Court: NRC In Violation For Not Ruling On Yucca Mountain

schwit1 sends this quote from an AP report: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] to complete the licensing process and approve or reject the Energy Department's application for a never-completed waste storage site at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. In a sharply worded opinion, the court said the nuclear agency was 'simply flouting the law' when it allowed the Obama administration to continue plans to close the proposed waste site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The action goes against a federal law designating Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository. 'The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections,' Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a majority opinion (PDF), which was joined Judge A. Raymond Randolph. Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland dissented. The appeals court said the case has important implications for the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. 'It is no overstatement to say that our constitutional system of separation of powers would be significantly altered if we were to allow executive and independent agencies to disregard federal law in the manner asserted in this case by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,' Kavanaugh wrote. 'The commission is simply defying a law enacted by Congress ... without any legal basis.'"

Comments

Yet another anti-Obama article

[mi]

What's wrong with you, people? How could over a half of you be so wrong less than a year ago?

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

If the supreme court wants to keep Yucca Mountain running, they can head out to Nevada and run it themselves!

Re: Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking to State Department personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Brasilia, Brazil, on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that "this little thing called the Internet ... makes it much harder to govern."

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[bondsbw]

The checks and balances in our government are what stands between a successful government of the people and a dictatorship. What powers you give Obama today, or gave Bush yesterday, may be in the hands of a form of Hitler tomorrow.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the alternative was Mitt Romney?

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

No,

I think it has broader application.

Such as the potential court rulings in the future regarding certain patriotic network connectivity and the collection of data, which were a result from a flouting of the law by various branches of power.

This is an example to use in order to keep the powers that be, to be beholdened to the powers they were granted.

This is an assertion of an important check, to balance the power as it should be.

It does not matter if it is Obama or someone else -- this can set a precedent that the courts will hold those responsible... responsible.\

Captcha: suckling

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Immerman]

What makes you think they were wrong? The choice offered us by the political machine was between an obvious sellout, and an obvious sellout who's also a raving misogynistic looney that's utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living. I've met very few people who voted for Obama the second time around, but many, many who voted against Romney. When I'm feeling cynical it almost looks like the Republican party intentionally took a dive. And who could blame them - lots of old vultures coming home to roost - it looks much better for the Rs if a D happens to be in the oval office at the time.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[reboot246]

'The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections,' Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a majority opinion (PDF), which was joined Judge A. Raymond Randolph.

That's all this president has been doing since he's been in office. He ignores the parts of the law he doesn't agree with and rigorously enforces the parts he does agree with. That's why nobody will trust him on comprehensive immigration reform -- he'll just waive the parts of the law he doesn't like. You can't deal with a man like that. Imagine that! An un-American, law-breaking, lying president. Ah, ye fools!

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that people aren't really thinking about when they read this is the bigger picture of certain things like his failure to uphold DoMA, or failure to properly enforce the federal immigration laws by letting illegal aliens out of the jails and back onto the streets instead of shipping them back to their countries of origin, or the most recent debaucle about Obamacare business mandate being delayed a year but individual not.

Obama and his administration does not have the right or the authority to selectively enforce the law. He is the chief executive officer, the top "lawman" of the country, and he is bound by the law as much as anyone else is, he's not above it.

So that means, Obamacare must be enforced AS IT IS WRITTEN, the government cannot ignore laws that are inconvenient to the agenda. The government has laws and regulations they must follow as they are enacted.

Are we a nation of men or are we a nation of laws?

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

Big question is how it was OK when Bush did it with his unitary executive powers to do whatever the fuck he wanted up to and including signing the Detainee Treatment Act with a signing statement of "Will not obey and you can't make me." (btw, before you go wah wah consitution like Bush did, the Constitution specifically puts regulation of the military in Congress's hands, incluing the UCMJ and what would be considered violations thereof). But now suddenly the president has make sure the law is faithfully executed as if he had some sort of oath to do so.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to remember a half-dozen other names on my ballot.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Qzukk]

Are we a nation of men or are we a nation of laws?

Ford's words said "laws", his actions said "men" and we've been going downhill since.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[mcgrew]

Nuclear waste? Is Yucca Mountain pronounced "yucky?"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

(BTW, if I had points you'd get one. +5, nail on head)

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[peragrin]

that is what is happening.

over the last dozen or so administrations each has taken a little more power and then a little more. frequently flouting the law and not caring about conseqnuesnces unless it blows up in their faces, and then they do the absolutely least amount to make it go away.

For obama it is the NSA spying program. Obama wants to add checks and balances by letting the NSA monitor themselves monitoring every citizen without warrant or reason.

Bush said torture was not only legal, but expanded Gitmo to house people who he thought didn't deserve the rule of law.

Clinton, created and pushed through the DCMA.

Bush senoir basically covered his tracks while he was VP.

Reagan sold chemical weapons to Saddam. Who used them.

Carter was just a pussy.

Ford was a fill in

Nixon um watergate anyone

Johnson, Vietnam isn't a war it was never declared as such by Congress. Vietnam was a police action.

Kennedy? well he slept with more women(and better looking ones) than clinton did.

Eisnhowser? probably the last decent president we had. it is too bad no bothered listening to his warnings on military industrial complex taking over.

Truman? he nuked a country twice.(for a good reason Japan would not have go down easily)

Roosevelt? he was the first and only president to be elected 3 times breaking the tradition since Washington of only two terms. and he created the Executive office of the Presidency.

Re: Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

he really meant... makes it harder to CONTROL.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[easyTree]

The checks and balances in our government are what stands between a successful government of the people and a dictatorship.

/me slaps you around the head with a trout. "Wake up dude". In what sense do you have a democracy? Really?

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[mi]

an obvious sellout who's also a raving misogynistic looney that's utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living

I don't think, either of the major candidates last year were misogynists. Both had lovely families — and full backing of their wives. Romney's wife, in particular, did not even have her own political ambition as an incentive to appear backing her husband.

There was nothing "loony" about either candidate, but Mitt Romney would've followed the law in question — and done a number of other things right by now...

utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living.

I'm confused here... I thought, your wrath was directed at Romney — who did work for his living before becoming a politician — but now you appear to be angry at Obama, who moved into politics straight out of college and whose biggest Executive position before Presidency was running a (failed) small-time charity...

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[X-Ray Artist]

Some people just don't get that concept. Some people do get that concept but just don't care. Some people get that concept and care but feel helpless to do anything about it. Some people get that concept, care, feel capable of doing something about it but become part of the problem. I hope that we don't give away so much that we cannot bring back the balance peacefully.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[bondsbw]

Thank you so much for teaching me to think for myself. As a result, I will always follow your words and never stray.

Besides, you are so correct, oh wise Internet sage. Who cares that we are talking about a potential madman controlling the most powerful nation in the history of the world. I should never compare such a thing to Hitler.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[mi]

expanded Gitmo to house people who he thought didn't deserve the rule of law.

There are only two alternatives to detaining prisoners in Gitmo:

1. release them to go free;
2. kill them on the spot.

Guess, which of the two Obama has chosen to expedite closing of the camp? All things considered, I prefer Bush's approach — it is far less bloody.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[bondsbw]

I chose my words wisely. You quoted my words wrongly.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[CrimsonAvenger]

Roosevelt? he was the first and only president to be elected 3 times breaking the tradition since Washington of only two terms.

Four times (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944). He died early in his fourth term, leaving Truman (whom he disliked so much that the existence of the A-Bomb came as a surprise to Truman after he became President) in charge.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[ShanghaiBill]

In what sense do you have a democracy?

We have a democracy in the sense that we hold elections to choose our leaders. Just because you don't like the outcome of those elections doesn't make them invalid. I voted for Gary Johnson. He didn't win. That isn't because the "system is rigged", but rather because very few people share my viewpoint. You should get out of the basement and talk to real people. Most of them are pretty happy with Obama.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[qeveren]

I'm pretty sure one could try them in civilian courts, considering 'terrorism' is a criminal act, not an act of war. But that would be hideously inconvenient, considering how many of them ended up there.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[qeveren]

I'd love to see the corollary to Godwin's Law that says anything about "You're stupid and you lose all debates for ever."

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally, after the war is over, the prisoners get to go home.
This is all because we never intend to end this war, not until the money runs out at least.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[mi]

I'm pretty sure one could try them in civilian courts, considering 'terrorism' is a criminal act, not an act of war. But that would be hideously inconvenient, considering how many of them ended up there.

Not just inconvenient — impossible: we don't even have jurisdiction in most of those cases. Consider pirates for another — less politically-charged — example... Whenever NATO captures them — off the coast of Somalia, primarily — they are let go...

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[mi]

Generally, after the war is over, the prisoners get to go home.

That's only true about Prisoners of War — and we did release all of the captured Iraqi soldiers shortly after the invasion succeeded in 2003, for example. The detainees in Gitmo don't qualify as Prisoners of War however:

• they did not have uniforms nor other obvious markings;
• they weren't part of a chain-of-command responsible for their actions;
• most did not carry their arms openly

.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[rahvin112]

Maybe you should step off your partisan rant and realize GW Bush started the whole signing statement craze where he would basically rewrite the law with his signing statement. Obama is continuing his tradition just as every president continues the expansion of powers of the previous administration even if they campaigned against said powers.

So the question is when Bush was signing bills and saying he interpreted the law to mean exactly the opposite of what the law said were you as up in arms about it as you are with Obama? Because from what I've seen, while I abhor what Obama is doing by ignoring these laws, he's not doing it nearly as often as Bush and almost everyone I met railing against Obama fully supported Bush when he did exactly the same thing. Personally I think they are both full of shit.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[infinitelink]

Erhm, uhm...Presidents have the power to ignore laws they...find unconstitutional. Of course to Obama that means "anything that doesn't accord with my form of relatively-recent progressivism", so he hasn't a leg to stand upon.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[lgw]

In theory, Gitmo is for enemy combatants, not terrorists. Or at least that's how it started.

You really don't want to go down the path of civil trials for enemy combatants. Being an enemy soldier and firing at US troops is not illegal, nor is flying a bomber over a US city and dropping bombs on civilians. Doing so without being in uniform violates every treaty governing war for the past 400 year or so, but it's only the "not in uniform" part that's illegal. A downed enemy bomber pilot should be released at the end of the war, not executed for mass murder.

But in 2011 yet another incremental power grab (Obama's in this case, but it's not like the pattern is new) extended "covered persons" (those for which military justice is appropriate) to members of terrorist groups and people giving assistance to them. That crosses the bright line separation between "enemy soldier (in uniform or otherwise)" and "just some guy opposed to the US". For the former to apply to a US citizen, he has to fly to Afghanistan and point a rifle at a US uniform - really hard to abuse to go after local political opponents. The later can be stretched to apply to just about anyone, by submitting "evidence" to the secret courts where there's no defense present.

I have no problem with having P.O.W. camps when we're fighting, whether or not war was officially declared. But to effectively convict someone who clearly isn't an enemy soldier of treason without a trial? That's Star Chamber nonsense right there, the exact sort of thing we had a revolution to get away from.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[khellendros1984]

We have a simple shorthand for "monstrous dictator that everyone will recognize." It's silly not to use that shorthand when it's convenient, and Godwin's law doesn't really apply if you're just using Hitler as a placeholder for a malevolent ruler.

a person who cannot construct a thought without referencing Hitler is seriously deficient.

I'd argue that anyone who immediately eschews tools that are available to them based on the opinions of someone on the Internet is "seriously deficient". I can couch my meaning in more obscure references...but why bother? Doing unnecessary work is counter-productive.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[interval1066]

...supreme court...can head out to Nevada and run it themselves!

Not their job. The Administration, as the Executive Branch, of the Gov., needs to, you know, do their job of EXECUTING law that the Legislative branch, you know, Congress, the people who MAKE THE LAW, create.

We've never been any further from a representitive government and closer to rule by decree than now.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously because I've been modding in this thread.

> Big question is how it was OK when Bush did it

I don't know why I bother, but I'll try one more time. As your grandma used to say: two wrongs don't make a right. For the record, there were plenty of people (on both the left and right) who were screaming bloody murder during the Bush administration. One of the talk show hosts on one of our (otherwise quite-conservative) stations devoted an entire week to ranting about the Patriot Act and Guantanamo.

You can't even see that this is the problem: it's not Dem vs. Repub anymore. It's a runaway Federal government that has entirely too much power. BOTH parties are guilty. Until we enact term limits and get some fresh blood up in Washington, it will continue, too.

-- Stephen

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Myopic]

"We've never been any further from a representitive government and closer to rule by decree than now."

1863

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider pirates for another - less politically-charged - example... Whenever NATO captures them - off the coast of Somalia, primarily - they are let go...

I seem to recall reading that piracy (the sea-going kind) is technically still a hanging offense.

Of course the news would have a field day if a NATO or US vessel hanged someone.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Myopic]

Bush's foreign policy resulted in a quarter million dead Iraqis, plus a rounding error of Americans. Obama isn't exactly a pacifist, but he is compared to Bush. It's untenable to say that Bush's approach was less bloody.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[currently_awake]

Soldiers get put in prisoner of war camps till the end of fighting, if they do illegal stuff they get a military trial. Civilians get arrested by police and tried by a civilian court. Now Obama just has to choose what side of that line to put the Gitmo detainees on. Or he could just make up some crazy new status called unlawful combatant and make up new rules for them. But that would be illegal.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[phantomfive]

Yes, you explain exactly why, if a person can only think in broad strokes, without any deep understanding, they use Hitler as an example.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Mashiki]

The difference between 1863 and now: Obama has actually tried to rule by decree 4 times, and each time was slapped down by the supreme court as in each instance they were "a clear abuse of power."

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we a nation of men or are we a nation of laws?

I pray for the former.

