|
Post by Iosa the Invincible on Dec 3, 2011 22:25:18 GMT -5
It passed the Senate, but the White House has threatened a veto, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Dec 3, 2011 22:40:19 GMT -5
Threatened? They only threatened to veto it? Ohh Obama, don't threaten on something like that, promise to veto it. Gaurantee you'll veto it. You don't just let bullshit like that happen. You veto it and deride the names of the people who tried to have it passed as being unamerican and possibly traitors.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 3, 2011 23:31:05 GMT -5
He said he would veto it. But there's no way to know what he'll do until it actually happens.
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Dec 4, 2011 15:20:48 GMT -5
He'd better fucking veto that shit!
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 4, 2011 22:08:35 GMT -5
If the whole thing manages to pass veto and become law, what kind of damage are we looking at before it gets overturned?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 4, 2011 22:20:56 GMT -5
Well, worst case scenario, the entire government devolves into a dictatorship.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Dec 4, 2011 22:25:56 GMT -5
If the whole thing manages to pass veto and become law, what kind of damage are we looking at before it gets overturned? That really depends on how ambitiously it gets used. It could range from none beyond the usual "those fucking Americans are at it again" condemnation from the rest of the world to "where did everyone that voted against this bill (and their families) go?" I would guess the ACLU would have injunction papers ready to be filed within minutes if it comes to pass.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 4, 2011 22:31:20 GMT -5
The problem comes in when the government decides to detain you in the middle of trying to challenge this bill. The fortunate thing is that the executive branch is under the President's jurisdiction, so if it does pass a Presidential Veto, said President still has good leverage to try & knock it down.
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Dec 5, 2011 2:23:43 GMT -5
The problem comes in when the government decides to detain you in the middle of trying to challenge this bill. The fortunate thing is that the executive branch is under the President's jurisdiction, so if it does pass a Presidential Veto, said President still has good leverage to try & knock it down. I'd kind of like to see Obama grow enough balls to pull a move out of Bush's playbook. Say - yeahhh... you guys got the bill passed, even over my veto but... what's thisss? An executive order that undoes everything you just passed? Opp! I think it is! It is! It's an executive order that undoes this entire law called EO XXXX - "Republicans are traitors, I don't have to sit here and listen to this shit"
|
|
|
Post by foolishwisdom on Dec 5, 2011 2:46:54 GMT -5
The problem comes in when the government decides to detain you in the middle of trying to challenge this bill. The fortunate thing is that the executive branch is under the President's jurisdiction, so if it does pass a Presidential Veto, said President still has good leverage to try & knock it down. I'd kind of like to see Obama grow enough balls to pull a move out of Bush's playbook. Say - yeahhh... you guys got the bill passed, even over my veto but... what's thisss? An executive order that undoes everything you just passed? Opp! I think it is! It is! It's an executive order that undoes this entire law called EO XXXX - "Republicans are traitors, I don't have to sit here and listen to this shit" I'd like to see him go Col. Potter from MASH on them. (Referring to his line at 1:30)
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Dec 5, 2011 9:47:31 GMT -5
The problem comes in when the government decides to detain you in the middle of trying to challenge this bill. The fortunate thing is that the executive branch is under the President's jurisdiction, so if it does pass a Presidential Veto, said President still has good leverage to try & knock it down. I'd kind of like to see Obama grow enough balls to pull a move out of Bush's playbook. Say - yeahhh... you guys got the bill passed, even over my veto but... what's thisss? An executive order that undoes everything you just passed? Opp! I think it is! It is! It's an executive order that undoes this entire law called EO XXXX - "Republicans are traitors, I don't have to sit here and listen to this shit" That would be awesome. Of course, it probably would not happen.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 5, 2011 14:53:20 GMT -5
It's also not terribly smart. It makes more sense to just fuck with any attempt to exploit the law until someone can successfully challenge it. Otherwise, someone will spin it as you trying to directly overthrow Congress. Executive orders are seldom viewed as a good thing at the time.
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 5, 2011 15:06:50 GMT -5
Hm. Is there a way to exploit this law in such a way to bring a rapid successful challenge to it, without doing too much real damage to the victim of the law? I mean, in order to get a decent challenge, you need someone with proper standinding, right? And that usually means someone has to be victimized first. But actually victimizing someone would be wrong.
I hate a lot of the standing crap. Just ‘cause it seems to me that you often have to wait until someone has actually been hurt. Everything’s Constitutional until the court says otherwise, and the court won’t say so until it is already too late for at least one unfortunate citizen.
|
|
|
Post by Her3tiK on Dec 5, 2011 15:28:26 GMT -5
Hm. Is there a way to exploit this law in such a way to bring a rapid successful challenge to it, without doing too much real damage to the victim of the law? I mean, in order to get a decent challenge, you need someone with proper standinding, right? And that usually means someone has to be victimized first. But actually victimizing someone would be wrong. I hate a lot of the standing crap. Just ‘cause it seems to me that you often have to wait until someone has actually been hurt. Everything’s Constitutional until the court says otherwise, and the court won’t say so until it is already too late for at least one unfortunate citizen. Indict Rush Limbaugh for being a terrorist. This law will disappear within the hour.
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 5, 2011 18:05:28 GMT -5
Hm. Is there a way to exploit this law in such a way to bring a rapid successful challenge to it, without doing too much real damage to the victim of the law? I mean, in order to get a decent challenge, you need someone with proper standinding, right? And that usually means someone has to be victimized first. But actually victimizing someone would be wrong. I hate a lot of the standing crap. Just ‘cause it seems to me that you often have to wait until someone has actually been hurt. Everything’s Constitutional until the court says otherwise, and the court won’t say so until it is already too late for at least one unfortunate citizen. Indict Rush Limbaugh for being a terrorist. This law will disappear within the hour. I could almost handle that. But I guess I’m just enough of an idealist to say even harming Rush Limbaugh for simple political expediency is wrong. Kicking him in the shins for being a big, fat, idiot, however…
|
|