General Discussion

Blue_Tires

(57,596 posts)

65. The senate could take action themselves

Reply to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 03:00 PM

Jun 2014

instead of repeatedly kicking the ball back to the White House...

I'm not holding my breath, though...

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