, that’s just too difficult. Congress just made it so tough. Genius.

That’s exactly what they’ve done. In fact, they’ve made it virtually impossible. It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out, either:

In addition to the provisions of Title IX, Sec. 9011 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010, republicans are now putting forward the Detainee Security Act of 2011, which they announced on March 8. Refer to Sec. 9: Permanent Prohibition on Use of Funds to Construct or Modify Facilities in the United States to House Detainees Transferred from Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

This section would make it impossible for the Obama Administration to isolate Guantanamo detainees sufficiently to ensure that they couldn’t “advocate, coerce, or incite violent extremism, ideologically motivated criminal activity, or acts of terrorism among inmate populations at incarceration facilities within the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, or the United States territories if the individual were transferred to such a facility.”

Title IX, Sec. 9011(d)(1) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 requires that the administration present an estimation of the danger of that to Congress–presumably as an assurance that it can’t happen.

See how that all works? It’s quite easy to grasp, really. They’re creating requirements that cannot be met, owing to the funding restrictions that they’ve previously imposed.

Monkeywrenching, plain and simple. The latter day GOP’s forte.

I can guess their motives. There’s a lot that they’re worried might come out in an open court that they want never to see exposed in the full light of day.

Poor Obama!
He obviously wanted all these Gitmo detainees FREED.
After all, the civilian courts have rules of evidence that were not adhered to when these detainees were captured alive on the battlefield.
But don’t tell me we have no prison cells in solitary where the toilet seats you any other direction than toward Mecca.
What other modification needs to be made?
Or was it also to be another payback to Obama’s union cronies in construction?

my question is why would commie bambi and commie holder want to hold these trials in the USA?

the two commies either don’t know what they are doing or it was just part of their great plan, whatever that is, you know like the muslim uprising in the USA, like uprisings over in the middle east?

i just wonder why these two commies wanted the trials in the USA.

Greg, trying political prisoners in public is bad because of our military secrets getting out. i know that is hard for you to understand because we have a few generations of males, that have never even been around military anything and really don’t know or don’t care about our national security and the secrets we have to keep. i am not criticizing you greg, just stating a fact. imho

We can add that to the list of things he has done right. Didn’t sign the anti- landmine treaty, increased drone attacks in Pakistan, kept Gitmo open. Of course these are pretty small compared to crippling the economy for generations with debt.

@Greg:

Monkeywrenching, plain and simple. The latter day GOP’s forte.

Explain that statement, in regards to the law you linked, considering the original bill was sponsored by Murtha, a democrat, passed by both the house and the senate in late 2009, both of which were large democrat majorities. Your statement makes no sense, in that regard. Have you forgotten the lockouts of GOP involvement in the major bills of that year, and of the following year with Obamacare? What makes you think that the GOP was allowed any involvement, even at the committee level, in crafting any portion of H.R. 3326?

@Greg:

Of course Obama could have gone the George W. Bush route and issued presidential signing statements, simply ignoring whatever bits of duly enacted legislation he doesn’t happen to like.

Apparently, you misunderstand the purpose of signing statements. It isn’t so that the President can ignore the laws, or bits of laws, that are passed and he signs. A president will issue a signing statement on a law to commemorate the signing of important laws, and to issue statements pertaining to certain sections of the law to clarify how the President and his staff will interpret it. Even Obama has done so on certain bills he has signed.
http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm

@ Greg #8

You really cannot read can you. Unfortunately this is another waste of time.

That old straw, “ignorance is bliss” is truly appropriate, and sadly you represent a large swath of the population that is responsible for rotting America from within. Terrorists have nothing on your mindset. You do their work for them. Bin Laden looks on your idiocy and is pleased.

@Greg:

Of course Obama could have gone the George W. Bush route and issued presidential signing statements, simply ignoring whatever bits of duly enacted legislation he doesn’t happen to like. I guess that isn’t Obama’s style.

LMAO,
You need to do a little more research I think. Sorry I couldn’t find a more reliable source in the 7 seconds it took to google the subject.

@johngalt, #13:

Apparently, you misunderstand the purpose of signing statements. It isn’t so that the President can ignore the laws, or bits of laws, that are passed and he signs. A president will issue a signing statement on a law to commemorate the signing of important laws, and to issue statements pertaining to certain sections of the law to clarify how the President and his staff will interpret it. Even Obama has done so on certain bills he has signed.