A man you can deal with. He can be a flawed and mistaken individual like the rest of us. The Law? Too often treated as a sacred and unchallengeable object of such stellar repute not a single word you can say against it.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[techno-vampire]

There's a reason Godwin's law exists, a person who cannot construct a thought without referencing Hitler is seriously deficient.

But that's not what Goodwin's Law says. As originally formulated, it only said that if a discussion went on long enough, somebody would mention Hitler or the nazis. Now, of course, there's a corollary that says that anybody who makes a gratuitous mention of them or calls their opponent a nazi has lost the argument. However, simply mentioning him, especially in a context where such a mention is relevant as it was here, doesn't invoke Godwin.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

What powers you give Obama today, or gave Bush yesterday, may be in the hands of a form of Hitler tomorrow.

There's a reason Godwin's law exists, a person who cannot construct a thought without referencing Hitler is seriously deficient. Try to think of a different historical example, to show you can think.

How to fix this to avoid Godwin's law:

"What powers you give Obama today, or gave bush yesterday, may be in the hands of a form of Vlad the Impaler tomorrow."

It's so simple. Use your creative powers wisely.

That's ridiculous. Using Hitler in this context is perfectly valid, even appropriate, since Hitler attained dictatorial control quasi-legally. Using a lesser known tyrant just to avoid Godwin's law is silly.

Deficient is the mind of the man or woman who must rigidly follow the rules with no consideration as to their meaning or intent.

Re: Yet another anti-Obama article

[JWW]

"this little thing called the Internet ... makes it much harder to govern."

My heart feels for the poor politicians that are having so much of a problem with people having a medium that provides them a voice.

Or maybe it could be that they're doing their "governing" wrong....

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[interval1066]

If you're referring to the emancipation proclamation that was passed by a slim margin in congress. Now lets's examine the "Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2012"...

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[slick7]

The checks and balances in our government are what stands between a successful government of the people and a dictatorship. What powers you give Obama today, or gave Bush yesterday, may be in the hands of a form of Hitler tomorrow.

The checks are what the taxpayers write against hard earned money and the balance is so out of control brought to you by your local CONgressMAN.

As for tomorrow's Hitler, vote for Jeb Bush and get what you deserve.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[The Grim Reefer]

Roosevelt? he was the first and only president to be elected 3 times

He was also the only president to be elected 4 times. He died early in his fourth term as president. He also imprisoned more than 100,000 Japanese Americans by executive order. Showed a complete disregard for the Constitution with his handling of the supreme court when it struck down several New Deal programs.

Truman? he nuked a country twice.(for a good reason Japan would not have go down easily)

Don't forget the Korean War.

Eisnhowser? probably the last decent president we had. it is too bad no bothered listening to his warnings on military industrial complex taking over.

Agreed. My only issue with Ike was his handling of Iran. Putting the Shah back in power over the democratically elected government was the only issue I have with his presidency.

Kennedy? well he slept with more women(and better looking ones) than clinton did.

I find that trivial compared to almost starting a nuclear war.

Nixon um watergate anyone

Would he even have been in any real trouble today over that? Hell, we probably would have had universal healthcare if Watergate hadn't happened. He was still a batshit crazy person though.

Ford was a fill in

Sort of. I've always admired him for basically throwing away his political career for the good of the country. We were so bogged down with Watergate that the country was practically paralyzed. by pardoning Nixon we were able to move on with life. But it flushed his chance to be elected.

FDR was probably the biggest single power grab in recent history until Bush Jr. But there were others before that too. It's just that in the past there have been presidents that at least tried to set things right. That doesn't seem to be happening right now though.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

Under the Geneva conventions, illegal combatants (spies, non-uniformed combatants, terrorists, call them what you want) do not have any rights. Period. Might want to know WTF you are talking about before you go posting nonsense. Illegal combatants only right is to be tried by a military court and executed. This is what we did with the Axis spies and saboteurs that we caught during WW2 and the same rules still apply to terrorists today.

The whole concept of trying enemy combatants in criminal courts is pure insanity propagated by willingly ignorant people in the US and around the world. The idea of expending the resources and process needed to convict in a criminal court on every enemy combatant is a huge waste and completely unnecessary. These people were captured in the commission of their crime and the Geneva conventions say they get executed for it. If you don't want to be executed, don't try to kill American soldiers.

Obama was a limp noodle on this issue too, until he got elected and realized that there are a lot of really evil people in the world who want to kill because they have been twisted by their leaders, society, religion, whatever. He has since been much more violent at killing terrorists using drones than Bush ever was, which is fine, but causes us to lose out on intelligence opportunities. And before you cry about collateral casualties, let me remind you that in WW2, we intentionally fire bombed Tokyo, killing over 500,000 civilians, and we did much the same to Germany. At the end of the day, war is a terrible thing, but when a group of people come to kill your family and destroy your way of life, you have to kill them or let them kill you.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[The Grim Reefer]

In what sense do you have a democracy?

You should get out of the basement and talk to real people. Most of them are pretty happy with Obama.

Most people I speak to that are outside the US see to agree with you. However I've found very few in the US who are happy with him these days.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[WGFCrafty]

Citation

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[WGFCrafty]

Clone Hitler!

Neo-Nazi embryologist found the piece of his skull.

Or

Actual Hitler!
His suicide before the battle of Berlin was a ruse, and VonBraun actually had a pact with aliens (like that Star Trek) which ferried Hitler, Eva and some other Aryan women to make a Nazi Hitler army! The first global television broadcast was Hitler's speech at the Berlin Olympics, maybe they liked what they saw?

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[swillden]

I call them Obushma, because for the life of me I can't see any significant difference between them.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

If the supreme court wants to keep Yucca Mountain running, they can head out to Nevada and run it themselves!

So similar to what Jackson said about the Trail of Tears. Wonder if Obama will be equally as reviled in 200 years.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[ganjadude]

hes already hated more than bush by many so probably he will be labeled one of the worst if not the worst president of the first 50 presidents.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

if they are not caught in america, they do not deserve the protections of the civilian courts. Im sorry but frankly they should all just be shot on sight. It sounds heartless but its better than keeping them locked up, taking troops away from real issues to babysit their little hunger strikes. My best friend is currently an MP there and if i could tell you the stories i am not suposed to know you guys would shit yourselves. But some of these guys are better taken care of than some americans who broke no laws! Posting AC for fear of my friend at gitmo

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[ganjadude]

bush jr powergrab was huge, but obama was bigger. in no time in history were americans MANDATED to buy a product until obama. What if we had a republican president who said all americans MUST buy a pistol and get training to use it? most democrats would be going apeshit,

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[ganjadude]

clearly you (and a large majority of posters all over the net) seem to not understand godwins law. To be clear godwin only means the longer a conversation goes, the more likely a hitler reference will be used.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[ganjadude]

thank you for the trout reference. I havent used an IRC script in forever that brought back memories

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[ganjadude]

I dont think its because most people dont share your viewpoint, i think it has more to do with media manipulation that tells the uneducated people that they have to choose between a giant doushe and a turd sandwhich, while laughing at anyone else who tries to run.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[ganjadude]

how does obama know what its like to work for a living? he never heald a real job in his life, he was senator for 7 months before he became president.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[ganjadude]

not the other poster but yes! I hated bush with a passion while he was president, I never thought we would see a president as bad and within 6 months i was proven not only wrong but we were stuck with a worse president.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Mashiki]

Not exactly difficult. Unless of course you're getting your news from the major networks.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[wonkey_monkey]

he never heald a real job in his life, he was senator for 7 months before he became president.

Was that right after he emerged fully formed from his birthing pod?

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[durrr]

"An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian or military personnel who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action; subject of course to international treaties on justice and human rights such as everyones right to a fair trial"

Unless your domnestic law states that people can lose all their rights(which is a slippery slope) then they have rights. By demonstration of several government organs, the US either can either convert any of their citizens to a rightless husk by law, or they simple ignore the law, neither of these are a very charming concept.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[serviscope_minor]

You can't deal with a man like that. Imagine that! An un-American, law-breaking, lying president. Ah, ye fools!

Since when is a law-breaking, lying president un-American?

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Gavagai80]

Many of them at gitmo were captured in the vicinity of someone who was committing a crime, or cooking food for someone committing a crime, or providing shelter for them. That is not the same thing.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[anyanka]

• most did not carry their arms openly

Yes, funnily enough, some of them didn't even carry arms at all. Which makes you correct in stating that they don't qualify as PoWs – they're *kidnapping victims*.

And then there is of course the whole matter of allegations vs something that might hold up a court of law (whether you're going to use one or not), and terrorism vs resistance.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[AmiMoJo]

Only countries can wage wars. Since the alleged terrorists are not part of any state military they are not soldiers.

Enemy combatant is a bullshit term invented by the US. Either they are criminals and should be tried in civilian courts, or they are a prisoners of war and should be treated as such (no torture, negotiation with the country whose military they are part of).

Since the latter option is obviously impossible, since they are not part of any military, only the former is available. The US doesn't want to go that route because it would reveal things about the US in court. Officially it is security related stuff that is supposed to be secret, but in reality it is evidence of torture and other human rights violations. The US is now in an almost impossible situation where if it releases anyone they will take legal action against them and publicize the ill treatment and injustice, so the only option is to detain them forever until they die. Or, in Obama's case, until the election when it becomes somebody else's problem.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Immerman]

> but Mitt Romney would've followed the law in question — and done a number of other things right by now...
[citation needed] Every candidate promises whatever his constituency wants to hear in order to get elected, but recent history suggests that while they will bang the drums for their "causes" so long as they're blocked by the "opposition" or are inconsequential to the machinations of the political machine, but suddenly have more important things to do if there's a chance they'll actually accomplish something actually meaningful for the populace.

>utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living.
Yes, Romney - the fellow who "knows what hard times are like" because he had to live off his stock dividends in college or whatever it was - the closest he's ever been to real work is executive positions where he tells others what to do. That in no way gives him a perspective on what it means to be a normal citizen of this country - hell he could have retired straight out of high school and still lived better than the vast majority of this nation's population.

As for misogynistic - I suppose I was referring mostly to his utterly one-dimensional perspective on abortions and female reproductive health.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that pretty much every president? I believe the quote goes "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Attila Dimedici]

So, you are perfectly happy that the rules are whatever the people in charge say they are today...and subject to change when that suits the interests of those in charge. I much prefer a nation of laws, where the rules are the same for everyone and change only when a process is followed that most people agree upon and that we can see the change coming.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you look at them, one is black, one is white.

Oh, you meant in policy, um, Obama claims to be doing (or trying to do) the right thing, while doing the wrong thing, whereas Bush passed himself off as too stupid to know the right thing from the wrong thing. Other than that... Obama is a better speaker... and um... yeah, got nothing.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Notabadguy]

I'm extremely conservative. Don't confuse that with Republican.

In the last election, I voted for Obama. I firmly believed, and still do that both candidates would follow approximately the same course in office. I disagree with that course, and realize that if a labeled "Republican" were in office doing what Obama is doing now, the Republican party would take the blame for it.

If either candidate is going to pursue an evil agenda, I would choose to put a Democrat into office to pursue it, in hopes that his evil agenda will push future opinion towards bringing a conservative candidate to the forefront.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[swillden]

Exactly.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[mi]

And then there is of course the whole matter of allegations vs something that might hold up a court of law (whether you're going to use one or not), and terrorism vs resistance.

You are absolutely right. Which brings us right back to where I pointed out, that the only two alternatives to detaining such alleged terrorists, are to either shoot them on the spot, or release them. And Obama — the Nobel Peace Prize winner — has picked the former option years ago.

If you were honest with yourself, you would've written a personal apology letter to George W. Bush by now...

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

Being an enemy soldier and firing at US troops is not illegal, nor is flying a bomber over a US city and dropping bombs on civilians.

Um, murder IS illegal. So is causing property damage. You excuse that it's perfectly fine during 'war' is bullshit.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[lgw]

Maybe try reading the post you're replying to next time? You seem to be using very harsh language in agreeing with me, and that adds little to the discussion.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[lgw]

Only countries can wage wars. Since the alleged terrorists are not part of any state military they are not soldiers.

Enemy combatant is a bullshit term invented by the US. Either they are criminals and should be tried in civilian courts, or they are a prisoners of war and should be treated as such (no torture, negotiation with the country whose military they are part of).

Not to sound insulting, but you're simply ignorant of centuries of treaty law, tradition, and general agreement on how to fight wars as morally as it is practical to do.

There are three categories, not two. There have been for many, many centuries. There are soldiers, there are civilians, and there are brigands and pirates. There is no legal tolerance for brigands and pirates: those who wage war without ties to a civil state, current, former, or wannabe, are the worst sort of menace, and it has always been acceptable to kill captured brigands and pirates out of hand, or do whatever you want with them as an object lesson to others.

There is very good reason for this historically. But what really matters here is the single most important military invention is history for the protection of civilians: the uniform. Since the concept of the military uniform became widely accepted a few hundred years ago, it became a key part of not being a brigand. You have to distinguish yourselves from civilians, not hide behind them. You have to have a recognized chain of command up to some civil authority who can stop the violence, either by surrender or by accepting the surrender of his opponents. Heck, there are historical cases of groups that started as brigands or pirates who became accepted as political powers by following those rules.

