Obama mulls another lawless action to override Congress and close Gitmo

Here’s another sign that Democrats — namely Obama — have concerns about the results of the coming midterm elections. Obama has already stated he will enact executive orders to push amnesty for illegal aliens. Now there’s talk that Obama is weighing options to close the Guantanamo Bay unlawful enemy combatant detention facility. Does Obama believe that sometime between the November elections and the end of the113th Congress term he must take an action?

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, “The White House is drafting options that would allow President Barack Obama to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by overriding a congressional ban on bringing detainees to the U.S., senior administration officials said. Such a move would be the latest and potentially most dramatic use of executive power by the president in his second term. It would likely provoke a sharp reaction from lawmakers, who have repeatedly barred the transfer of detainees to the U.S. The discussions underscore the president’s determination to follow through on an early campaign promise before he leaves the White House, officials said, despite the formidable domestic and international obstacles in the way.”

But just as with Obama’s intentions to grant amnesty — Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the US Constitution grants the power on matters of naturalization to Congress — so it is in the matter of GITMO. In Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 the Constitution states the Congress has the power, “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; and make Rules concerning captures on Land and Water.”

So here we go again, President Obama — the Constitutional scholar – doesn’t appear to read, know or follow the document he was sworn to uphold and faithfully execute. Obama, by the rule of law, the Constitution, does not have the enumerated power to make any rules concerning these unlawful enemy combatants captured on land or water. As well, any actions he takes should resurrect the questions about Army SGT Bowe Bergdahl and the exchange of five senior members of the Taliban — another example of Obama’s lawlessness. Oh by the way, what is the status of Bergdahl’s investigation? But I digress…

The Wall Street Journal says, “administration officials say Mr. Obama strongly prefers a legislative solution over going around Congress (yeah, right). At the same time, a senior administration official said Mr. Obama is “unwavering in his commitment” to closing the prison—which currently has 149 inmates detained in connection with the nation’s post-9/11 war on terrorism—and wants to have all potential options available on an issue he sees as part of his legacy. However, a unilateral action “would ignite a political firestorm, even if it’s the best resolution for the Guantanamo problem,” said American University law professor Stephen Vladeck. Republicans are sure to oppose it, while Democrats could be split, he said.”

Obama fears what will happen if he doesn’t have Harry Reid running as his obstructionist come January 2015 — which means he’s looking at how much he can do by executive order and fiat as opposed to having to contend with a House and Senate held by the opposition GOP. It’s funny, after the midterm debacle of 1994, then-President Bill Clinton worked with a GOP House and Senate — with a constitutional conservative legislative agenda — and was able to balance the budget, create surpluses, and enact welfare reform. That is the nature of bipartisanship. And oh by the way, President Ronald Reagan was able to do likewise and enact a huge tax reform agenda with a Democrat House and Senate.

But Barack Hussein Obama is an intransigent ideologue and demagogue who refuses to admit being wrong or making mistakes and believes his political agenda and promises override the rule of law.

The Wall Street Journal says “Mr. Obama likely has two options for closing Guantanamo, should Congress extend the restrictions, which it could do after the midterm elections. He could veto the annual bill setting military policy, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, in which the ban on transferring detainees to the U.S. is written. While the veto wouldn’t directly affect military funding, such a high-stakes confrontation with Congress carries significant political risks. A second option would be for Mr. Obama to sign the bill while declaring restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners an infringement of his powers as commander in chief, as he has done previously.” But that is a flawed argument since the Constitution does not grant Obama — or any Commander-in-Chief — powers to make rules concerning captures.

Perhaps we should send President Barack Hussein Obama Article I and Article II of the Constitution and require him to write a comparative essay — no more than 1000 words — to be printed in every major newspaper in America outlining the enumerated powers of the legislative and executive branches. Yep, perhaps, he could do that while in the air flying around the country doing fundraisers.

