General Discussion

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)

49. All the more reason to "dry in" the roof until Congress can be pressured to do it's job by us

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 02:20 PM

Jun 2014

and him.

If they refuse to do the job, the President should do whatever he can do to at least mitigate some of the damage. Unlike Republicans, I applaud his efforts to do so with his executive power in other areas where they have refused to act. His recent flurry of EOs were a good thing and not illegal as republicans are claiming. He should continue doing so, this is one area that he can do something and without even having to use an EO.

Don't you agree?

I apologize for my strained analogy and use of terms like "drying in" which is what we in construction and restoration work call the temporary measures used to cover areas of the roof that are damaged or only sheathed prior to being able to get a roof crew in to do the job properly, in my world, it makes sense.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

140 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Senators To Obama: Hey You Can End Bulk Phone Data Collection Today; Obama: Ha, Ha, Ha, Nope! [View all] KoKo Jun 2014 OP

I "hope" you didn't think any real "change" would come villager Jun 2014 #1

No change will happen until Section 215 is changed by Congress. That's the bottom line, and msanthrope Jun 2014 #10

Yes. He's shoving it back to congress who gave it away. Skidmore Jun 2014 #13

Exactly...he can't fix Congressional messes with EOs. Congress has to clean up 215, or this will msanthrope Jun 2014 #15

Wait billhicks76 Jun 2014 #125

The argument is about the interpretation of section 215 of the Patriot Act and whether JDPriestly Jun 2014 #56

+ 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!! WillyT Jun 2014 #107

Excellent post! Thank you! (nt) scarletwoman Jun 2014 #120

Bingo. blackspade Jun 2014 #131

full circle G_j Jun 2014 #139

What specific requirements in 215 are you discussing? TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #86

I Hate To Say This - But You Know What Can Happen..... global1 Jun 2014 #2

So, His ego and concern for what Republicans might say about him doesn't equal Dragonfli Jun 2014 #3

No...the Constitution says that 215 must be executed, unless and until Congress msanthrope Jun 2014 #11

You'll forgive me if I feel Mark Udall, Ron Wyden might know a bit more about government than you. Dragonfli Jun 2014 #16

Let me shock you with the suggestion that Politicians sometimes ask questions they msanthrope Jun 2014 #17

Still trying to pretend that the president's hands are merely tied, rather than woo me with science Jun 2014 #18

Thank you. pa28 Jun 2014 #22

he'd be such a good president - if only he was wasn't helpless! villager Jun 2014 #24

They should amend the Constitution to create some sort of "executive" position Dragonfli Jun 2014 #28

Use 215?? That's what Wyden and Udall are talking about, woo!! 215. Here's an idea, instead msanthrope Jun 2014 #26

Help me out... elias49 Jun 2014 #34

Oh lordy....look, here's a primer on how bills get passed..you know, things like the repeal of DADT msanthrope Jun 2014 #43

Bullshitter...you know what I'm talking about. elias49 Jun 2014 #70

Where did I do that? nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #79

#11 for example... elias49 Jun 2014 #82

Of course the Constitution says 215 must be executed!!!! Just as any law passed must be!! msanthrope Jun 2014 #99

Ah, no. The president and the DOJ can refuse to defend a law they deem unconstitutional MaggieD Jun 2014 #121

Your responses here are incoherent. woo me with science Jun 2014 #47

The letter acknowledges that the recently passed House bill does not stop data collection.... msanthrope Jun 2014 #54

Congress saying may is not the same as Congress saying must. Acting within one's discretion TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #88

You say this, "you are asking the President to go against the express wishes of Congress..." rhett o rick Jun 2014 #100

Well...the President indicated that he wishes to end the bulk collection msanthrope Jun 2014 #101

The President is asking for extensions that he isnt required to ask for. That's what the rhett o rick Jun 2014 #103

And there's the point of contention...is he required, under the duty to faithfully msanthrope Jun 2014 #108