There's obviously a downside to wearing a uniform, and so there this very strong incentive to do so: if you want to be treated as a P.O. W. when captured, not as a dangerous animal, you follow the most basic rules that protect civilians.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[dywolf]

Only countries can wage wars.

that is a truly ignorant statement.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[dywolf]

ignorance. you has it.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[dywolf]

to be fair jfk didnt almost start a nuclear war, even though that could have resulted fromt eh confrontation. if it had started, the blame would lie with the cubans and soviets. sending a bunch of missiles to cuba and pointing them at the US kinda puts the blame for any conflict on them. when a guy is on your doorstep threatening you, you dont generally get hte blame for the ensuing fight when you tell him to backoff.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

If the requirement to buy a pistol were a result of the government actualization of "the militia" (as defined by the US Constitution and other US laws), then the law would be both constitutional and in line with previous US law. However, that probably isn't going to happen unless an invasion of our country is imminent.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[dywolf]

One thing that people aren't really thinking about when they read this is the bigger picture of certain things like his failure to uphold DoMA,

the president is not required to uphold an unconstitutional law, especially while that law is currently under judicial review. in fact its quite illegal to do so, and any such enforcement is typically postponed until the legal question is settled.

or failure to properly enforce the federal immigration laws by letting illegal aliens out of the jails and back onto the streets instead of shipping them back to their countries of origin,

actually he's deported more illegal aliens in his first four years of office than any other president in history, including all 2 term presidents, and continues to do so at the same rate. soon he'll have deported more than any 2 other president's combined, or more than in the past 20 years. choosing to prioritize enforcement (ie: criminals and people deported 1 or more times previously get higher priority than kids born here living normal lives) is not illegal and actually makes quite a lot of sense.

So that means, Obamacare must be enforced AS IT IS WRITTEN, the government cannot ignore laws that are inconvenient to the agenda. The government has laws and regulations they must follow as they are enacted.

if something isnt ready, it isnt ready. its like legistlating PI to be 3.14....you can "law" all you want, but you legislate reality into being. and the president does actually have the ability to selectively enforce the law, due to the simple fact that resources are limited, and by their very nature some things are more important than others, and thus prioritizing those things about others is perfectly rational.

what isnt rational is ignoring reality and facts which is what you are doing.

Re: Yet another anti-Obama article

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

George W: "if this were a dictatorship it'd be a hell of a lot easier, as long as I'm the dictator"

I don't begrudge him saying that as I understand the spirit it in which was said. Same for Kerry's quote you have there. I'm pretty sure both realize that the way it is now is the best way.

McCain: "If I were dictator, which I always aspire to be, I would write it a little bit differently."

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[The Grim Reefer]

to be fair jfk didnt almost start a nuclear war, even though that could have resulted fromt eh confrontation. if it had started, the blame would lie with the cubans and soviets. sending a bunch of missiles to cuba and pointing them at the US kinda puts the blame for any conflict on them. when a guy is on your doorstep threatening you, you dont generally get hte blame for the ensuing fight when you tell him to backoff.

You mean like the 15 Jupiter missiles that went active in November 1961 in Turkey? Perhaps if he had made a real effort to take over Cuba during the Bay of Pigs fiasco (in April 1961) instead of a half-assed attempt; or didn't invade at all it wouldn't have happened. Or not tried to kill Castro. Yeah, I'd say he deserves plenty of blame.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Disagree. Supreme Court said it's effectively a tax. We're "mandated" to pay tax for lots of things that we either consume individually and/or help the public good.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's that link go, goatse? This isn't twitter, you twit.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Rakarra]

There is nothing more common on Slashdot today than someone misinterpreting Godwin's Law.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[ganjadude]

ok so...then obama lied about not hitting people with new taxes. (he calls it a fee still)

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[mi]

That in no way gives him a perspective on what it means to be a normal citizen of this country

Obama has even less of such perspective. Born in Hawaii (if not Kenya :), growing up in Indonesia, going from law-school to work for a charity and then into politics.

hell he could have retired straight out of high school and still lived better than the vast majority of this nation's population.

But he did not retire. By the time he inherited his father's wealth, he was had enough of his own to donate the entire inheritance to charity... That's quite remarkable — Joe Biden's father, for example, pissed his inheritance. And Joe Biden himself is worth less today, than he owes to various creditors.

Your disdain for managers is quite telling — and stupid. "Tells others what to do" is a very good description of what a President is doing every day — and Romney has a pretty good resume showing, he can do that rather well. Both as a head of private companies and of Executive government. Obama, on the other hand, had not been an executive of anything until becoming President. No, scratch that, he did run a small charity in Chicago — which failed.

That is, what's making me state, that Romney would've been far more likely to accomplish, what he wanted and promised to accomplish by now.

As for misogynistic - I suppose I was referring mostly to his utterly one-dimensional perspective on abortions and female reproductive health.

Abortions are a red-herring. They really don't matter. Much as I don't want it to become illegal, even if it ever does, I'll be able to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure. Unless, that is, obamas and pelosis are allowed to keep running the country into ground (under NSA's careful oversight), in which case, having a 24x7 abortion clinic (free — just bring your own blanket) next door will be of very little consolation.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[WGFCrafty]

Yeah.

Well that seems to be because Obama keeps arguing crazy shit:

http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2013/07/obama-overreach-slapped-down-by-9-0.html

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Immerman]

Oh I have no problem with managers per-se, - I just believe they should have some experience working on the factory floor so they know what they're actually asking of people. I just don't trust someone who has never in their life experienced even a hint of poverty to run a country with consideration for a population where roughly 1 in 4 people is unemployed or underemployed. Romney is modern nobility through and through, and history strongly reinforces the idea that the nobility run things for the benefit of the nobility - "they wouldn't call them human resources if they weren't meant to be strip-mined."

As for abortions - that's great for your daughter. But a massive slice of the population is struggling just to get by, and a trip to Canada will be phenomenally difficult if not impossible for them - but hey, you got yours so who cares about them?. Never mind that it's the same portion of the population that has the least access to other recreational activities, and will be hurt the worst by having an unwanted child. And that those children will mostly grow up to expand the ranks of the next generation of people who are basically a burden upon the social system.

That is exactly the mentality that makes me deeply suspicious of any leader who has never in his life even been friends with people who earn their living by the sweat of their brow and know what it's like to make painful sacrifices on a regular basis for the sake of their future and/or their children.

> By the time he inherited his father's wealth, he was had enough of his own to donate the entire inheritance to charity
Yes, that's nothing to sneeze at, but lets not pretend he didn't leverage his father's wealth and connections to get started. And IIRC he made most of his money by leaving a trail of gutted and collapsing companies behind him - definitely *not* what I want for my nation.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[mi]

Oh I have no problem with managers per-se, - I just believe they should have some experience working on the factory floor so they know what they're actually asking of people

There is a good reason, most of the military officers have never been enlisted men. Being a good worker and a good manager are completely different things...

I just don't trust someone who has never in their life experienced even a hint of poverty to run a country with consideration for a population where roughly 1 in 4 people is unemployed or underemployed.

Trust? If anything, I'd trust a politician like Romney or Bloomberg — who became independently wealthy before entering politics — than the guys like Obama, who became rich as a result of being politicians. Do you honestly and sincerely believe, Michelle Obama would've obtained the position with $273k annual salary in Chicago hospitals-system, if her husband weren't a US Senator by then?

Just what makes you trust Obama? He never worked on a factory floor either, nor successfully managed anything of note, nor ever created anything other people were willing to pay their own money for.

His governing for four years was a nightmare — or should've been, if you were paying attention. He turned Bush's detentions of alleged terrorists into killings of the same people. TSA's abuse of travelers blossomed, as did NSA's surveillance. IRS is used to suppress oppostion — under Obama's direction. You may not consider Obamacare to be bad, but it is poised to fail — was designed to fail — which is very likely to lead to a renewed push for "single-payer" setup giving the government complete and utter control of our health. Whereas calls to kill Bush were brushed off as an exercise of free speech (though such calls are felonies, strictly speaking), mere mocking of the President today can cost a person their career and livelihood. Foreigners still dislike us, while the unemployment figures remain far above, what Democrats themselves condemned as "jobless recovery" only a few years earlier.

And you willingly ignored all of that because of Romney's personal views (which he was not even promising his supporters to turn into policy) on a freaking abortion? Wow...

Romney is modern nobility through and through

I bet, you supported Al Gore despite these reasons... I have no problems with nobility rising from the merchant and industrialist class. Their ancestors made their wealth be creating and selling things, that other people wanted to buy — not through warfare or even politics. I'll take that nobility over a fatherless child of an ignoble philanderer, who traveled around the world "marrying" local comfort women and siring children with them only to divorce them a few years later without bothering about the kids' welfare or upbringing.

As for abortions - that's great for your daughter. But a massive slice of the population is struggling just to get by

And that is exactly my point. Personal wealth — which Romney's government would've be

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Myopic]

I'm not exactly a student of history, but I would focus more on the suspension of habeas corpus. But yeah, "taking the property" of slave owners counts, too. Sometimes the world is made better when Presidents lead with strength against bad laws -- but not always.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Myopic]

Only four times? It's a lot more than four times, man. Presidents "rule by decree" all the time! This President is no different than others in that regard. And Lincoln certainly made more, more important, more egregious decrees than Obama.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Immerman]

What makes you think I trust Obama? I'm absolutely certain he's sold out. I'm also absolutely certain Romney has. They both made it into and past the primaries, you don't do that without heavy backing from all the wrong people. So the question is who do I want in the oval office - a lapdog to the rich and powerful whose actions may be moderated by memories of family hardships, or a petty noble that apparently has aspirations of joining the ranks of the truly powerful himself?

As for the debacle of the last several years - I suspect most of them would have happened regardless. These stink of actions of powerful people making a grab for power - short of declaring himself emperor the presidency itself is a fairly castrated position without lots of backing from lots of corners. Bush Jr. spearheaded a major play in that direction - Obama kept following the same script, and I fully expect whoever comes next to keep right on going. If they aren't trusted to follow the script then we'll never even hear of them come primary season.

> Personal wealth — which Romney's government would've been far more likely to ensure to a larger number of people
I call bullshit on this. That may have been his talking point, but the sustained attack on the middle and lower classes has been growing more aggressive for decades, and the Republicans have been spearheading it even more strongly than the democrats. Lower taxes on corporations and the rich, and fewer regulations to limit the ways in which they can externalize their expenses. Every plan I've heard out of Rs has been "get government out of the way and the corporations will get on with the business of making America rich". And they will - but they will do so with absolutely no regard for Americans. Per-capita GDP has been climbing for decades, meanwhile real income has been falling almost as fast for everyone but the top 20%.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[Immerman]

Indeed. I'm rather in favor of fiscal conservatism, and have no great argument against social conservatism, except where the fringe elements try to use it to spread hate and intolerance. It infuriates me to no end that the Republican Party has somehow convinced so may conservatives that it actually cares about traditional/religious values to get their vote, and then beats the war drums just loud enough to keep people riled up while handing out corporate welfare at every opportunity. Not that the Ds are much better, but they occasionally at least throw a bone to the populace. At least they used to. Give me some real, honest conseratives on the ticket and I'd vote for them over any Democrat. In fact I would have done so on several occasions, except they were actually running with a D after their name.

Re:Yet another anti-Obama article

[VanessaE]

WARNING: The above link starts blabbing some audio recording with no apparent way to shut it up.

Oh good, now where were you two decades ago?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yucca Mountain has been the Hot Potato of American politics since it was proposed. If anything was going to be done, it'll be too late.

Re:Oh good, now where were you two decades ago?

[ackthpt]

Yucca Mountain has been the Hot Potato of American politics since it was proposed. If anything was going to be done, it'll be too late.

I didn't even know it was open and processing/storing waste. A friend worked at Hanford and told me how grim things where there and it would need to be relieved of storing any additional waste as it was over capacity and having great difficulty with what it had, something to do with putting leaking vaults into bigger vaults because some old contractor had mixed concrete wrong or the spec was wrong or both (not really too surprising, considering the massive tomes which must be making up 'regulations' these days.)

Effectively this is the SCOTUS telling the NRC to read, rubber-stamp, shuffle, rubber-stamp, collate, file, retrieve, shuffle, rubber-stamp and push pencils much faster. A bureaucrat's nightmare!

"who took my left-handed, Thursday, month-without-an-R-in-it, special issue Red Tape Cutting scissors?!?"

Re:Oh good, now where were you two decades ago?

[Frobnicator]

Effectively this is the SCOTUS telling the NRC to read, rubber-stamp, shuffle, rubber-stamp, collate, file, retrieve, shuffle, rubber-stamp and push pencils much faster. A bureaucrat's nightmare!

The law (passed in 1983) said that once a location is chosen, the agency is allowed 3 years to make a yes or no determination, with one-year extensions if they become necessary.

All that is required is a simple "Yes" or "No", within three years.

The 3-year clock started ticking in 2002.

Since 2002 over $100M has been spent simply waiting for the yes or no answer.

Both the original court order and this appeals court order are repeating: The law says you must give a yes or no answer within three years. The time is expired, you must give your answer.

The problem is entirely political. They cannot answer either way and still expect to get votes, so they bury their heads in the sand and refuse to do anything other than cash the checks.

In some ways I am jealous; how many jobs can you do nothing for a decade and still collect a tithe of a billion dollars for it? Are they accepting new hires? It seems like a bureaucrat's dream.

NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[girlintraining]

Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard. And actually, that is the sum total of the story; everything else is just details. In this case, some people at the NRC (and the President) decided that the only way this was ever going to happen is if they take unilateral action, say fuck you to the NIMBYs, and move forward. Obviously, the courts are butthurt by this, because they want the chance to let every significant government action get bogged down in the quagmire that is our endless appeals process.

Ta da. The end. If you ask me... Bravo NRC, bravo Mr. President. Not because I agree with how they're doing it, but because it's probably the only way it'll ever get done... and this does need to get done. We can't wait another 10, 20, or 50 years while the government and the general public pulls its head out of its ass. Our planet is heating up. Fast. Fossil fuels are not sustainable. Period. This is scientific fact. We need nuclear power, and we need it now. Which means, we also need storage facilities. And we actually needed those storage facilities about 15 years ago... because right now, there is a lot of nuclear waste piling up in our major cities because they can't ship them anywhere due to this kind of regulatory bullshit. And guess what: The interim storage containers are starting to fail. Everywhere.