People seem to have either forgotten about the level of controversy that surrounded Bush’s heavy-handed use of signing statements in the application of Unitary Executive Theory, or to have never been aware of it to begin with.

@JustAl, #15:

During his 8 years in office GWB issued 161 signing statements. It’s not the total count of signing statements that matters so much as their nature. Rather than being only rhetorical–commemorative, as JohnGalt has suggested–they were a means by which he challenged or circumvented over 1,000 specific provisions of the bills he signed into law. Signing statements were used as a means for countering the power and intentions of Congress. As noted in this article, a Congressional Research Service study found that 78% of his signing statements raised constitutional objections.

So far Obama hasn’t come close. Still, Obama is only in this 3rd year, and his predecessor set what was apparently an acceptable standard–at least judging by the lack of criticism of GWB coming from those who claim to be the strongest advocates of constitutional law. I suppose Obama might assert executive authority more strongly during a second term.

@Greg:

Rather than being only rhetorical–commemorative, as JohnGalt has suggested

No, Greg, I suggested that that is ONE of the reasons why signing statements are done.

Obama hasn’t come close to that.

No, he hasn’t, that’s true, but you stated;

Of course Obama could have gone the George W. Bush route and issued presidential signing statements, simply ignoring whatever bits of duly enacted legislation he doesn’t happen to like. I guess that isn’t Obama’s style.

That is a suggestion that Obama hasn’t engaged in that kind of activity at all, which is blatantly false.

And what about that law you linked? Passed by democrats, signed into law by a democrat, and you misrepresent it as being an example of GOP “monkeywrenching”, whatever that is. When you cannot even present factual evidence supporting your claims and theories, why should we even bother reading your posts?

@johngalt, #12:

The provisions in Title IX, Sec. 9011 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 didn’t render civil trials impossible. When they’re combined with Sec. 9 of the proposed Detainee Security Act of 2011, that has been achieved.

@Greg:

Your statement, #12

The Obama administration made a decision on the trials, which was subsequently monkeywrenched in Title IX, Sec. 9011 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010.

Is your statement wrong, then?

@johngalt, #19:

Is your statement wrong, then?

I believe it’s entirely accurate to say that specific actions taken by Congress have now made it practically impossible for the Obama administration to close Gitmo, and have also made it impossible for Gitmo detainees to be tried in federal court. Taken together, specific provisions of the Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 and the proposed Detainee Security Act of 2011 add up to that result. I have no doubt that this was deliberate–hence my use of the term monkeywrenching.

Your observation that the Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 was sponsored by a democrat is also accurate. Democrats were then in the majority and it generally falls to the majority to sponsor such recurring legislation. I’m unclear how Sec. 9011 came to be part of it. Politicians being what they are, I’d guess the fact that 2010 was an election year and civil trials were a matter of great controversy played some small part.

The bottom line is that the Obama administration has not broken another promise. It has been prevented from keeping a promise by deliberate actions taken by the legislative branch.

@Greggie: You said:

Of course Obama could have gone the George W. Bush route and issued presidential signing statements, simply ignoring whatever bits of duly enacted legislation he doesn’t happen to like. I guess that isn’t Obama’s style.

Yeah, Obama doesn’t ever use PSS’s…

List of Signing Statements issued by Barack Obama

You also said:

Fighting this would result in delaying trials even longer. Obama, unlike Bush, is apparently unwilling to put the trials off forever, so Holder made the announcement.

Wrong.

We all know that the Gitmo terror detainees were not tried by Military Commission because of delays posted by left leaning law firms. Three times the Bush admin went before the SCOTUS to hammer out the rules for such trials, only to be shot down. So to intimate that the Bush admin purposely put the trials off is intellectually dishonest, Greggie. But then that is exactly what we have come to expect from you.

@anticsrocks, #21:

Yeah, Obama doesn’t ever use PSS’s…

Obama has issued a few. He hasn’t used them as a means to repeatedly do an end-run around Congress.

Such a distinction is a subtle thing. Grasping it might represent a serious challenge for some people. It likely poses the same sort of difficulty as distinguishing torture from interrogation.

Signing Statements–the Administration’s (Reported) New Take

“…..According to the article, the Administration has a new policy on signing statements that it has adopted in the wake of last summer’s kerfuffle with Congress. In short, it will still take the position that certain provisions of newly enacted laws would unconstitutionally infringe on Executive Branch prerogatives (or would otherwise be unconstitutional). It just won’t say so in signing statements.