177 COMMENTS

  1. || Obama has already stated he will enact executive orders to push amnesty for illegal aliens ||

    That’s a lie. Obama has stated he will defer deportation for a minority of the illegal immigrants. They may still be deported at a later day. That’s not amnesty. You’re on the Internet, dictionaries are free here, look it up. If West were an honest man, he’d quit lying to you.

    || Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the US Constitution grants the power on matters of naturalization to Congress ||

    Naturalization is the granting is citizenship. Obama has not offered citizenship to anyone without Congresses approval. Delaying a determination on immigration status does not affect citizenship, does not grant citizenship. West knows this, he just prefers to lie about what the president is doing. If West were an honorable man he wouldn’t need to lie to you in his feeble efforts to get you to hate America.

    The truth is that these acts are well within the president’s executive power. If West has a legitimate argument, he wouldn’t resort to half-truths and outright lies to make his point.

    But West is an intransigent ideologue and demagogue who refuses to admit being wrong or making mistakes and believes his political agenda overrides the rule of law.

    • Aw, look at the brand, spanking new Obama sock puppet. If you believe Obama will not unilaterally enact amnesty through EO, you are delusional.

      btw, were you gnashing your teeth and frothing from your mouth as you were typing your West directed vitriol?

      • Was West when he was typing his Obama directed vitriol? West is a dangerous man – he’s a threat to America. He is deliberately lying to you in the hope of causing further division within the American people. Look at your statement, you seemingly acknowledge that Obama HAS NOT granted Amnesty, though you think he someday will. You know, then, that West lied when he said Obama has already stated that he will.

        Why do you defend a liar such as West?

      • The only danger to this country are sock puppet fools like you.

        Why do you defend your master, the liar in chief?

      • 1) Look up sock puppet, you aren’t using the idiom properly.

        2) I haven’t defended anyone other than the truth. I didn’t write that Obama was making the right decision, I simply demonstrated that West is a degenerate liar.

        West lied – you know that. Why are you defending him?

      • Hey FloridaPhil:
        Seems like “RedStateJoe” is another one of those brown shirts that holder as US AG has been funding w our US Taxpayer money to work the internet …..providing false and misleading information to create confusion, bc the democrat party needs to pretend Obama and holder are not over-reaching and should be arrested and prosecuted as TRAITORS to The USA.

        There is a term for what “redstatejoe” is doing that is straight from the playbook of RADICAL progressives = dumbinionism.

      • I agree and is why I called it (and its ilk) the biggest danger to this country.

        Note that it now has its Disqus account set to private.

      • Funny thing – while you seem good at hurling insults and making up truly bizarre accusations, but you don’t have the intellectual courage to take on what I wrote. Try to take me on using facts and intelligent argument. Can’t? Afraid? How’s it feel to be a coward?

    • You have got to be kidding! To speak of honor when we have the most immoral and dishonest man in the White House in the history of this country!

      • Let’s say you’re right and Obama is all that — does that still mean that West is allowed to lie to you? Does Obama’s lack of integrity mean you have to lose yours and follow those who gleefully have tossed theirs aside as well? Have you no sense of personal integrity, no honor you claim for yourself?

    • You are a liar.

      “In 2011, it issued a new policy to allow certain illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to apply for two-year work permits.”
      http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/did-obama-enact-dream-act/

      Even when fact lies, the truth comes out.

      “Naturalization is the granting is citizenship. ”

      Naturalization has absolutely nothing to do with amnesty, that actually is the definition of a straw man.

      • That’s not amnesty. That’s deferred determination. If you want to be a part of the conversation, it helps when you know what the words mean. Reagan, Bush also had deferred determination executive orders. Reagan also had an amnesty program.

        If you need me to explain the difference to you I will, but I think you’re smart enough to learn it on your own with just a little bit of research.

      • Maybe smaller sentences would help.

        “apply for two-year work permits.”

        By what authority has Obama said illegal aliens can obtain work permits?