If someone doesn't step in and squash the NIMBYs (and ride rough-shod over the courts and their affinity for endless delays and accomodation for them), we will eventually have a major public health crisis on our hands. So again... I don't agree with how they did it, but the lack of effective alternatives weighed against the consequences makes this a no-brainer for me.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[JDAustin]

...and why are you giving the NRC and Obama bravo's? They are CLOSING Yucca mountain, not getting it completed and therefore usable.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not completing the site, they're shutting it down. They gave the NIMBYs exactly what they wanted...no nuclear waste storage site even though the law says it is to be completed and used for storage.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[NettiWelho]

Fossil fuels are not sustainable. Period.

(I think you got 2 more perioids there than you need.) Also, you're assuming that the people in power(who mostly overlap with the group of people who never developed any type of moral backbone or anything resembling ethics) care what happens after theyre gone. Whats in it for them to lessen their gains now to care about what comes in 50, 100 or 200 years? People need to start bringing out the pitchforks and torches again and make them understand the people in power are there to server the public, not the other way around.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard.

So as a result, everybody gets a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard.

Those nuclear reactor sites have to store their waste somewhere, and without a designated -- and designed for it -- national storage facility, they're all storing it on-premises.

Of course we could take things to the opposite extreme: vitrified waste (fairly inert, possibly harmful if swallowed) per person per year is about the volume of a child's marble. Just go totally distributed and make everyone store their own (eg in a lead safe in their basement -- the lead is probably more toxic).

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard.

Bullcrap. I live in Vegas and have for over 35 years. It's not in my backyard. It's hundreds of yards underground in some of the most stable geological rock on the planet.

But what about semi trucks, they have to transport this stuff, you ask? The casks that transport the waste are insanely tough. Non issue.

My proposal is to tax the transport of waste 100K per mile traveled on/through Nevada and return half that money to the citizens, a quarter goes to an emergency fund and the other quarter goes to civil/civic engineering improvements. I guarantee the "I am terrified of nukes" crowd would sing a far different tune when they are making a living wage for just allowing it through the state.

The FUD crowd seems to have won in the court of public opinion, sadly.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard. And actually, that is the sum total of the story; everything else is just details. In this case, some people at the NRC (and the President) decided that the only way this was ever going to happen is if they take unilateral action, say fuck you to the NIMBYs, and move forward. Obviously, the courts are butthurt by this, because they want the chance to let every significant government action get bogged down in the quagmire that is our endless appeals process.

Ta da. The end. If you ask me... Bravo NRC, bravo Mr. President. Not because I agree with how they're doing it, but because it's probably the only way it'll ever get done... and this does need to get done. We can't wait another 10, 20, or 50 years while the government and the general public pulls its head out of its ass. Our planet is heating up. Fast. Fossil fuels are not sustainable. Period. This is scientific fact. We need nuclear power, and we need it now. Which means, we also need storage facilities. And we actually needed those storage facilities about 15 years ago... because right now, there is a lot of nuclear waste piling up in our major cities because they can't ship them anywhere due to this kind of regulatory bullshit. And guess what: The interim storage containers are starting to fail. Everywhere.

If someone doesn't step in and squash the NIMBYs (and ride rough-shod over the courts and their affinity for endless delays and accomodation for them), we will eventually have a major public health crisis on our hands. So again... I don't agree with how they did it, but the lack of effective alternatives weighed against the consequences makes this a no-brainer for me.

...perhaps read the opinion or even the /. provided summary? The NRC\Obama was trying to prevent the opening of this site, which would have allowed for the safe storage of nuclear waste. So the NIMBYs would have preferred the Obama\NRC approach to silently ignore the law, which is exactly what the courts said couldn't happen.

Generally speaking, as an electrical engineer who admittedly is not in the mainstream of proposals for safe and indefinite storage of nuclear waste, I have not seen a proposal that is empirically significantly better than that of the Yucca Mountain facility.

So...Obama\NRC's (now defunct) approach could have driven demand for more fossil fuel burn. Regardless of ones politics for or against Nuclear Energy\Waste, it seems appropriate for this court to have ruled as it did given the US Constitution and the separation between enactment (House + Senate, having given the statuary framework to proceed with the Yucca site mountain) and enforcement (Executive; willing to ignore it for "policy" reasons). This is why there is Judicial to provide the balance between "you shall" and "we shall not enforce".

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Immerman]

> And that means we need storage facilities

Or fuel reprocessing plants - we had such things in the early days of fission energy, but then advances in uranium mining made them unprofitable. Pull out the 90% of the high level "waste" that's still perfectly good fuel and what's left will be reasonably safe in only a couple centuries. It is still kinda hot, but a multi-millenia storage facility is necessary.

So which palms do you suppose were greased to make sure that the admittance facility at Yucca Mountain wasn't also a fuel reprocessing plant?

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI two of those three judges that ruled the Obama administration was "flouting the law" (not the other way around) were Bush appointees. The third was appointed by Clinton.

Second, you have it backwards.... Obama wanted to close it, not complete it.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[PraiseBob]

You do realize Obama caved in to the NIMBY crowd in 2009 and cut funding to Yucca Mtn and is trying to terminate the project and find another site? His previous secretary of energy declared the site invalid, despite congress passing the law, Bush signing the law, and despite the court ruling it valid. The current executive branch has cited "budget problems", so isn't spending any money to actually run the project, so nothing is happening. Now the court is ruling it a valid site, yet again.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's store all our nuclear waste in one place. Does that even make sense in a world of terrorism? Plus why does it have to be shipped to a place that has no nuclear reactors? Plus this wouldn't be just US nuclear waste it would be shipped from around the world. Nothing could possibly go wrong with trains and trucks filled with this stuff travelling all over the US.

Also the site they want to put it in experiences regular earthquakes and the water table rises into the site. Does that sound safe. Personally I think the people that have gotten the benefit of nuclear power should have to shoulder the burden of storing the waste.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[mcgrew]

I think you got 2 more perioids there than you need.

Better than!!! She's simply saying "end of story" or "the end."

I have to agree with your comment about the powerful, though.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[shentino]

Maybe they should start recycling it?

Hot nuclear waste that still has a lot of radiation also has a lot of energy left to give.

Also, we have glassification techniques that can neutralize a lot of the danger.

I smell a rat that's getting fattened up as a government contractor.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[shentino]

Unfortunately nuclear waste is a federal issue and the glory of interstate commerce demands that the feds get to do what they want with it and not get taxed for it.

Simply put, the federal government has preempted states on DOE issues.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus why does it have to be shipped to a place that has no nuclear reactors?

I don't know about reactors, but Nevada has been the site of probably more nuclear bomb explosions than any other place on the planet.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[girlintraining]

...and why are you giving the NRC and Obama bravo's? They are CLOSING Yucca mountain, not getting it completed and therefore usable.

Umm, maybe this is a bit of an obvious thing to say, but given that you're at a +5 informative and I've been modded troll, perhaps not obvious enough...

Why are they closing Yucca mountain?

Is it perhaps because all the money was witheld due to pressure from the NIMBYs, thus leaving closure the only option? The NRC pushed for years to get this operational and failed time and time again... because they couldn't ride roughshod over the courts. They tried. They failed. I admire that effort, though it failed.

Obama had no choice but to mothball it; It was even part of his 2008 election campaign -- the NIMBYs, led by their commander Senator Harry Reid, vigorously campaigned to kill it. They won. Before Obama even took office, funding was cut, cut, and then gutted, cut some more, and roasted over a fire. Obama is now riding roughshod over the courts to get the money invested in the program back out, because he can't overcome NIMBY.

So you've got the NRC on one side, trying to get past the endless appeals of the court system to get it done. You've got The NIMBYs on the other side, trying to keep it in court forever so it'll never get done... and you've got Obama in the middle saying "Fuck this -- Appeals court; GTFO." All he's trying to do is get some traction one way or another -- he picked pulling out because pressure was too great, not because the project isn't necessary. And yeah, I support that -- politically it's his only option. Just as the NRCs only option was to try to get around the courts before lobbyists got to Congress and killed it. It was a race... they lost. And the whole nation loses too.

All of this because our goddamned court system is a giant monkey wrench in the guts of anything that society needs, but individuals don't want near them: Like prisons, sewage processing plants, nuclear reactors, etc. I bravo both Obama and the NRC because they recognize it's the court system that's fucking things up and they tried to do and end run-around them. They both failed. They were both on opposite sides of the problem... but ultimately, they both agreed on where the problem was: The goddamned courts.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[aardvarkjoe]

Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard.

This is mostly because it hasn't been handled and presented right. If the people of Nevada actually engaged their brains, what they should have done is just demanded money. By adding 1% to the cost of building the facility, they could give every single household in Nevada over $1000 -- and by charging other states to store their waste there, they could continue to pay the citizens back.

Make a proposal like that, and it's guaranteed that the people will vote in someone who will make it happen. No way the NIMBYs would be able to stop it.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[gl4ss]

Personally I think the people that have gotten the benefit of nuclear power should have to shoulder the burden of storing the waste.

umm.. they are, the american people. except that they aren't, since obama doesn't want to use yucca. having it in one place is much better than distributed everywhere.. if terrorism is your concern. burying it in 100 different sites all around would be just asking for trouble now or later.

and umm what the fuck from around the world? you think we aren't doing our own long term placement plans elsewhere?

you made your long term plans and now are skipping from them.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[retroworks]

Mod parent up. (Though Yucca Mountain stalemate goes back to at least Jimmy Carter, maybe earlier)

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Myopic]

Why not say fuck you to the NIMBYs? Aren't there fewer of them than all the rest of us?

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Rockoon]

Ummm no. The problem here began because girlintraining just got caught not knowing what he was talking about, again, while acting like an expert about a topic, again.

girlintraiing then just did a complete about-face attempting to salvage the situation, proving as well that honesty and accuracy on the tin isnt as important to him as appearances.

The common theme between the two posts is appearances, accuracy be damned.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Entrope]

If the NIMBYs won, why does the law still require the NRC to do what this court has ordered it to do?

If you said "because Harry Reid has a problem with the rule of law", you win one eCookie. But you probably said something stupid like "the court is endlessly appealing its earlier rulings", so no points for you.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[girlintraining]

Ummm no. The problem here began because girlintraining just got caught not knowing what he was talking about, again, while acting like an expert about a topic, again.

First, not a dude. Second; Men are competitive, and they express that through abuse, derogatory comments, etc., because that's how you "win" in a competition. Now I don't assume that's sexist, in fact, I know it's precisely because they aren't being sexist that this behavior happens. I don't expect men to act less like assholes just because there's a woman around; much to the chagrin of my feminist peers. I just wanted that up there because you, like so many other people, either assume I'm a dude, or a dude pretending to be a chick, or whatever other politically-incorrect way of describing me you can come up with, including intentionally calling me by the wrong pronouns. I get it... you feel threatened, so you attack my gender, and it's not because you're sexist, but because you're an asshole. Now, with that sorted...

girlintraiing then just did a complete about-face attempting to salvage the situation, proving as well that honesty and accuracy on the tin isnt as important to him as appearances.

Actually, I could give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut about appearances. It's one of the reasons moderators alternate between praise and frothing at the mouth with me; I don't take sides, I don't sugar coat, and I try to beat my opponent with facts, not name-calling or labelling (invariably the lead-on to a strawman). I don't care whether I'm +5 or -99; What I care about is trying to be as accurate as I can, as often as I can. Does that mean I don't trip over pedantic and nuanced differences? Of course not! Does it mean I don't occasionally mix up my facts, reverse the names, or add an extra word here or there that completely changes the meaning of what I was trying to say? Nope. I'm human, this is a forum not an academic paper, and I fuck up. And I'm big enough to admit when I do, if I do.

The common theme between the two posts is appearances, accuracy be damned.

Sooo... you're upset that my follow-up post is related to the original, meant to clarify what was apparently unclear to everyone else, and claim that this attempt to be more accurate... is evidence that I don't care about accuracy?

Huh. Okay. Have you considered a career in politics?

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[girlintraining]

Why not say fuck you to the NIMBYs? Aren't there fewer of them than all the rest of us?

I don't know: Do you want to live next to the national repository for all kinds of highly radioactive waste, knowing it's an ideal terrorist and military target because, if it were ever damaged and the nuclear material released, it would create a cloud of hazardous radioactive shit raining down over a wide area, making it arguably worse than if they'd just dropped a nuke on your head?

Of course not. It's like how pro-lifers are only one unplanned pregnancy away from being pro-choice. Situational politics. That said, the whole point of the government is to work for the greater good -- which sometimes means causing harm to a small number for the benefit of a large number. In this case though, the harm is a statistical abstraction, rather than a concrete example... though the logic is the same in both cases.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's store all our nuclear waste in one place. Does that even make sense in a world of terrorism?

Let's store dangerous quantities (ie, 1000's of tons per plant) of nuclear waste in hundreds of places around the country, conveniently right next to the nuclear power plants themselves making them even better targets (even if you don't take out the reactor itself, you could let loose some of the old toxic nuclear waste), rather than storing it in a single place, under a friggen mountain that's probably far more defensible from a simple terror attack with anything other than a nuclear bomb (worst case a terrorist bomb might collapse a cave/entrance, which given the containers they were talking about would accomplish nothing much in terms of releasing nuclear waste into the environment).

Which choice, having dangerous amounts of nuclear waste in 100's of different places around the country, or in one safer & more defensible place, makes more sense in a world of terrorism?

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[drinkypoo]

Glassification is a bad idea because it just makes it harder to recycle when we finally pull our heads out of our asses and reprocess the fuel. Better solution, cranial-rectal extraction sooner rather than later

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard.

This is mostly because it hasn't been handled and presented right. If the people of Nevada actually engaged their brains, what they should have done is just demanded money. By adding 1% to the cost of building the facility, they could give every single household in Nevada over $1000 -- and by charging other states to store their waste there, they could continue to pay the citizens back.

Make a proposal like that, and it's guaranteed that the people will vote in someone who will make it happen. No way the NIMBYs would be able to stop it.