That's all hogwash. The President is not required to ask for extensions. He yields his power rhett o rick Jun 2014 #116

No, the President needs legislation to change over to the new reformed system. Vattel Jun 2014 #109

If he wished to end it he wouldn't ask for another 90 day extension. cui bono Jun 2014 #118

I couldn't have said it better, Woo Aerows Jun 2014 #62

If you look at that reply, you see a clear contradiction in the wording. Rex Jun 2014 #73

K & R n/t TheJames Jun 2014 #27

You got it! Tip of iceberg--or rather glacier. ballyhoo Jun 2014 #38

k&r! Very well said woo! thanks! neverforget Jun 2014 #39

+1 NealK Jun 2014 #40

Thank you, excellently well put. Puzzledtraveller Jun 2014 #42

...^ that 840high Jun 2014 #48

I wish I could rec a post Aerows Jun 2014 #67

Please stay on topic, they did not "ask a question" of him. Dragonfli Jun 2014 #19

Thank you. The poster is trying to imply that there is a legal obligation to renew the court order, woo me with science Jun 2014 #20

Absurd is right "He can not protect the Constitution because the Constitution forbids it" Dragonfli Jun 2014 #25

2+2=5 woo me with science Jun 2014 #52

thank you for setting that poster straight questionseverything Jun 2014 #78

You do realize you aren't quoting the actual letter, right? And in the actual letter, which msanthrope Jun 2014 #31

If a roof is leaking, patching it until it can be repaired is advisable Dragonfli Jun 2014 #33

But the Senators admit that is contrary to the recently passed House bill. msanthrope Jun 2014 #41

All the more reason to "dry in" the roof until Congress can be pressured to do it's job by us Dragonfli Jun 2014 #49

Yeah...that would be great except our system of government doesn't allow the msanthrope Jun 2014 #55

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, I explained my position and have not been convinced Dragonfli Jun 2014 #59

This is just wrong MFrohike Jun 2014 #85

Actually...no....see my post 95 about congressional intent. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #96

Read the section MFrohike Jun 2014 #124

It's a doozie of a theory. woo me with science Jun 2014 #50

I agree, there are those that believe in and/or propagate that theory anyway Dragonfli Jun 2014 #60

Oh, never for once believed any of it. Rex Jun 2014 #74

More like you disagree Aerows Jun 2014 #66

A president who claims to have taught constitutional law should know that Section 215 as the JDPriestly Jun 2014 #61

You should read 215 MFrohike Jun 2014 #84

Presidents pick and choose which laws to enforce all the time Abq_Sarah Jun 2014 #112

Marijuana users in Colorado... NobodyHere Jun 2014 #122

+1000 Excellent Point nt tea and oranges Jun 2014 #46

So you're saying that Obama has no political courage to do the right thing? Maedhros Jun 2014 #6

He doesn't have the authority to override section 215. We kinda set up the Constitution msanthrope Jun 2014 #8

so Wyden and Udall and heinrich are lying? Doctor_J Jun 2014 #23

No....they admit they want the President to use a "patchwork" approach in the absence msanthrope Jun 2014 #32

They want the President to stop it Aerows Jun 2014 #71

the president has the power to stop it; he hasn't; they would like Doctor_J Jun 2014 #87

Um, no...see my post 95 for why he's done some modifications within his Executive msanthrope Jun 2014 #97

I don't think he has the ethics or the smarts Demeter Jun 2014 #69

It's not just that...section 215 is going to be with us until Congress gets off its msanthrope Jun 2014 #7

Sounds like putting short term tactical considerations over the very fabric of the Republic and TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #12

We Democrats need to stop giving Congress a pass. No change can or will happen unless msanthrope Jun 2014 #14

But he can sponsor christx30 Jun 2014 #30

Okay.....first of all, the Executive doesn't write laws. But I'm getting your msanthrope Jun 2014 #35

I present to you: christx30 Jun 2014 #51

Sigh.......that was when he was a Senator. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #57