        Reagan signed a bill making it law. Obama signs executive orders and you make excuses.

      • Apparently I do. I just referenced a subsection of the separation of powers, namely executive discretion and the even more discrete deferred action power of the executive.

        It’s been the law of this land since at least 1866. Reagan used it. Was he evil like Obama?

        So, why do you hate America and the rule of law?

        BTW: shilling doesn’t mean what you think it does. Look it up.

      • BTW: how’s it feel to be shown as a know-nothing when it comes to Executive Orders? Do you like the way I made you eat you words when you stupidly declared that Reagan never used an Executive Order to defer deportation of illegal aliens? That was hilarious.

      • I did — you aren’t even reading what I write anymore are you? Your little mind can’t get past the first few lines, can it?

        Go through my posts, it’s there.

      • In what sense were the Nicaraguans illegal aliens. Damn, it is amazing the moral equivalency required to defend Obama’s lawless actions.

      • They were here illegally. They were scheduled to be deported back to Nicaragua. They were illegal aliens. Reagan stopped their deportations by using an XO to invoke a deferred status.

        Seriously, you don’t know this stuff?

      • That asylum had been denied. That’s why they were going to be deported. That’s what made them illegal. Illegal just means without authorization. They had no authorization to stay, so the President stepped in, as was his right.

        I just as easily could have used the more common legal term of “unauthorized alien” if you PC mind demands it.

        This is all right there in the article I linked you to.

      • Show me the paperwork for “temporary asylum” for these 200,000 who were awaiting deportation. Do you even know what that phrase means in American Immigration law? For the record, just very recently the highest number of temporary asylum grants in any one year was just under 14,000. Recently it hit just over 36,0000.

        You’re trying to explain away 200,000 refugees. Still think pulling temporary asylum out of your behind was a good idea?

      • Quote the article where they’d said the Nicaraguans were here illegally. Wow, seems you have an inability to articulate the truth.

      • Grasp. Straws. You. Can. Not.

        Their illegal butts were about to be deported so Reagan stepped in and granted deferred status.

  2. Whatever Obama does, rest assured it will not be in the favor of America’s interests. Make sure to thank your favorite low information voter in your life.

  3. After speaking to Obama on his “I-am-sorry-I-am-an-American” tour soon after the Obamas hijacked the WH in 2009 – and began degrading The USA on foreign soil, The president of France stated = Obama may be INSANE.

    The only person who would give STAND DOWN ORDERS when Americans are under siege in a RADICAL MUSLIM TERRORIST ATTACK on the Anniversary of 911, and LIE about it to the world, disgracing The USA, when falsely portraying it to be a Protest that turned VIOLENT = IS AN ENEMY of The USA posing as POTUS.

    • || Obama on his “I-am-sorry-I-am-an-American” tour ||

      Every fact checking group has decried that as a lie.

      For example, CNN

      The president has mentioned past U.S. mistakes and flaws during speeches about the larger issues of building bridges to other countries. But he has never apologized or gone on an “apology tour.”

      http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/politics/fact-check-apology-tour/

      Men like West are lying to you to get you to think the president is evil and out to destroy America. He’s doing it for a reason: he wants you to donate cash to his coffers.

      Obama may well be wrong in everything he does, but he comes to it honestly. He has a different political orientation than do you, but that doesn’t mean he hates America, nor that he hates you.

      You need to examine why it is that you truly hate him. Remove yourself from the lies West has told you, seek out diverse opinion. Behave like an American.

      • The topic is the apology tour. Stay focused. I’m not here to defend Obama, certainly not where he’s wrong. I have no problem saying a politician is wrong, it’s just that I can do it without engaging in hyperbole and deception.

      • CNN a “fact checking group” ? That is really funny. You’re quite the comedian. When do you go on tour?

      • You are sooo correct! These LOONS actually believe the man is running for some sort of OFFICE…HE IS NOT! Go look at the numbers to his fraudulent GUARDIAN FUND and you will see that out of more than 4 million dollars collected ONLY 35k went to conservative candidates while over 3 million went to FUNDRAISING….these loons are only paying for BLOG POST!!!