Legal scholars said the administration’s new approach, which avoids repeating claims of executive power that the White House has previously voiced, could avoid setting off fights with lawmakers. But the approach will make it harder to keep track of which statutes the White House believes it can disregard, or to compare the number of laws challenged by President Obama with former President George W. Bush’s record.

* * * * *

But Mr. Obama has not issued a signing statement since last summer, when one claim set off a bipartisan uproar in Congress. And the administration has decided that Mr. Obama will sometimes sign bills containing provisions it deems problematic without issuing a signing statement that challenges those sections.

Still, the administration will consider itself free to disregard new laws it considers unconstitutional, especially in cases where it has previously voiced objections elsewhere, officials said.

Signing Statements–the Administration’s (Reported) New Take

Look what was going on the day Obama and Holder decided to distract, head this baby off at the pass:

Hearing on: “Justice for America: Using Military Commissions to Try the 9/11 Conspirators”
Tuesday 4/5/2011 – 10:00 a.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
By Direction of the Chairman

Witness List
Mr. David Beamer
Father of United 93 Passenger Todd Beamer

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_04052011.html

It’s been almost 10 years worth of friends of Eric Holder throwing “monkey wrenches” in the effort to bring TERRORISTS/WAR CRIMINALS to justice. These enemies of our country already pled, they were already in the process of a tribunal when Holder and Obama “monkey wrenched” it again. Now, IMHO, 507 days later they want to get it over with because Obama is running for re-election and he wants it done and out of the slothful minds of his air headed base.

From what I’ve seen the last two days, David Beamer and other family members of the innocent Americans that were attacked and killed in an act of war against our country, will be around as reminders.

@Greg:

I’d guess the fact that 2010 was an election year and civil trials were a matter of great controversy played some small part.

It was not passed in 2010, even though it bears the label. It was debated in the second half of 2009, and passed by both houses in late 2009.

And as for your statement, it is either wrong, or you misstated in a later post. You blamed it on the GOP, however, in the statement I highlighted, you stated that Title IX, Sec. 9011 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 is responsible for Obama backing off of his promise. So, again, is your statement wrong? Or is it a misstatement?

Now, just a few of Obama’s signing statements:

Statement on Signing the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
• Foreign Affairs. Certain provisions of the bill, in titles I and IV of Division B, title IV of Division E, and title VII of Division H, would unduly interfere with my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs by effectively directing the Executive on how to proceed or not proceed in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to negotiate and enter into agreements with foreign nations.
• United Nations Peacekeeping Missions. Section 7050 in Division H prohibits the use of certain funds for the use of the Armed Forces in United Nations peacekeeping missions under the command or operational control of a foreign national unless my military advisers have recommended to me that such involvement is in the national interests of the United States. This provision raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as Commander in Chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority. Accordingly, I will apply this provision consistent with my constitutional authority and responsibilities.
• Executive Authority to Control Communications with the Congress. Sections 714(1) and 714(2) in Division D prohibit the use of appropriations to pay the salary of any Federal officer or employee who interferes with or prohibits certain communications between Federal employees and Members of Congress. I do not interpret this provision to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control, and correct employees’ communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.
• Legislative Aggrandizements (committee-approval requirements). Numerous provisions of the legislation purport to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by enactment of statutes. Therefore, although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. Likewise, one other provision gives congressional committees the power to establish guidelines for funding
1
costs associated with implementing security improvements to buildings. Executive officials shall treat such guidelines as advisory. Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding.
• Recommendations Clause Concerns. Several provisions of the Act (including sections 211 and 224(b) of title II of Division I, and section 713 in Division A), effectively purport to require me and other executive officers to submit budget requests to the Congress in particular forms. Because the Constitution gives the President the discretion to recommend only “such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient” (Article II, section 3 of the Constitution), the specified officers and I shall treat these directions as precatory.

Statement on Signing the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009
………..
Section 8203 of the Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall appoint certain
members of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Commission “based on
recommendations from each member of the House of Representatives, the district of which
encompasses the Corridor.” Because it would be an impermissible restriction on the
appointment power to condition the Secretary’s appointments on the recommendations of
members of the House, I will construe these provisions to require the Secretary to consider
such congressional recommendations, but not to be bound by them in making appointments to
the Commission.