Yucca Mountain is right smack dab in the most geologically active region in the US, short of siting the thing on top of Yellowstone. It is a terrible place to site a waste repository that needs to survive intact for several hundred thousand years. On top of that, it is near or over part of the aquifer that is the only water supply for a large region. It was opposed so stridently because the only reason it was chosen in the first place is that it was not a NIMBY site, it was on government land that already has strictly controlled access and it was thought no one would notice or complain. The other finalist was a far more suitable site in Texas that was nixed because Bush I was campaigning for reelection.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[shentino]

Glassification is not ideal, true, but it's better than the current methods of disposal.

The environment can't really wait for us to figure out we should reprocess it.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[will_die]

Actually there are alot of place that wanted this built in thier backyard. A couple of places in Texas tried to get it, to the point where they had to settle on the best place in the state so that a former governor could lobby on just that one.
Other states also tried to get it.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your reverse misogynism and shut the fuck up. This has nothing to do with you being a woman and everything to do with you being wrong. No one brought gender in to anything until you did you oversensitive asshat.

You want to be treated equal and not have to worry about sexism? Post as an AC you ignorant fuck.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sure and will look into this, but I this maybe about Indian (Native American) Reservations, and or land. If that is the case then this isn't as simple as the courts, or federal law, being able to just hand out, or create some idiot law over a decision!!

My favorite part was the Judge saying it was a federal law, and we all know how stupid and overreaching federal laws are. The courts shot down the federal law over same sex marriage, I am still waiting for the courts to drop the federal anti marijuana laws.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[nojayuk]

Vitrification (what you Yanks call "glassification") is carried out to stabilise the waste from reprocessed fuel The US doesn't reprocess fuel on any sort of scale although it may process defence-related nuclear waste.

Typically a tonne of spent fuel will contain a couple of kilogrammes of actual waste fission products, the rest is nearly all uranium and a small amount of plutonium. Reprocessing and vitrification vastly reduces the physical volume of waste but it doesn't reduce the radioactivity emitted by it since uranium and plutonium are quite long-lived, it's the shorter-halflife waste isotopes that produce nearly all of the detectable radiation and residual heat in spent fuel.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Assmasher]

You want to be treated equal and not have to worry about sexism? Post as an AC you ignorant fuck.

The insipid stupidity found in your statement is, ironically enough, quite impressive. +1 for posting as AC as well - LOL.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Assmasher]

If you would take the time to re-read her OP you would see that you're actually quite wrong in claiming she has contradicted herself in the follow on post.
It would seem especially obvious to you given that you profess to understand the Yucca mountain issues as well.
I'm moderately aware of the issues and I understood exactly what she meant by her post.

Maybe next time you'll start with a more objective viewpoint towards someone (since you apparently [and demonstrably] harbor a dislike for her) before shooting yourself in the foot again.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

What I care about is trying to be as accurate as I can, as often as I can.

Try harder.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Illinois near Chicago. I *am* living next to all kinds of highly radioactive waste, knowing it's an ideal terrorist and military target - but instead of being encased in salt under a mountain in the desert its stored in bathtubs in the Chicago suburbs.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_ !]

if it were ever damaged and the nuclear material released, it would create a cloud of hazardous radioactive shit raining down over a wide area

If you are a military agency, your goal would be theft of the radioactive material. The nuclear weapons-grade material Plutonium is an artificial material and cannot be found anywhere on Earth. You either have to make it yourself in a reactor or steal it from someone else.

A cloud of radioactive waste is just ridiculous, because even if that were the goal, it wouldn't do anything because the site is in the middle of nowhere...

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

Ta da. The end. If you ask me... Bravo NRC, bravo Mr. President. Not because I agree with how they're doing it, but because it's probably the only way it'll ever get done... and this does need to get done.

I think any objective read of this leads to the conclusion she supports the facility, and supports the administration for doing whatever it takes to get it completed. Which is clearly incorrect.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[MrKaos]

Why are they closing Yucca mountain?

Because it's unsuitable to contain Nuclear waste. Chlorine 55 from airborne nuclear tests have been found inside the groundwater at Yucca. That means it takes less than 50 years for water to seep through the mountain. There are other reasons, seismic activity, the inability to protect pu-239 canisters from groundwater penetration and of course that it doesn't meet the DOE own original design criteria for a waste disposal site.

By blaming NIMBYS you deny finding an actual pragmatic solution like the Swiss have, using a granite mountain instead of pumice, following research from the CSIRO that radionuclides are contained in crystaline structures preventing them from entering groundwater. It doesn't help pointing fingers and is kind of a morally superior way of saying "Not In My Generation" and casually offsetting these problems to another generation, like a carbon problem was put onto ours.

Besides NIMBY concerns have been generally ruled out of these sorts of discussions by legislative processes. I think that the burden is on our generation to come up with realistic solutions to these issues as future generation my not have the resources to deal with them.

Unfortunately we are not know for being frugal with resources...

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Muad'Dave]

Burning it in an IFR or LFTR (see Destruction of existing long lived wastes) will take care of the long-lived actinides and reduce the maximum half-life in the waste to something on the order of 30 years versus 24,000 years. "Fission products at that point, in about 300 years [10 half-lives], are less radioactive than natural uranium." - that's how 'clean' the waste is from a LFTR. Current PWR waste is 'hot' for 10,000-1,000,000 years in comparison.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[dywolf]

there's a lot more than just NIMBY going on.
my uncle is a prominent geological engineer (famous within his field) who was given the task of evaluating Yucca Mtn many years ago.

he said it was a poor site and should not be used. many others agreed with him.
that fault line they "discovered" in 2006? he pointed it out in his report in the 70s.
(his exact words were: you're crazy and going to get a lot of people killed)

their reports were ignored and the governement kept looking til it got the answer it wanted.

it's not just NIMBY, even though Reid is only opposing it for political reasons.
Yucca Mtn has many fundamental flaws that still have not been addressed.
The evaluations the governement is "basing its decisions" on are a sham.

the entire thing has become a sham that is now a political football being used by various sides for votes.

But that doesnt change the fact that a stupid law is a stupid law, and just blindly following and enforcing it is a disaster waiting to happen. again: you cannot legislate reality, and no matter what the courts or the Congress say, Yucca Mtn is poor decision that is going to get people hurt.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[nojayuk]

Nobody's built a liquid salt thorium breeder (Th-232 -> U-233) reactor yet, and licencing the design in the West could take decades -- even conventional PWRs can take more than ten years from proposal to first concrete and they're proven designs, steam-boiler simple with no 700 deg C liquid fuel to cope with. Even according to the Powerpoint Rangers who are pushing LFTR as the Ultimate Fix For Everything Nuclear waste actinide destruction requires an enormous fast neutron flux only available by fissioning lots of U-235 and Pu-239 in the liquid salt stream and that will produce significant amounts of fission product waste, hopefully not as fast as it burns existing waste actinides if it is tweaked for that role -- the breeding process needs a lot of neutrons too and there may not be enough to go around to do both at the same time.

The liquid-salt thorium breeder system involves very high temperatures and radioisotope chemistry interacting with the piping over decades of use, not to mention the continuous reprocessing plant powered by handwavium which produces its own intensely radioactive waste stream. The track record of sodium-cooled plutonium breeders where the ceramic fuel doesn't move and the engineering and chemistry is better understood isn't too good -- lots of pipe cracks, coolant leaks, fires etc. over the years. LFTR makes a nice graduate student presentation at TED though, great slides with "and then a miracle occurs" in 8-point Comic Sans at the bottom.

The IFR and its cousins are less fanciful prospects, indeed Russia and China are actively (as in bending metal and pouring concrete) working on fast-spectrum reactors like the BN-800 and the proposed CDFR which will have the capability to burn actinides as part of their function but they too will produce lots of fresh fission products. The current fast-spectrum designs like the smaller BN-350 (operating in Russia since 1980) also generate electricity and breed plutonium from U-238 depending on their operational configuration.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain how this stuff is going to be released via terrorist or nuclear attack. Fly a plane into it? I don't think that would be enough to release the contents. A foreign country hits it with tactical nuclear bunker-busters? Seems like there are more important things to worry about in that scenario.

Re:NIMBY and a big Fuck You

[Muad'Dave]

Very insightful reply. Thank you. I agree that LFTRs are father out than 'standard' IFRs, but if we set our minds to it, I bet we could design and build a safe*, working 1 GW+ LFTR reactor (or a bunch of smaller ones) within a decade.

*safe is an absolute; naturally there's no such thing, but I'll take 'as safe as can be designed' over continuing to burn coal.

NSA?

[Anonymous Coward]

This might have some interesting repercussions if we ever get a court hearing on surveillance...

Brett Kavanaugh has made his decision...

[Anonymous Coward]

...now let him enforce it!

It's in the middle of the freaking desert

[Anonymous Coward]

How much more NIMBY can you get? Just build it already!

Re:It's in the middle of the freaking desert

[ackthpt]

How much more NIMBY can you get? Just build it already!

What's really fascinating is how much crap has already been detonated in the name of research in the Nevada desert and yet this can't seem to move forward, decade upon decade. Not like the place has more faults than California and yet this happened. But anything with desert all over the top is wasteland and ideal, right? Rather than some immensely stable place like in the Dakotas. Makes for good popcorn-munching drama after all these years.

Re:It's in the middle of the freaking desert

[mrchaotica]

"Wasteland and ideal" is right, I think. Presumably, seismic stability is less important than keeping it away from farmland.

By the way, you should have zoomed in a little more on your map link; it would make the craters more obvious.

If Nevada didn't want it....

[Anonymous Coward]

They shouldn't have taken money...

Here's a thought... If they don't want the waste site then Nevada needs to repay all of the federal money that has been spent on the project... Also, since they clearly acted in bad faith, they also get to temporarily store all of the nuclear waste until a waste repository is built.

Those fuckers took the money... Now it is time to take the waste!!!

Re:If Nevada didn't want it....

[Trax3001BBS]

Those fuckers took the money... Now it is time to take the waste!!!

In that respect, Yep.

or Obama could follow the laws he proposes

[raymorris]

Or the Obama administration could you know, follow the law.
I couldn't believe he unilaterally decided to ignore Obamacare, the law named after him!

Re:or Obama could follow the laws he proposes

[Anonymous Coward]

So the joke's on me: I was going to tell you to read up on Andrew Jackson's interactions with the Supreme court. But apparently his remark was far more measured than mine.

Re:or Obama could follow the laws he proposes

[DarkOx]

and he decided

-he could selectively enforce immigration with no real legal backing

-he could create extensions and exemptions for NCLB requirements when the law has no such provisions

-he could simply not determine if a coup had taken place in Egypt so that he could continue sending your tax dollars to them in the form of tanks and planes they can't even use.

And those are just the big clear ones. This president makes a joke of law on a routine basis.

Re:or Obama could follow the laws he proposes

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be under the impression that the government has to obey the constitution, and even that it has to obey the law.

In reality it is only the rest of us who have to obey the law. Even people outside the government need not obey the law, if they are in a favored group such as Wall St bankers.

In the Savings and Loan scandal in the 1980s, thousands of people were prosecuted and imprisoned. The 2008 financial crisis only produced a small number of prosecutions of minor figures.

The belief that we live under the rule of law can by this time only be described as delusional.

Re:or Obama could follow the laws he proposes

[WGFCrafty]

For some of those there is a different between prioritizing enforcement.

The other day when I looked at deportation stats, I saw that criminal illegals were being deported in increasing numbers while non-violent/young kids who have lived here their whole lives were being deported less.

Another one with increasing numbers - people who had been deported before.

Now the NRC is obviously flouting the law but they'll be forced to change their ways.

In other things Obama talked about not raiding medicinal cannabis places if they following state law, he then carried out far more raids than Bush ever did.

As far as the coup goes, by not declaring it he has leverage - by using that money to prevent summary executions and extended military rule, as well as forcing them to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to compete in subsequent elections.

Re:or Obama could follow the laws he proposes

[ganjadude]

why would he start following the law now? he hasnt since he took office

Re:or Obama could follow the laws he proposes

[buybuydandavis]

Or the Obama administration could you know, follow the law.

No, I think they're simply unable to follow the law.

Re: or Obama could follow the laws he proposes

[Anonymous Coward]

He IS following the law... Chicago style!

Re:or Obama could follow the laws he proposes

[dywolf]

and yet amazingly, while selectively enforcing the immigration laws, he's still had more people deported than any president before him. more criminals repeat deportees are deported, and fewer kids whose lived their whole lives here. sounds good to me. you know what triage is? its a good concept.

as for the coup thing...sure it may be the law. but is it a good law? its not enough to have laws, they also have to make sense and not lead to a worse outcome, which is a very real possibilty in the case of the coup law. blind worship of the law just turns you into Dredd.

The short version ..

[dgharmon]

Please spend your last $11.1 million on a facility that is never going to become operational. Make sure the money goes to companies financing political lobbysts.

Fact Sheet on Licensing Yucca Mountain

Fast becoming the rule rather than the exception

[jensend]

In the past couple of years we've seen the administration declare loudly that they'll refuse to enforce other laws, including immigration laws and the Obamacare employer mandate. Meanwhile, any court challenge to a law the administration doesn't particularly like is sure to succeed, since the administration will refuse to defend it.

Unless something turns around, the rule of law and the separation of powers are on their way out in this country, to be supplanted by the decisions of a dictator and of unelected officials he appoints.

A track-history of lawlessness

[HighOrbit]

You may or may not agree with the wisdom of any particular law, but the executive branch and the President have an obligation to see that the laws are faithfully executed until such time the law is repealed, even when they disagree personally (or politically) . Under the Constitution, it is not the place of President or his advisers to second-guess a duly passed law. If they think the law is unwise, they should go through the democratic process of petitioning Congress to repeal it. Just unilaterally deciding to ignore the law undermines the rule of law and the democratic process.