      • You need to open your eyes before it’s to late for you to open them. Nothing you say makes any sense except that he is wrong. You can bet your bippie he’s wrong on every issue.

      • “We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power”

        Why must you lie?

      • How is that an apology? Did you bother to read it in context? No, of course not — that would make your head explode.

        There’s a reason why only the radicals cling to the myth that has been debunked by every major fact checking group – it never happened. No matter how long you hold your breath or stomp your feet, it just didn’t happen.

      • “When Marxist dictators shoot their way into power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don’t blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies. They blame United States policies of one hundred years ago. But then they always blame America first.”

        Jeane Kirkpatrick. Just change actors, the left still blame America.

        Why do you hate America?

      • Stuff it jackass.

        You come here calling people radicals and worse and expect to be treated with civility?

      • “Obama may well be wrong in everything he does, but he comes to it honestly”

        If you like your health insurance you can keep it.
        If you like your doctor you can keep him.
        Your insurance prices will drop $2500

        Why must you lie?

      • Debunked according to who? You? Your Liberal news outlets that wouldn’t tell you the truth if they knew it? It is certainly not debunked according to the ones who were there and were told to stand down.
        Get your head out of the sand and read or watching something other than MSNBC.

      • Hue, don’t let the Kool-Aid drinker get to you. He probably hasn’t heard that a an Air Force Colonel just recently testified to the stand-down.

      • Where were you went the republican report came out?? You notice that when the republican report came out that you didn’t get a post from Allen (rob these loons blind) west…he wants to keep you in the dark so you can continue to donate to the fraudulent GUARDIAN FUND!

      • “While the Obama Administration contends that no stand down orders
        were given in Benghazi, testimony recently given in front of the House
        Intelligence Committee has show this to be yet another “Obama lie”.

        “The whole issue about stand down orders is not an issue. There
        clearly were stand down orders given to people not only in Benghazi but
        also in Tripoli and the State Department’s counterterrorism team.” says
        Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., who sits on the House Intelligence
        Committee.”

      • The three guys who had to stand down were given an order to. Those 3 are not lying. It is disgraceful to call them liars. I don’t know how far up it went but to flat say no order was given is total BS

      • Once again….DEBUNKED…it was DEBUNKED by REPUBLICANS….sorry Skippy but just because you HOPE it is so…DOESN’T MAKE IT SO!! DEBUNKED!!!

      • Well…the republican report I read said “NO STAND DOWN ORDER GIVEN” that is enough for me!! Notice..it was a REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE!!

      • I don’t care about a damn republican comitee. I care about the 3 guys who were there fighting there way out. They said they were given an order.

  4. He’s planning something greater with all these distractions. First he seems FAR too confident in what he is doing and appears that what he is about to do he will get away with. The polls will be fixed and Dems will hold the senate, no other reason for him to feel so confident that I can think of.

      • Sorry that you gullible LOONS can’t accept that AMERICA REJECTS the policies of the RIGHT and this is why you keep LOSING elections!

      • Reagan would not be a Republican if he were alive today. Reagan raised taxes 11 times, granted Amnesty to illegal aliens, liked to take vacations during times of crises, grew the national debt and the deficit at a rate faster than Obama, showed open contempt for Israel, and he supported expanded gun sale background checks and an assault weapon ban.

        You want the (R) to return to being the Party of Reagan, then I’m all in. Till then, don’t insult Reagan by making him seem like he’s one of you fringers.

      • Did you have to go all the way back to the 80’s???? Once again…Republicans has only won 1 popular vote in the last 20 years! YES…America REJECTS the policies of the Republican party!!!

      • Hey Earl, you ever heard of JFK and the cemetery vote count in Chicago that got him elected? Use Google or any other search engine and you will catch a clue. Nixon was given props by a few liberal writers for not challenging as it would have thrown the country into a constitutional crisis.