What good is it doing right now? Aerows Jun 2014 #53

This is such an Obama move dirtydickcheney Jun 2014 #4

Well...how would you override Section 215? Provide cites, please. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #9

with an executive order Doctor_J Jun 2014 #89

EOs don't override statutes. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #91

Obama would be in perfect compliance with sec 215 if they did not AngryAmish Jun 2014 #90

who sent you that pm? Doctor_J Jun 2014 #93

Alas, that poster seems to have left our noble site AngryAmish Jun 2014 #102

Well...the President has already directed the DOJ to modify to the extent msanthrope Jun 2014 #95

Somewhere in your word salad I will try to find your point. AngryAmish Jun 2014 #106

Clapper is correct...as Congress hasn't gotten off its ass and passed anything, msanthrope Jun 2014 #5

Looks like Clapper is speaking for him on the issue. pa28 Jun 2014 #21

After the election. nt valerief Jun 2014 #29

Haha! Not if HRC is in the White House! nt elias49 Jun 2014 #37

The national security state needs the information on its citizens, some of whom are obvious enemies. Octafish Jun 2014 #36

Yep and that is what his daily criers are trying hard to make us forget that. Rex Jun 2014 #75

K&R NealK Jun 2014 #44

I like the fact that the approval had to be declassified. malthaussen Jun 2014 #45

Clapper declassified it, looks like. Makes you wonder why. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #58

I wonder why Clapper is still employed Aerows Jun 2014 #63

Because much like Cheney he is above the laws meant only for us peons. Dragonfli Jun 2014 #64

Above the law, like so many of the other PTB. Rex Jun 2014 #76

Indeed....I think Issa and Sensenbrenner and Paul want him prosecuted. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #80

Add me to that list. Aerows Jun 2014 #81

Thought that was interesting also that Clapper put out the "declassified." KoKo Jun 2014 #104

The senate could take action themselves Blue_Tires Jun 2014 #65

Yes they could and they should, but in the meantime any action would be helpful Dragonfli Jun 2014 #68

It has to be perfect. Aerows Jun 2014 #83

Since the good is the enemy of the perfect and the perfect is the enemy of the good Dragonfli Jun 2014 #92

No...it has to be constitutional. It's like the DADT repeal...sometimes Congress has to clean msanthrope Jun 2014 #98

LOL! Aerows Jun 2014 #110

Not just any golden shovel... Dragonfli Jun 2014 #114

"The perfect is the enemy of the good" Aerows Jun 2014 #72

Any chance to continue with TIA, even with lame excuses. Rex Jun 2014 #77

yes, that's what got us permanent health insurance mandates, for which the Doctor_J Jun 2014 #94

K & R !!! WillyT Jun 2014 #105

It would be much better to have Congressional action struggle4progress Jun 2014 #111

At least humbled_opinion Jun 2014 #113

Transparent? Dragonfli Jun 2014 #115

Yes in comparison humbled_opinion Jun 2014 #137

No I do not /nt Dragonfli Jun 2014 #138

So just to be sure I understand humbled_opinion Jun 2014 #140

Thanks KoKo and others who responded, we'll have saidsimplesimon Jun 2014 #117

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Jun 2014 #119

The White House is just doing what it wants to do. blkmusclmachine Jun 2014 #123

Personally, I don't think the White House has much say in the matter AngryAmish Jun 2014 #129

Repeal the authorizations bl968 Jun 2014 #126

I say repeal the whole damn Patriot Act ReRe Jun 2014 #127

yup. n/t PowerToThePeople Jun 2014 #136

I'd rather see repeal of the Patriot Act in it's entirety. TBF Jun 2014 #128

More of the same..... blackspade Jun 2014 #130

kick woo me with science Jun 2014 #132

kick woo me with science Jun 2014 #133

kick woo me with science Jun 2014 #134

There is certainly nothing requiring Obama to seek the extension dreamnightwind Jun 2014 #135