Statement on Signing the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009
…………
Section 5(d) of the Act requires every department, agency, bureau, board, commission,
office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the United States to furnish to the
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a legislative entity, any information related to any
Commission inquiry. As my Administration communicated to the Congress during the
legislative process, the executive branch will construe this subsection of the bill not to abrogate
any constitutional privilege.

Statement on Signing the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
………….
However, provisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403
and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign
relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with
international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the
Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting
my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations.

And those were just from 2009. As highlighted, and in bold, the President, in his signing statement, informs Congress of certain provisions or sections in the bills, and why he cannot, or will not adhere to the language present in the bill.

Now, for some of President Bush’s, so as to compare:

Statement on Signing the NASA Flexibility Act of 2004
………..
Section 3 of the Act enacts new subsections 9802(g), (h), and (i) in title 5 of the
United States Code, which purport to require or regulate the submission of certain
plans, recommendations, and budget requests to the Congress. The executive branch
shall construe these subsections in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional
authority to supervise the unitary executive branch, to withhold information the disclosure
of which could impair the deliberative processes of the Executive, and to recommend
for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President judges
necessary and expedient.

Statement on Signing the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005
………….
The executive branch shall construe as calling solely for notification the provisions
of the Act that purport to require congressional committee approval for the execution
of a law. Any other construction would be inconsistent with the principles enunciated
by the Supreme Court of the United States in INS v. Chadha.

Statement on Signing the National Heritage Areas Act of 2006
………….
A number of provisions of the Act purport to give to management entities or local coordinating
entities, composed of individuals who are not officers of the United States appointed
in accordance with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, significant
governmental authority, such as authority to make grants from Federal appropriated
funds to implement management plans for heritage areas. As is consistent with the Appointments Clause and with requirements in the Act concerning approval by the Secretary
of the Interior of the management plans, the executive branch shall construe the provisions
to require exercise by the Secretary of the Interior of the significant governmental
authority given by the provisions, specifically including the exercise by the Secretary of
final authority over any disbursement of Federal appropriated funds by a management
entity or local coordinating entity.

That is just a few of the many signing statements by Bush. Nowhere in either Obama’s, nor Bush’s, is there any hint of ‘end-around’ type action. It is entirely within their rights to identify certain elements of the laws passed by congress, and signed by them, and to delineate exactly how the executive branch will treat them, particularly if they could run afoul of constitutional requirements.

In my opinion, though, as President, the laws that come to his/her desk should be vetted entirely for any passages that may run afoul of Constitution, or limit the President’s constitutional powers, and if found, the bill should be vetoed and sent back to address the concerns. Unfortunately, politics plays a big part of it, and a bill narrowly passed, that the President wants, might not pass the second time around, particularly if the changes requested are objected to by the opposition party. In that case, I can see it being entirely reasonable for the President to issue a signing statement, with the objections, and how it will be treated according to the Constitution.

Either way, signing statements are used for numerous reasons, particularly when there are constitutional questions at stake, and the president does not want to risk a revote on the bill.

For a list of, and text to, Obama’s and Bush’s signing statements go here:
http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm

@johngalt, #24:

I won’t deny that those are examples of substantive and purposeful signing statements. There’s nothing rhetorical about them. I’ll concede the point: Obama uses them too.

@Greggie: As I expected you got your azz handed to you on the issue of signing statements, so I will leave that alone.

However it is really hard to believe that you actually went here….

Obama has issued a few. He hasn’t used them as a means to repeatedly do an end-run around Congress.

Do you REALLY want to open up THAT can of worms?

Obama doesn’t do end runs around Congress? Or the judiciary branch???

105 billion in “pre-appropriated” funds buried in 2800 page Obamacare bill raises Separation of Powers, process Concerns

E.P.A. Expected to Regulate Carbon Dioxide

Obama Administration IGNORES Judge’s Ruling on Drilling Moratorium

White House Says It Will Implement ObamaCare Despite Judge’s Declaration that His Ruling Against It Is ‘Equivalent of Injunction’

These are but just a few examples of Obama plunging ahead with his agenda regardless of Congress or the SCOTUS. So are you sure you really want to go there? LOL

Ah Greggie, I love it when you open mouth and insert foot keyboard.