      • that doesn’t answer the question….I said that SWAYED a national ELECTION!! Voter fraud is a MYTH and voter ID laws has nothing to do with voter FRAUD!!! Republicans KNOW they cannot win on their policies so they have to try to prevent as many people from voting as possible!

  5. I’d like to know WHY haven’t our elected officials put this hell bent on destruction lunatic out of office??? WHY IS HE STILL THERE???????

      • excuse me but….I believe you need to read it….no laws broken….just sour grape and sore LOSERS!! Can’t impeach for WINNING!! Republicans haven’t won the popular vote more than once in the last 20 years….

      • And why hasn’t he been impeached already?? Maybe because he hasn’t committed a high crime or misdemeanors…..once again SOUR GRAPES….SORE LOSER!!1

      • When the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE says that impeachment is off the table…means its OFF THE TABLE….just a teabilly’s wet dream

      • Just because Boehner doesn’t impeach, doesn’t mean Obama hasn’t broken the law.

        Releasing the five Taliban leaders was a direct violation of the law, but, you being a demented liberal has no concept of the Rule of Law.

      • Still hasn’t broken the LAW…..sorry skippy but when this republican house if the man farted wrong they would impeach….like I said…a teabilly’s wet dream is all impeachment is. He will leave office Jan 2017 when HILLARY moves in!

      • Sure he did skippy…that is why the republican house came back and started impeachment hearings….NOPE….didn’t happen…..teabilly’s wet dream

      • “The law requires the defense secretary to notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days before making any transfers of prisoners, to explain the reason and to provide assurances that those released would not be in a position to reengage in activities that could threaten the United States or its interests.”

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bergdahl-release-arrangement-could-threaten-the-safety-of-americans-republicans-say/2014/05/31/35e47a2a-e8ff-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html

      • It was the direct violation of a law that was unconstitutional. As you well know, the Congress can not grab, even with the consent of the executive, that which is the exclusive purview of the executive.

      • So, the liberal shill says a law written by Congress and never reviewed by the SCOTUS is unconstitutional?

        Did you take Obama’s courses? He’s the same type of shill as you.

      • Amazing, you feel at liberty to declare that Obama has done any number of things that are illegal, despite no judge and no jury declaring him to have done so, but you take great umbrage at someone making similar comments on the acts of Congress, demanding that only SCOTUS can make such a determination.

        Do you understand why that makes you a hypocrite?

        Disagree with me, preferably using precedent and cogent argument, but don’t embarrass yourself further.

      • You are a liar and a jackass. ( democrat mascot fits you to a “T” )

        “The law requires the defense secretary to notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days before making any transfers of prisoners, to explain the reason and to provide assurances that those released would not be in a position to reengage in activities that could threaten the United States or its interests.”

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bergdahl-release-arrangement-could-threaten-the-safety-of-americans-republicans-say/2014/05/31/35e47a2a-e8ff-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html

      • Yes. that is the law. It’s likely to be held unconstitutional as applied to this instance. The executive has certain powers and discretion that are reserved to his office by way of the Constitution’s Separation of powers and the case law emanating from it. A president can’t sign that power away, and congress can’t legislatively grab it. Only a modification to the Constitution can redistribute power or add a new check on that power.

        That’s what this law does – it places a check on the existing executive power to administratively move and release prisoners at the executive’s will. Further, in times of emergency, the president has greater discretionary power in foreign affairs. So, in lay terms, that’s the one-two punch for challenging the notification law.

        Before I delve deeper into is, and use language and cases that are likely beyond your ken, you need to display that you have the maturity to discuss this issue civilly and intelligently. I have no interest in a never ending series of “is not, is too.”

      • ” It’s likely to be held unconstitutional ”

        HAHAHAHA and moron, didn’t you say it was already unconstitutional? Lying again?

        And ONLY Congress has the authority to deal with prisoners.

