WSJ: NSA Surveillance is Legal and Necessary

That's not the Constitution. That is some guy's opinion. It isn't binding on anyone.

Get real, CBJ7. You've lost this one.

Here's your ass:

Double post

[QUOTE=CuteOldGuy;1053142492]Double the ignorance.[/QUOTE]

No charge

That's not the Constitution. That is some guy's opinion. It isn't binding on anyone.

Get real, CBJ7. You've lost this one.

Here's your ass: Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

youre correct its not the constitution, its the legal cases (chapter and verse) stating when the potus can make exceptions from the constitution and relieve his obligation to defend the laws protected by the constitution ....

yeah, its some guys opinion, a lawyer, something you know nothing about


lets see the article in the constitution that clearly states the potus inst obligated to defend the law .. the reverse of your inane comment.

Just proves how much you misunderstand the Constitution. It is not a grant of powers, it is a limitation of power. You keep wanting it to grant powers to the government, which is why we are in the mess we are in.

The Executive in Chief has the same prerogative (look it up) that any prosecutor (enforcer of laws) has. Prosecutorial discretion. Look that up, too. Dipshit.

And the President is under no obligation to honor a prior administration's EOs. If it's a problem, he can just issue a new EO rescinding the prior one.

The harder you try to sound smart, CBJ7, the stupider we know you really are.

Just proves how much you misunderstand the Constitution. It is not a grant of powers, it is a limitation of power. You keep wanting it to grant powers to the government, which is why we are in the mess we are in.

The Executive in Chief has the same prerogative (look it up) that any prosecutor (enforcer of laws) has. Prosecutorial discretion. Look that up, too. Dipshit.

And the President is under no obligation to honor a prior administration's EOs. If it's a problem, he can just issue a new EO rescinding the prior one.

The harder you try to sound smart, CBJ7, the stupider we know you really are.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

so thres no article in the constitution that says the potus Isnt obligated to uphold the law?

gee, who knew ....


look cartoon boy ... the constitution is the Law of the land, AND THE POTUS IS OBLIGATED TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.. PERIOD

Yes, he is sworn to uphold the Constitution. That is a fact. That does not mean he has to enforce laws passed by Congress. Read the Constitution. You won't sound as stupid.

Then what you are saying any programs passed by both houses signed by the president is the justice department's to enforce not the president. then he would be under no obligation to enforce or not to enforce any laws.

The Justice Department IS the President, nitwit. It's part of the executive branch. Gawd. You are stupider than CBJ7.

No. the President is NOT REQUIRED to enforce ANY law s/he doesn't want to. It's called "separation of powers". Look it up. The President DOES have to uphold, preserve and protect the Constitution. That is a different duty specifically imposed on President by the Constitution, but the Constitution does not require the President to enforce laws passed by Congress, and signed by him/her, or any previous President.

Now, when the Senate ratifies a treaty, the President must enforce that, because it is on par with the Constitution. That also is different from a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Enough civics for today. Read a book, or something.

The Justice Department IS the President, nitwit. It's part of the executive branch. Gawd. You are stupider than CBJ7.

No. the President is NOT REQUIRED to enforce ANY law s/he doesn't want to. It's called "separation of powers". Look it up. The President DOES have to uphold, preserve and protect the Constitution. That is a different duty specifically imposed on President by the Constitution, but the Constitution does not require the President to enforce laws passed by Congress, and signed by him/her, or any previous President.

Now, when the Senate ratifies a treaty, the President must enforce that, because it is on par with the Constitution. That also is different from a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Enough civics for today. Read a book, or something. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

your civics is as flush as your fair tax economics

I've already proven you wrong on this issue, CBJ7. Try to not embarrass yourself further.

Try to not embarrass yourself further. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If there is any embarrassing himself going on Hanoi COG wants to be the only one doing it. He hates the competition!

The Justice Department IS the President, nitwit. It's part of the executive branch. Gawd. You are stupider than CBJ7.

No. the President is NOT REQUIRED to enforce ANY law s/he doesn't want to. It's called "separation of powers". Look it up. The President DOES have to uphold, preserve and protect the Constitution. That is a different duty specifically imposed on President by the Constitution, but the Constitution does not require the President to enforce laws passed by Congress, and signed by him/her, or any previous President.

Now, when the Senate ratifies a treaty, the President must enforce that, because it is on par with the Constitution. That also is different from a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Enough civics for today. Read a book, or something. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Oh no shit ,you point out one thing then walk it back and say another .Stupid old dipshit