Here are some laws that the administration has famously ignored, instead of pursuing a repeal through the democratic process. There are probably more.

• The Defense of Marriage Act
• Mandatory Sentencing
• Yucca Mountain

Again, I'm not saying any one of these laws is a wise law, but they are (or were in the case of DOMA until overturned) duly legislated, therefore the executive had a constitutional duty to enforce them until such time the laws are repealed by the legislature or overturned by the courts. Where is the Republic going when the executive branch no longer feels constrained by the law or the democracy?

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[russotto]

Again, I'm not saying any one of these laws is a wise law, but they are (or were in the case of DOMA until overturned) duly legislated, therefore the executive had a constitutional duty to enforce them until such time the laws are repealed by the legislature or overturned by the courts.

The executive has no duty to enforce an unconstitutional law; laws are unconstitutional from the time they are passed, not the time they are ruled so.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[NettiWelho]

Where is the Republic going when the executive branch no longer feels constrained by the law or the democracy?

Are you saying there was a period in american history where the government actually did more than play a lip service to the written rules?

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[HighOrbit]

Yes, practically the entirety, otherwise the Republic would have fallen long ago. I can not name any other time of SYSTEMIC lawlessness by the executive, not even Watergate. The only thing that come close was Jackson and Indian removal (trail of tears).

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[HighOrbit]

But it does! Because its not the Executive's job to adjudicate the constitutionality of the laws; that job belongs to the courts. The President has an opportunity to veto a law at the time it is passed and (not) signed. There is no constitutional provision for an after-the-fact veto.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[turkeydance]

as above by Anon Coward: President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!". that's your precedent brought to you by our Stalin...."how many divisions does the Pope have?" this is starting to look really bad, folks. not only do we have Fed spying on everyone all the time, it's getting down to upholding the Constitution, and it's not even a declared 'wartime' exception.

Re: A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a lot of "obligations". How many times are they just going to ignore law, order, and common sense. The nrc is just doing this the obama way... unilaterally.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but that's not really true. Not in reality and not in practice. If a governing body does not want to enforce the law then the law is effectively void. They are literally the top authority. You also can't try to pass laws to make unwilling bodies enforce laws, because you end up with recursion. Your only recourse is to change the governing body via election. A judge can issue an order, but this rare and often isn't very effective because what the Judge can issue as order is pretty limited. It's not likely they have the authority to remedy what's causing the law to not be enforced.

It's the same concept as de-funding. A law may require something, but if there is no funds it can't be enforced. Count how many dozens of times republicans have tried to de-fund "Obamacare" - This would effectively do the same thing. They'd ignore the law by removing it's funding because they can't change the law.

There are a lot of laws still on the books that are not enforced. See laws against interracial marriage, sodomy, oral sex, flag burning.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[NettiWelho]

Yes, practically the entirety, otherwise the Republic would have fallen long ago. I can not name any other time of SYSTEMIC lawlessness by the executive, not even Watergate. The only thing that come close was Jackson and Indian removal (trail of tears).

Funny, just from my recent memory things like selling drugs to arm terrorists, backing and conducting assassinations, jailing people without charging or trialing them, coups and fabricating evidence to start a war with a neutral nation spring to mind.

Or are you saying those people were trialed and served justice for their crimes against humanity and whatnot as per according to your own constitution, Nuremberg principles, international treaties and basic human decency while I blinked?

To me the fact that these people were not punished is a sign that the whole thing is(and has been) rotten to the core and the insects infesting it are covering for eachother, this is merely just the most recent set of faces.

Let me turn the question around; can you name a century during which no systemic corruption, disregard for human rights and life, or unjust violation of national sovereignty of a foreign nation condoned by US government did not happen?

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[DNS-and-BIND]

But Obama is deciding himself what's unconstitutional and what's not. THAT'S the problem here.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget:

* The Obama Administration, no doubt with an eye to the 2014 elections, has announced that certain parts of the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a Obamacare) will simply be postponed until after the election. Nothing in the ACA gives this power to the Executive branch.

* President Obama attempted to make "bench" appointments when Congress was still in session. Months later, this one got shot down in the courts.

* The IRS went after political enemies of the Administration. There may or may not have been direct orders from President Obama. (I am not ruling out something along the lines of "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" instead of direct orders.) Not only is selective enforcement of the law illegal, but the IRS released confidential details of some conservative organizations to those organizations' political enemies, which is absolutely illegal with no possible wiggle room.

* Eric Holder's Department of Justice has a history of flouting the law.

I read an article that observed that one of the traditional checks on the power of government is the worry that, when the pendulum shifts and the other party is in power, that the other party might start taking advantage of any precedents you set. The article speculated that the Obama Administration isn't worried about this, as the mainstream media is solidly in Obama's pocket and yet implacably opposed to the Republicans. This leaves the Obama Administration free to do things that would get any Republican a firestorm of horrible publicity.

Fans of Bill Clinton, after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, used to chant "Bush Lied, People Died. Clinton Lied, Nobody Died." Remember that nobody died in the Watergate scandal, and think very hard about the Benghazi scandal. But the mainstream media isn't interested in Benghazi or any of the other scandals, any more than they have to be.

I'm not sure why I bothered to write this as somebody will mod it down to -1 really fast, rather than writing a rebuttal.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[sandytaru]

Perfectly matches the systematic inactivity of the legislative branch these days. (Symbolic attempts to repeal the ACA in the House don't count since they're DOA in the Senate.) They don't want to pass any laws, and the executive branch doesn't want to enforce them. The only one doing anything these days is the judicial branch, and that's mostly just pissing people off.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[HighOrbit]

Would you care to cite a specific US Statute or US constitutional article and then the specific violating act?

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

Utter fail. Laws are constitutional once passed, until they are either ruled unconstitutional by the judiciary, or repealed by the legislature. The executive plays no role in this, though it may act as advocate either for or against the law before the judiciary. Similar to how you are innocent until proven guilty. The law is valid until proven otherwise. This is *the* fundamental separation of powers between the three branches of government. I dearly hope that you are not American, or still very, very young, as you have apparently not yet learned even the basic structure of our government, or the history that inspired it. A law may be morally & ethically in error when it is passed, just are you were born ignorant and stupid, but is not confirmed as such until the courts say so, or until you opened your mouth.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

Your view appears valid on its face but it doesn't really survive a serious constitutional examination. The view that the executive branch is merely a dumb organ enforcing laws as interpreted by the supreme court is a fallacious view. Although I do agree with the court that a decision on nuclear waste disposal NEEDS to be made (either for or against), the President does have the constitutional authority to interpret and enforce the constitution, much like the Supreme Court can. I know it appears counter to popular belief, but a careful examination of the constitution reveals this conflict of powers. Although the Supreme Court has declared itself the sole and ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions but obviously the other branches don't quite agree, else the President supposedly flouting the constitution would have been subject to numerous impeachment motions.

Basis for this argument, you might inquire. US Constitution, Art. II, Section 1, last paragraph requires the President to swear an oath to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Common sense indicates the President cannot fulfill this function of protecting and defending the Constitution if he cannot tell what the constitution is. Telling what the constitution is imposes a duty on the President to interpret that constitution.

Obviously, if the President's interpretation is at odds with that of the Supreme Court, we have a constitutionally-created impasse. That is also one of the checks and balances in the constitution: on constitutional matters, the President does not HAVE TO defer to the courts, just as the courts do not have to defer to the President. Odd, yes, but that's the law of the land. See the historical antecedents of the switch in time that saved nine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine [wikipedia].

 

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[HighOrbit]

Let me turn the question around; can you name a century during which no systemic corruption, disregard for human rights and life, or unjust violation of national sovereignty of a foreign nation condoned by US government did not happen?

Yes, the entire two centuries have been without systemic constitutional irregularity. There have been anecdotal violations of statutes and constitutional provisions, but never systemic. These other things you seem to being trying to introduce into the conversation do not seem to be related to constitution or statute. Are you trying to say any blemish ruins the entire national project? Or are you saying another world power lasting two centuries has a better track record and therefore the US is lacking in comparison? Name the world power? (Its actually irrelevant to the conversation, because we are talking about US law, not foreign powers) I believe you are simply an anti-american who like to shout "You're not perfect, You're not perfect".

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[NettiWelho]

Would you care to cite a specific US Statute or US constitutional article and then the specific violating act?

I'm afraid I cannot let Nuremberg defense slide here, Dave.

The Nazis defended their pre-war and war-time actions with national sovreignty and with the fact that everything done to the jews, gypsies, soviet POW's etc was in accordance with the German law at the time. The court - And we as a society of civilized nations decided that certains actions are punisable by death even when perpetrated by the government under laws of the land.

Are you seriously suggesting you've never heard of things I listed in the post youre now responding to?

Let me remind you:

Funny, just from my recent memory things like selling drugs to arm terrorists, backing and conducting assassinations, jailing people without charging or trialing them, coups and fabricating evidence to start a war with a neutral nation spring to mind.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaah, brainfart, I wrote "bench" appointments when I meant "recess" appointments. sorry

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[NettiWelho]

Yes, the entire two centuries have been without systemic constitutional irregularity. There have been anecdotal violations of statutes and constitutional provisions, but never systemic.

Slavery never happened then?
The spanish-american war of american aggression and the subsequent colonization and massacring of phillippine populace never happened then?
You didn't inject syphilis and radioactive substances to alive human beings without their consent then?
COINTELPRO is not real then?
MK-ULTRA was not real then?

These other things you seem to being trying to introduce into the conversation do not seem to be related to constitution or statute.

THEY ARE THINGS AMERICANS HAVE PUT OTHER PEOPLE TO DEATH OVER AND DECLARED THESE ACTIONS ARE NO TOLERATED BY CIVILIZED PEOPLES

Are you trying to say any blemish ruins the entire national project?

'any blemish' is an understatement of several magnitudes.

Or are you saying another world power lasting two centuries has a better track record and therefore the US is lacking in comparison? Name the world power? (Its actually irrelevant to the conversation, because we are talking about US law, not foreign powers)

I believe you are simply an anti-american who like to shout "You're not perfect, You're not perfect".

What ever, atleast I have a decent probability of not being disappeared into a US prison camp without hope of trial, being charged or released while facing torture.

Also, here in Finland, 0 people where killed by police gunfire last year, one guy was shot in the leg and the officer in question was reprimanded for his neglient use of a firearm where no use was defensible, additionally my children are more likely to survive beyond infant stage.

I mean we DO have problems but in comparison america has jumped the shark and is just beyond satirical with things you say to things you do.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you're consistent with your defense. Most of the people who trotted out that crap when the Holy Almighty Unitary Executive Bush did it are the ones whining now that the evil muslim antichrist obummer is doing it.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[HighOrbit]

Slavery, while unwise and wrong, was legal at the time, which is the test we are applying here. We are discussing lawlessness versus lawfulness, not your or my personal definition of morality.

What you describe as the spanish-american war of aggression was lawfully declared by our Congress under our constitution and the laws of nations at the time. You fail to explain how it exemplifies systemic disregard of constitution or law, merely that you disagree. BTW, we see this as a war against European colonialism and imperialism.

All the other things you mention, which constitutional principle do they violate?

Congratulations to Finland. But with a population (5.4M) smaller than Missouri (6M), only three ethnic groups (Finn, Swede, and Sami), and a completely different culture from us, its easy to see why you have such a peaceful society. I could pick a small American state with a mostly all-white population, Vermont for instance, and also demonstrate low levels of violence and low infant mortality. I not sure what that proves about respect for the constitution though.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[russotto]

Really? So suppose a Congress passes and the President signs a nasty law forbidding criticism of the government. Unconstitutional on its face. And they start using it to persecute and silence their political enemies. And in the fullness of time an election comes around, and the tactics backfire -- the party in power is soundly defeated. What should the new president do?

1) Continue to enforce the act until it is repealed or found unconstitutional or
2) Pardon everyone convicted so far, and refuse to continue to enforce the act?

Of course this is not a hypothetical situation; Thomas Jefferson chose option #2 w.r.t. the Sedition Act. (Wikipedia claims he continued to enforce it against his own enemies afterwards; this seems likely to be false, as the Federalists, being no dummies, set it to expire before the new President's term started)

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[HighOrbit]

Well, the conversation just slipped into Godwin's Law. But I'll bite anyway, because I'm bored.

I don't know any specific allegation of selling drugs, but I've heard such rumors in the past. However, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Backing and conducting assassinations? Don't know of any. I do know we have targeted killing of enemy combatants in the current war, but those are not assassinations. Jailing people without charging or trying them? I don't know of any Americans who have been held without trial by the US Government. I do know we hold foreign combatants and properly so without trial. POWs or internees should not be tried for being soldiers, as that is not a crime. They shall be held, without criminal charges for the duration of the conflict. When they have been suspected for violating the laws of war, they have been charged and brought before military tribunals. Perhaps you should read the applicable parts of the Third Geneva Convention. Coups and fabricating evidence to start wars? Well I know some intelligence information about Iraq was misinterpreted, but I don't know of any that was outright fabricated. And that war was to enforce a UN resolution that Iraq was unwilling to demonstrate compliance with. They had only to demonstrate compliance to defuse the causus belli and they refused.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[NettiWelho]

Slavery, while unwise and wrong, was legal at the time, which is the test we are applying here. We are discussing lawlessness versus lawfulness, not your or my personal definition of morality.

Hmmmm, actually constitutional until civil rights act of 1866? I'd count that as a point against not for.. As in I was under the assumption you guys had written declaration of all people being created equal and whatnot since the revolution? Sometime in the 1700's if I have not mistaken?

What you describe as the spanish-american war of aggression was lawfully declared by our Congress under our constitution and the laws of nations at the time. You fail to explain how it exemplifies systemic disregard of constitution or law.