        Article I Section 8

        To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

      • One was me expressing my opinion, the other was predictive of how the SCOTUS would rule. Are you really that dense?

        You don’t understand what the Capture Clause means, particularly as it relates to the Declare War clause and the Crimes against Nations clause. And, I don’t have time to explain it to you. Do some reading and then come back.

      • You lied … Then again, given you’re a democrat, not surprising at all.

        “It was the direct violation of a law that was unconstitutional.”

        Did you forget what you wrote or again, just a habitual liar. ( didn’t you say good night?)

        LOL leftist trolls are comical.

      • You’re really dense. Yes, I wrote it. That’s my analysis of the law.

        Later, when writing about how the court would rule it, I wrote as I was trained to do when predicting court behavior, I tempered it with likely. That’s just how intellectuals communicate. Sorry if you don’t get it, that just confirms your immaturity.

        BTW: I’m registered (R) and have been for a very long time. All you had to do was ask, instead you went and ASSumed again. That’s not working out well for you, why do you keep it up?

      • Keep lying, you leftist troll. You made an absolute statement, no conjecture whatsoever.

        But your master Soros approves. You can’t even admit you voted for Obama, yet shill for him daily?

      • Meh. I tried to explain to you how life as a lawyer works. Go talk to someone you trust who has a law degree, maybe they can explain it to you better than I did.

      • Again with the strawman. Sorry you don’t understand the Constitution. Come back when you do. You’re pretty funny when you lose your mind.

      • You’re an idiot. I quote the Constitution while you just make stuff up.

        Wait, what powers are delineated in Article I? Which branch?

        Did you miss this?

        Here, let’s try bold.

        Article I Section 8

        To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

        Section 1028 of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) prohibits any funds to be used “to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of any other foreign country” unless the secretary of defense certifies to Congress, “not later than 30 days before the transfer,”

      • Sign, what does the Capture Clause mean and how does it apply to this instance? What, you think Constitutional Lawyers bill at $625 an hour for no good reason?

      • Section 1028 of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) prohibits any funds to be used “to transfer any indi vidual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of any other foreign country” unless the secretary of defense certifies to Congress, “not later than 30 days before the transfer,”

      • Yes, I know. I agree that Obama broke that law. My point is that the law is clearly unconstitutional so it’s unenforceable. If taken to the SCOTUS, it is likely the court would rule in Obama’s favor.

        Why are we covering old ground? Do try to keep up,

      • By the way, still trying to get you to explain what the Captures Clause means. You claim that is what gives Congress the power to determine what happens with Gitmo.

        Let me guess, you finally did some research and discovered how laughably dumb you were in posting that claim.

        As any first year law student knows, the Captures Clause applies only to property, not to persons.

        Here’s what the conservative Heritage Foundation has to say about it.

        || Captures Clause

        The Congress shall have Power To …make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11

        Under the Captures Clause, Congress has the power to make rules for the confiscation, disposition, and distribution of captured enemy property. Although nothing in the text of the clause precludes its application to captures of enemy persons, it has never been so applied by either courts or Congress.

        the term captures, as understood by the Framers of the Constitution, includes only enemy property. The term could not include captured enemy soldiers, as persons can neither be “divided” nor “appropriated.” This approach is bolstered by the fact that the term capture was understood under international law, as listed in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1914), as “the taking of property by one belligerent from another or from an offending neutral.” ||

        http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/51/captures-clause

        You’re a joke.

      • You’re an ass, you actually believe Congress can’t declare war and has no say on how illegal combatants should be dealt with?

        Who declares war, moron?

      • Who executes the war? There has been no declaration of war, so the point is moot, anyway.

        You’re so far out of your depth. Did you think of this moronic argument on your own or did you pick it up on radical website? Try something interesting – be truthful.

      • Yours is merely a straw man … I quoted the entire clause you moron. Where did I mention the capture clause exclusively, liar?

      • The other clauses deal with the authority to declare war and to commission ships – which one of those do you want to hang your hat on as giving Congress authority over prisoners?

        ROTFLMAO

      • Yes, I suppose I did get into the strawman arena. I gave you more credit that you deserved. The Captures clause was the only one could even be remotely, yet somewhat intelligently, confused with granting a power to Congress to deal with captured enemy combatants.

        That we now know you thought the Declare War clause gives them that power – wow, that’s anywhere near an intelligent argument.

      • So, you’ve got zilch. Yes, you’re a liberal HACK aka concern troll.

        But fine, who deals with penalties against illegal combatants?

        To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

        LOL you are an Idiot!

      • Finally! I pointed you to that yesterday after you mindlessly cited, several times, the wrong line of Art I Sec 8.

        There you were, floundering around, quoting the Capture clause … too funny … I even pointed you to the clause you wanted, but it took you how long to find it?

        Doesn’t matter, you still lose, but at least you don’t sound like a complete tool anymore.

      • So, the president doesn’t have the plenary power to release prisoners at will in violation of the law. And it’s not unconstitutional given the power to create those laws rest with Congress.

        OMG! Are you retarded?

      • Strawmen see to be your bread and butter … when you’re ready to discuss this like an informed adult, you’re welcome to try again.

      • You’re a clown, you can’t even cite an argument as to how Obama’s got authority to release illegal combatants from the Constitution.

        And once again, your straw man mierda del toro is made of the straw between your ears.

      • I know I’m going regret treating you like an adult, but here goes:

        The president is commander-in-chief. He executes the war subject to general constraints placed by Congress. The Congress can say what weapons he may use to take hills, it may not tell him what hill to take or not take. The rule is that Congress can pass general rules. Here, Congress went beyond its authority . Congress screwed up. The statute in question, Section 1035(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, is not a general rule about treatment of prisoners of war; it is a specific rule about prisoners held at Guantanamo — that is, a specific set of prisoners in a specific armed conflict.

        By analogy, Congress passed law about how the president should take a hill.

      • I know I’m going regret treating you like an adult, but here goes:

        Excellent use of a straw man, who said the president wasn’t the commander-in-chief?

        Now, where is the authority for the president to solely decide how and when prisoners are released.

        “analogy, Congress passed law about how the president should take a hill.”

        Prisoner status isn’t strategy. Try again.

      • You don’t really understand what a strawman argument is, do you?

        Obama’s authority is because he’s the CiC. The CiC gets to make strategic and tactical decisions. Congress gets to make general rules about how the president executes his strategy and tactics. Congress can not order a president to invade a city, take a hill or shoot a weapon. It can prescribe and proscribe how all prisons are run, it can not tell the president how a specific prison should be run.

        Here, Congress went beyond its authority . Congress screwed up. The statute in question, Section 1035(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, is not a general rule about treatment of prisoners of war; it is a specific rule about prisoners held at Guantanamo — that is, a specific set of prisoners in a specific armed conflict.

      • “The CiC gets to make strategic and tactical decisions”

        Straw man.

        “Congress can not order a president to invade a city, take a hill or shoot a weapon.”

        Straw man.

        “It can prescribe and proscribe how all prisons are run, it can not tell the president how a specific prison should be run.”

        BS, Gitmo is unique, perhaps you missed that tidbit? Wait, are you really that stupid to believe there are illegal combatants within the US prison system? Are you really that FRIGGIN’ stupid?

        Congress writes laws, Obama executes them. You’ve STILL not shown where Obama’s Constitutional authority lies, enabling him to release illegal combatants, while I can show you easily … the same.

        To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

        To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

      • You don’t know what a straw man argument is, and you expect me to engage you further?

        When one make a statement of fact, it’s called a predicate. It sets up a logical presentation.

        When one claim that another made a statement that s/he didn’t, one that is easy to knock down, that’s a strawman argument.