US declared war over what supposedly was Spanish sinking a US ship, the Maine, in reality blew up on its own yet you feel its OK to declare war over it. The Spanish didn't do it, therefore US didn't have a legimate casus belli for their subsequent actions and therefore not defendable as just war. What remains is a war of aggression over territory.

we see this as a war against European colonialism and imperialism.

War against colonialism via colonizing a colony yourself and massacring the locals when they demand independence? Sure, whatever. makes about much sense as the rest US has done.

All the other things you mention, which constitutional principle do they violate?

Uh... right not to be deprived of life, freedom of person, expression, equality among men, right to privacy, freedrom from unreasonable search and seazure etc etc, the little things, you know.

Congratulations to Finland. But with a population (5.4M) smaller than Missouri (6M), only three ethnic groups (Finn, Swede, and Sami), and a completely different culture from us, its easy to see why you have such a peaceful society. I could pick a small American state with a mostly all-white population, Vermont for instance, and also demonstrate low levels of violence and low infant mortality. I not sure what that proves about respect for the constitution though.

Our constitution says we have freedom from arbitery police violence and access to proper healthcare regardless of our personal financial capability.

Also the Helsinki "metropolitan area" is more culturally and ethically diverse than one might think, but most of the populace doesnt feel the need to commit crime or form street gangs to provide sustanence, housing and security because we have this thing called societal safety net. It helps with keeping the societal contract when people dont starve if they cant find job.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[NettiWelho]

In addendum, I find your tendency to hide behind whats legal under the law silly, because there are certain precedents against using that defense("Lawful orders"), when you trample peoples rights in the name of the law of the land.

It is not any more acceptable for United States than for Nazi Germany to say they are free to do these things because they are legal under the current laws.

If you have problem wrapping your head around this issue and understanding why I have an issue with this I'll give you a more recent example; US redefining torture not to mean things they want to do to people as not to officially torture so its not illegal under the law.
Its "technically legal" but it makes a mockery of "home of the free, land of the brave", your founding documents and the very ideas your country was founded over.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[swillden]

Don't forget the federal ban on marijuana possession and distribution.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[NettiWelho]

Well, the conversation just slipped into Godwin's Law. But I'll bite anyway, because I'm bored.

You dont get to draw that card when the discussion is about government abuse, the princeples applied are the same and comparisons very relevant.

I don't know any specific allegation of selling drugs

Yes, I'm sure its all fiction

Backing and conducting assassinations? Don't know of any.

Stop being retarded.

I do know we have targeted killing of enemy combatants in the current war, but those are not assassinations.

You have not been in a state of war since 1945.
If you talk about your off-papers affairs in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Jordan etc, a rather sizable portion of the victims are civilians murdered by a faction that is not at war with their government without avenue to pursue justice and reparations for their damages and injustice.

Jailing people without charging or trying them? I don't know of any Americans who have been held without trial by the US Government.

Hahahah, the funny thing is you constitution provides ALL PEOPLE with the same rights from the government overreach as they do their own citizens. Including the ones in your off-shore and most cases off-papers subcontractor prison camps.
Hell, there are plenty of people in Guantanamo who are cleared of any wrongdoing yet you do not release them.

I do know we hold foreign combatants and properly so without trial. POWs or internees should not be tried for being soldiers, as that is not a crime.

YOU ARE NOT AT WAR WITH ANYONE.
YOUR GOVERNMENT STATES TERRORISM IS A CRIME. THEY SAY PEOPLE IN GUANTANAMO ARE THERE OVER TERRORISM. IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE TRIAL THEM, IF NOT, WHY ARE THEY IMPRISONED?, RELEASE THEM. YOU ARE NOT AT WAR WITH ANYONE.

They shall be held, without criminal charges for the duration of the conflict.

Which conflict would that be?

Coups and fabricating evidence to start wars? Well I know some intelligence information about Iraq was misinterpreted, but I don't know of any that was outright fabricated.

What intelligence information? Your information was the opposite of intelligence.
Also, coups; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

And that war was to enforce a UN resolution that Iraq was unwilling to demonstrate compliance with. They had only to demonstrate compliance to defuse the causus belli and they refused.

The legal right to determine how to enforce its own resolutions lies with the Security Council alone (UN Charter Articles 39-42),[29] not with individual nations.[1][4][30]
The UN itself never had the chance to declare that Iraq had failed to take its "final opportunity" to comply

Benjamin B. Ferencz was one of the chief prosecutors for the United States at the military trials of German officials following World War II, and a former law professor. In an interview given on August 25, 2006, Ferencz stated that not only Saddam Hussein should be tried, but also George W. Bush because the Iraq War had been begun by the U.S. without permission by the UN Security Council.[55] Benjamin B. Ferencz wrote the foreword for Michael Haas's book, George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes.[56] Ferencz elaborated as follows: a prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilt

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

* The IRS went after political enemies of the Administration. There may or may not have been direct orders from President Obama. (I am not ruling out something along the lines of "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" [redstate.com] instead of direct orders.) Not only is selective enforcement of the law illegal, but the IRS released confidential details of some conservative organizations to those organizations' political enemies, which is absolutely illegal with no possible wiggle room.

No, that was only the Republican misinformation campaign on the issue. They went after other groups as well, including liberal and progressive groups, and in fact the only targeted group that was ultimately denied 501c status was a progressive group from Maine. In short, the IRS were doing their jobs, making sure that 501c applicants were actually charitable organizations rather than political organizations. If you want to criticize them for not doing their jobs well enough, look to the fact that many of these groups disbanded after the election, which suggests that political campaigning was indeed their purpose.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

can you name a century during which no systemic corruption, disregard for human rights and life, or unjust violation of national sovereignty of a foreign nation condoned by US government did not happen?

Umm... 1314 for example? (Any year before the U.S. existed will do.)
<Ducks for cover>

Having said that, if anything, I'm agreeing with you.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

The administration did not ignore the Defense of Marriage Act, they refused to defend it in court. Until the recent Supreme Court ruling, same-sex marriages were not recognized by the federal government. That's why there's plenty of stories now about how they're implementing the Supreme Court ruling, and recognizing such marriages for Social Security, immigration, military benefits, etc.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[intermodal]

This isn't just restricted to the president's office nor to simply Obama. Sure, President Obama has been particularly vocal and open in his disregard for executing the laws of the land, but there are governors now and over history who have been guilty of this as well. The executive branch has one job in regards to that which has been signed into law (or veto-overridden into law). One. And that is to faithfully execute the law as it stands, not however they please.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, the case can be made that the President has a duty NOT to enforce laws which he believes to be unconstitutional (the Constitution says that certain things are not subject to being enacted into law. It nowhere says who is supposed to decide what is and is not constitutional. The implication being that each and every government official is supposed to reject any laws which violate the constitution). Under that interpretation, Obama's decision to not enforce DOMA was defensible. However, his decision to grant waivers to the No Child Left Behind Act, his decision to delay the employer mandate under the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, and several others (including this one) are not.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Attila Dimedici]

No, the problem is that Obama is deciding on his own which provisions of which laws to enforce, regardless of whether or not he considers those laws constitutional.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some laws that the administration has famously ignored, instead of pursuing a repeal through the democratic process. There are probably more. Mandatory Sentencing

Oh, come on. I don't know about the others, but this one is blindingly obvious. They said they won't prosecute certain people for certain crimes where the minimum sentence is in appropriate. Prosecutors have always had this privilege. Has your anti-Obama bias clouded your brain that much?

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

You may or may not agree with the wisdom of any particular law, but the executive branch and the President have an obligation to see that the laws are faithfully executed until such time the law is repealed, even when they disagree personally (or politically) .

Bzzzt! Enforcing the law is a duty of the executive branch, but the executive branch is allowed to not enforce a law for quite a few reasons (including moral objection, the law not being worthwhile, etc). What the executive branch is not allowed to do is violate the law. PRISM isn't selective enforcement of the law, but an outright violation of the law. This is a big difference.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

The President and executive branch are allowed to not enforce a particular law for nearly any reason they choose; however, the Present and executive branch are not allowed to violate the law. Notice the article, the court is saying they're violating the law, very different situation.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[dywolf]

no it doesnt, and enforcement of any laws when there is any question of legality is ALWAYS held in suspension until the legal question is settled. anything else is patently illegal.

Imagine if DOMA required the incarceration and execution of homosexuals.
should we have still kept enforcing it even while it was being debated nationwide and in the courts?
after all, its his "sacred duty to the enforce the laws regardless"...except its rather hard to un-execute someone.

its an extreme hypothetical, but it clearly illustrates the entire reason why enforcement of laws can, should be, and IS suspended when these questions arise. to do anything else is itself unethical and illegal.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[dywolf]

mod AC up.
mod down high orbit

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[dywolf]

mod up.

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Areyoukiddingme]

The mainstream media is solidly in Obama's pocket? Fox News has the highest rating of all the cable news stations. The news programs of Fox broadcast stations also regularly rank highest in the region.

You might want to check your definition of mainstream...

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

During the House hearings on this, the Democrats were given an opportunity to present any progressive groups that had suffered similar harm to the Tea Party groups. No such group was presented.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/25/gop-congressman-hits-back-against-dem-claim-that-irs-targeted-progressives-too/

So, the Tea Party groups have been complaining for years to their Congressmen and Senators, and it was easy for the Republicans to find affected groups; but the Democrats couldn't find even one.

Before the BOLO targeting started, a Tea Party group had its application processed in 90 days; after the targeting started, not one single Tea Party or Conservative group had an application approved for over 27 months. At the same time, multiple liberal groups were smoothly approved.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

This amounts to interference with an election. Political groups that were liberal were able to collect anonymous donations because they had the special tax-exempt status, but political groups that were conservative were still in IRS hell and could not collect anonymous donations. Most people won't donate if it's not anonymous, so the liberal groups had a much easier time fund-raising. It's diabolical.

You could wipe out the whole special tax-exempt status and it would be fine with me, but this one-sided unfair application of the rules is an outrage.

And if you are still okay with this after reading the above, then I hope some President named Bush gets elected to power and does this to progressive groups for a while. Then maybe you will think it is not the IRS "doing their jobs". You'll probably just say "well it's different now."

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps ask for an immediate or fast-tracked consideration of the law's constitutionality from the SCOTUS, while continuing to arrest persons (enforcing the law) then immediately issue continuing pardons while the law is considered by the SCOTUS?

Re:A track-history of lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News is not in Obama's pocket. Also, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio talk show hosts are not in Obama's pocket.

That just leaves CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the LA Times, in fact every major newspaper, Newsweek, Time, in fact every major news magazine. Hell, even The Economist, which is somewhat conservative about fiscal issues and somewhat conservative about science, is very socially liberal and a fan of Obama.

So yeah, not all news media is in Obama's pocket. Just the vast majority of the mainstream media.

yep, what powers Obama is allowed, Palin will have

[raymorris]

It always surprises me that people forget - if you allow the president a power grab, you're giving that power to a future President Palin or whoever. Don't want Palin making your healthcare choices, including contraceptives? Keep the federal government out of health care.

Nevada runs the Senate!

[bussdriver]

You do realize that the head of the Senate is from Nevada right?

Yucca Mountain has had every possible hurdle placed in it's way to gum up the project- all that is left is for officials fighting NIMBY forces to start having accidents... Different stall tactics are tried by everybody who gets into this mess. It's a politically toxic issue.

As for Obama, he isn't simple to follow. He says one thing and then does something "pragmatic" to get along with as many of the powerful forces as possible - it is as if the 2 year long healthcare battle took away his spine completely. Ever since he hasn't really gone up against the system - which likes to go almost nowhere new. Remember, nobody anywhere wanted healthcare to change...except the public and Obama. What we got wasn't so great - but it isn't that bad either - given that nobody has done jack since Nixon fucked it all up says a lot... and it was during probably the most corrupt dysfunctional time in the nation's history. Don't know why people expect so much when they encourage this farce democracy to continue. I don't know the motives, but forcing this legal battle which should have been obviously a loser seems to eliminate more stalling.

Re:Nevada runs the Senate!

[Anonymous Coward]

since Nixon fucked it all up says a lot

American healthcare has been fucked ever since the federal government thought it was a good idea to regulate the maximum salary companies could pay their employees. Those companies found other ways to compensate their workers and so now we have our medical insurance tied to our jobs and all medical costs are neatly hidden away from the consumer ensuring they will only go up.

Re:Nevada runs the Senate!

[mrchaotica]

I hate to break it to you, but right now is the most corrupt, dysfunctional time in the nations history.

Re:Nevada runs the Senate!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me help you with some comprehension, this is a tough one!

bussdriver said:
"What we got wasn't so great - but it isn't that bad either - given that nobody has done jack since Nixon fucked it all up says a lot... and it was during probably the most corrupt dysfunctional time in the nation's history."

let me break this down, he said:
What we got wasn't so great [ASIDE 1] ... and it was during probably the most corrupt dysfunctional time in the nations history.
ASIDE 1 but it isn't that bad either [ASIDE 2]
ASIDE 2 given than nobody has done jack since Nixon fucked it all up says a lot

So yes; he agrees it is the most corrupt dysfunctional time in the nations history, and he is amazed that America got anything useful out of it at all.

Re:Nevada runs the Senate!

[mrchaotica]

Well, damn. I stand corrected!

Re:Nevada runs the Senate!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly because republican idiots hate there being a nigger in charge.

There may be an additional dose of "Oh shit, we grabbed all this power when we were in charge, now the democrats have it!", but the plain fact of it is that when there was a white democrat in charge, the republicans were despicable, but did actually let the country get run. Now there's a black man in the whitehouse, they have AS PUBLIC RECORD and as their major point after losing the election stated that they WILL BLOCK EVERYTHING that the democratic government wants to do.

And they have done so.

The power grab they took and thought "We can never lose, this power is safe with us!" isn't enough by a long chalk to explain why they changed to inimical to the running of the USA.