        When I say Obama is the CiC, I’m establishing a predicate. It’s his authority for what he does.

        When you ridiculously claim that I said there were illegal combatants in the US prison system, that’s a strawman. I didn’t say it and its an easy claim to knock down.

        When you use strawmen the way you do, you look foolish. When you misuse what a strawman is, you look even worse.

        I’ve actually made my case rather well, you’re either too belligerent or too obtuse to understand it. Either way, you need to troll elsewhere. You’re boring me.

      • “I said there were illegal combatants in the US prison system”

        It was hyperbole genius.

        Why not even attempt to cite the Constitution in defense of your mierda del toro?

      • “Obama’s authority is because he’s the CiC. ” … straw man.

        “The CiC gets to make strategic and tactical decisions.” … straw man.

        “Congress gets to make general rules about how the president executes his strategy and tactics.” … straw man.

        “Congress can not order a president to invade a city, take a hill or shoot a weapon.” … straw man.

        “is not a general rule about treatment of prisoners of war;”

        Lie. First, they’re not POWs, second Congress write the laws regarding illegal combatants.

      • BTW, your entire argument is wrong from the start, by your idiotic logic, the executive branch creates the law regarding how illegal combatants are held and they’re also the “prosecutor” of the law?

        Yes, you’re a Constitutional Scholar, right up there with Obama. Do you understand Marbury? Obama didn’t. Are “negative” liberties a hindrance or the stated purpose of the Constitution?

      • Cite the Article and section that authorizes Obama to be prosecutor and legislator of illegal combatants.

        See, unlike you, I’ve already proven the legislature writes the laws.

  6. Just imagine all those Jihadists entering our federal Prison system radicalizing all the inmates in there. If we think we have a problem with Jihadists now, this will dwarf that in a couple of years.

  7. Great appearance on Judge Jeanine! You are the last hero, colonel — a man of integrity with the guts to make it mean something.

  8. That’s homework Rafael. It’s a case of a singular noun also being a plural like sheep or deer. Common English is funny that way. Anyone notice how Obama’s pose in that photo closely resembles Mussolini?

  9. Sorry, but at this point, What difference does it make? Obama could pardon the terrorists in Gitmo and still have his kool-aid drinking [p]sycophants defend his actions. ( at least it would have a Constitutional basis, right? )

    Remind me, how much heat did Obama get for breaking the law and trading five Taliban leaders for a deserter?

    If Obama ran in 2016 ( yes unconstitutional ), he’d probably still receive more than 39% of the vote. Willing to bet Hillary gets more that 45% of the vote in 2016 and how would she be different from Obama? Well, the right would be saved from the racist cat calls, but only to be replaced by calls of misogynist.

    Too many Americans are completely apathetic about what Obama has done and too many cheer despotism.

      • And the troll shows up defending Obama again. Go figure.

        Does Obama have the authority to close Gitmo too?

        Wait, is it Joe or Gwyneth? Just another bubble headed bleach blonde?

      • How cute, another strawman. I’m speaking about what is constitutional, not what is right.

        Something can be legal and be a bad idea at the same time. I haven’t expressed my opinion; rather, I’m trying to demonstrate to you that just because someone doesn’t act the way you want them to does not mean they are a law-breaker nor does it mean they are favoring despotism.

        Americans can disagree with each other, and indeed most people do. You radicals on the right and the left demand that it’s your way or the other guy is evil. That level of immaturity is harming America. You are harming America.

      • Why do you hate America and seek a despot that releases illegal combatants as a ransom to other terrorists?

      • [[ Not a single American cheers despotism.]]

        Yet 52% of them voted for Stalin incarnate in ’08 and ’12.

  10. this keeps up, the people just might have a revolution, shoot the lawyers first. lynch all the traiters to the constitution, wave bye bye to all illegals.

  11. On this, I see an NDAA veto as very likely. Obama does not have to run for election again, and there is the possibility of there not being enough votes in either chamber to override a veto.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here