Racism for a black man (and note: the USA couldn't actually go for a black man, he had to be a two-tone, with a white ancestry on one half at least. couldn't go the whole hog. I guess their first woman president would have to be a lesbian to avoid getting "entirely a woman" in charge) would explain it. See South Park for why.

Re:Nevada runs the Senate!

[bussdriver]

You just gave multiple entirely separate issues which only overlap in their impact.

Medical insurance tied to employers along with HMOs (via Nixon) have made this a big mess but it is true that the insurance "industry" are the biggest problem (it is more of a scam than an industry, they produce nothing of use for the 30+% overhead cost.)

Nuclear Waste Policy Act

[Trax3001BBS]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act [wikipedia.org] I'm pretty sure this is over. The US was to of had
a permanent storage area for nuclear waste long ago.

This area (East Washington State) would liked to of had the waste and was working on a repository (testing). West Washington State
and the political power didn't; work was stopped and Nevada's Yucca Mountain became the designated (and only)
high level nuclear waste burial site.

Something does need to be done with the nuclear waste, other than storage pools at each nuclear plant.

Re:Nuclear Waste Policy Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Off topic, pedantic comment:

The US was to of had...

should be: "The US was to have had..."

...would liked to of had...

should be: "...would liked to have had...

Re:Nuclear Waste Policy Act

[Trax3001BBS]

Off topic, pedantic comment:

The US was to of had...

should be: "The US was to have had..."

...would liked to of had...

should be: "...would liked to have had...

Much too old to care or change, if it related it's meaning it got it's point across.
Not much time to write have to check on the Ghoti, had a problem with the water lately.

Two moderate Republicans.

[Valdrax]

The choice offered us by the political machine was between an obvious sellout, and an obvious sellout who's also a raving misogynistic looney that's utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living.

I think that's a bit unfair to Romney. Now, I voted for Obama or, as you more accurately put it, against Romney, but he wasn't a "raving misogynistic looney." (He was pretty out of touch, though.) Romney was the most moderate candidate the Republicans fielded in that primary, and the only reason he managed to win it was because every other candidate self-destructed as an actual looney or otherwise unsuited to lead.

No, the real comparison, is that we had the choice of voting for two moderate Republicans, one of whom pandered to the Tea Party and other of which pandered to the Democratic Party.

Seriously. Rewind the clock about 20-30 years and see if you don't think Obama could have won a Republican primary. Romney and Obama (if we ignore his race and ran purely on policy) would have stood an equal chance against someone like Bob Dole or George H.W. Bush.

Re:Two moderate Republicans.

[JWW]

I think Obama would have to change his stance on pandering to unions.

But outside of that, I think you really might have a point.

Re:Two moderate Republicans.

[mrchaotica]

I think that's a bit unfair to Romney. Now, I voted for Obama or, as you more accurately put it, against Romney, but he wasn't a "raving misogynistic looney." (He was pretty out of touch, though.) Romney was the most moderate candidate the Republicans fielded in that primary, and the only reason he managed to win it was because every other candidate self-destructed as an actual looney or otherwise unsuited to lead.

That is not even slightly true; John Huntsman was way more moderate than Romney was. In fact, I believe Huntsman would have been capable of attracting enough liberal votes to win the general election (which was, of course, exactly why he was incapable of winning the primary).

Re:Two moderate Republicans.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's a bit unfair to Romney. Now, I voted for Obama or, as you more accurately put it, against Romney, but he wasn't a "raving misogynistic looney." (He was pretty out of touch, though.) Romney was the most moderate candidate the Republicans fielded in that primary, and the only reason he managed to win it was because every other candidate self-destructed as an actual looney or otherwise unsuited to lead.

That is not even slightly true; John Huntsman was way more moderate than Romney was. In fact, I believe Huntsman would have been capable of attracting enough liberal votes to win the general election (which was, of course, exactly why he was incapable of winning the primary).

I, like probably most of you, received lots of nice shiny glossy flyers (I shudder to think how many trees died for this) almost every day for months leading up to the primary and the general elections. There was one in particular I remember. It was sent by Newt Gingrinch and/or his supporters, and it stated almost word for word the buzzword attacks the Republicans used against Obama in the general election. I remember picking it up and reading it as I was gathering the recycling, well after Romney had won the nomination. The interesting thing was that the attacks were not against Obama, they were Gingrich attacking Romney before the primary. I realized then that Romney had no chance of winning the general election. I kind of wish I had saved that one.

Re:Two moderate Republicans.

[Notabadguy]

every other candidate self-destructed as an actual looney or otherwise unsuited to lead.

Disagree. Our extremely liberal media worked hard to discredit conservative candidates to turn the race into Obama vs. a middling flip-flopper. Don't forget that Obama is a flip-flopper too. Look at his senatorial run - his votes primarily consisted of "present." He didn't vote "yes" or "no" to anything for fear of taking the side of anything that might later be construed as the wrong side. Even during his campaign, his affected opinions were presented to him by his staff, and changed enough that "Hot and Cold" by Katy Perry could have been his theme song.

Re:Two moderate Republicans.

[dywolf]

First off: bulls*it. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/O000167/votes/page129/

Secondly, even if we accept it as true, when the party puts forth people like Bachmann or Perry as major candidates that we're expected to take seriously, the media certainly didnt have to work very hard to "taint" them. those two did most of the work themselves.

Add to your list:

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Each part of "Obamacare" he is currently finding inconvenient like the corporate mandate, and the caps on out-of-pocket costs for individuals.

2. Immigration laws. (He's allowing people the law requires to be deported to instead stary by invoking his "dream act", which never became law) We now have so many illegals flooding over the southern border that the immigration people have run out of rooms to hold them and are renting hotel rooms for them with taxpayer dollars...

3. The law that forbids the IRS from giving out private taxpayer info (Obama did not personally do this, but note that he has not prosecuted any of the IRS employees who did indeed do it and Obama's FBI man could not tell congress who was in charge of the "investigation")

4. The budget laws... the US hit its borrowing limit in May and amazingly the national debt has remained officially the same ever since even though we keep spending money every hour of every day

There's plenty more but the next president will simultaneously face [a] an amazing mess (national debt DOUBLED by just one president!) and [b] a shocking number of evil precedents that will enable him/her to do some supremely BAD stuff if he/she chooses to...

Very sad... U.S. Presidents have a very specific set of duties and one of those is to see that the laws are faithfully enforced. By picking and choosing what laws he will enforce, the president is taking the powers of the legislature. If he does not agree with a law, it is Obama's duty to go to congress and ask that the law be changed... his excuse that they might just not agree with him is not a legitimate excuse. Every president has faced that... Republican president Reagan faced an overwhelmingly Democrat congress that had been entrenched for 40 years and was so comfortable and safe that its members were using the house post office to launder money and deal cocaine. For the last couple years he was president, George W Bush faced a congress run by Pelosi and Reid. Obama is apparently not as competent as his predecessors, and has decided to cheat. (gambling that congress will not fight his cheating as long as Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada runs the Senate and Obama keeps Yucca Mountain from operating...)

Re:Add to your list:

[dywolf]

you dont know what youre talking about, no wonder you're AC.

The weakness of the presidentcy

[ralphaostrander]

Is because no president has ever made a judge disappear in modern times. Abraham Lincoln was able to declare war on citizens just think if Obama did that to a state that wanted to separate today. For Obama to have been able to do everything they lay at his feet it would take a man 700 years if he never slept.

Re:yep, what powers Obama is allowed, Palin will h

[Myopic]

I have a hard time seeing your logic. If we don't have universal healthcare, somehow you think that will prevent anti-abortion laws? I don't think that's right. You know that all 50 states used to ban contraceptives, right? Way way back before Obama was even born?

I'm going to get flamed to death for this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I live here in Nevada 90 miles right from where it is going to be put in, and have lived here for over 20 years. In the early 90's I had the oppertunity to do some work on the Nevada Test Site, and see where all the atomic testing was done. In my current career, I have done some extensive travels. I claim to be not nuclear physists, but I cannot think of a better place to have the Nuclear Repository. I have never heard a good reason from one person that lived here, why it should not be here. It should be right next to the place that they lit the bombs off. In fact, it is much better than at all the power houses where they are currently storing the waste.

So that brings me to the next question for all the readers.....why don't we just recycle the waste. Frace does it, with no issues. I am for putting it here in Nevada, re enriching it, and then re using it.

I think that the party you don't like will get ele

[raymorris]

Do you think having Palin or Jeb Bush running the healthcare system, making health decisions for you, would be a good idea? How about Chris Christie? Ron Paul? Do you want them tracking your emails and phone calls?

  One of them, or someone like them, will be president.
If you decide to give the feds power over your life, you are deciding to let Palin, Christie, or Paul make those decisions.

Ron Paul might issue an executive order that condoms have to have aluminum tips - your little head needs a tinfoil hat too. ;)

Sorry, but you do NOT get to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush for all the people murdered by the Muslim extremists fighting each other. People are responsible for their own actions. Every citizen of Iraq blown up by a Suni terrorist is a victim of a Suni terrorist, NOT Bush. Every citizen of Iraq blown up by a Shiite terrorist is the victim of a Shiite terrorist, NOT Bush. I disliked Bush rather intensely and I also dislike Obama rather intensely (NEITHER seems to care about the Constitution) but it's completely illegitimate to blame Bush for sectarian violence in the middle east and it would be completely illegitimate to Blame Obama for the sectarian strife in Egypt or Syria. The people in those places are responsible for their own actions... unless you are a racist who thinks brown-skinned people are not truly mature and adult enough to be treated like adults and held responsible for their own actions; if that's your issue then you've got bigger problems than I care to address

Re:Sorry, but you do NOT get to blame

[ganjadude]

exactly. To put it another way, If we count all the "dead afghans and iraqis" as bushes deaths, then we need to count all the dead libyans, syrians, and egyptians as obama deaths (on top of the iraqi and afghan and american deaths at his hands)

This is basic politics

[GWBasic]

The Obama campaign had to win Reno. In order to win Reno, they had to promise to do everything in their power to keep Yucca mountain closed. This is just a politician trying to keep peace. Reno's residents don't want Yucca open because they don't want nuclear waste trucked through their city. Unfortunately, nothing will convince them that it's safe.

Re:I think that the party you don't like will get

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't run the healthcare system you fucking moron.

They run the Healthcare safetynet. You know, the health-care you get when you can't afford a fucking doctor.

If you can afford to get an abortion now; you can afford to get an abortion when President Prolifer decides to no longer cover it.
If you can't afford abortion now; then the possibility that whatever President of the day might cover it is better than never getting it at all.

This health care is about the poor people; who only get health care at the emergency room door. Sometimes you jerks need to pay a little bit; so that people aren't getting health care in the emergency ward.

Why do you pay for everyone else to get health care? Because it costs more overall to treat everyone at the emergency room. If everyone is in the emergency room; you need bigger emergency rooms to cover you after you slip on your marble floors and crack your head on your gold plated door handles.

Wrong, they went after only conservative groups

[SuperKendall]

They went after other groups as well, including liberal and progressive groups

Thanks for the liberal spin Mr Curiously AC.

In reality those documents released by your fellow liberals don't mean what you think they mean - they do not refer to the targeting that conservative groups undergo (not even past tense, the targeting continues to this day)

Re:Wrong, they went after only conservative groups

[LoRdTAW]

Good lord.

All there is to know is a sudden influx of application for 501C4 applications with the same damn name in them is a minefield for tax fraud. It was the duty of the IRS to sort through these applications to weed out possible fraud groups which are nothing more than scams looking to rob potential conservative voters of their campaign donations. I am sure you are smart enough to understand that over 100 applications all with the name "tea party" in them may very well contain a fraud or scam group looking to get lost in the crowd. Then the right gets its panties in a bunch and turns it into a conspiracy when their "team" lost. What a joke.

Re:Wrong, they went after only conservative groups

[Anonymous Coward]

They went after other groups as well, including liberal and progressive groups

Thanks for the liberal spin Mr Curiously AC.

In reality those documents released by your fellow liberals don't mean what you think they mean - they do not refer to the targeting that conservative groups undergo (not even past tense, the targeting continues to this day)

Sorry, but almost all the targeted groups did engage in political campaigning, quite a bite more than allowed by law. The real scandal is that they got away with it.

Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

The surprising part is that some people are surprised that the administration willingly breaks the law. Obama's been a lawbreaker since he was a kid, and his friends and associates include murderers, corrupt former politicians in jail, shakedown artists, white collar criminals, racist preachers, etc.

Re:yep, what powers Obama is allowed, Palin will h

[dasunt]

It always surprises me that people forget - if you allow the president a power grab, you're giving that power to a future President Palin or whoever. Don't want Palin making your healthcare choices, including contraceptives? Keep the federal government out of health care.

But I can vote a future President Palin out of office.

Right now, a lot of healthcare choices are coerced by health insurance - which doctors I can visit, where I can go, what is covered. The decisions are made by people I don't know, people I have no control over, people I can't remove from their position.

I can switch insurance easier than switch presiden

[raymorris]

I don't know about you, but I can switch health insurance in about 20 minutes. Switching presidents take eight years, and even then I don't get to pick.

I had health insurance I liked just fine. The president, and more so the speaker of the the house, took it away. The previously affordable cost jumped because now I have to buy coverage for aromatherapy or whatever other crap lobbyists and unions got included into the requirements.

For me, I'd rather choose between dozens of very different plans than have the government, ANY government, tell me what I have to buy.

Re:I think that the party you don't like will get

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who lives in a country with universal health care (albeit I'm male, so the right to choose doesn't directly effect me), I can say that while I don't agree with a lot of what our current Prime Minister's views are, the PM hasn't tried to change the mandate of universal healthcare since coming to power ~7 years ago.

Socialized medicine will not inherently lead to the federal government making decisions for you, it's leaders who come into office with the goal of dictating health decisions to the electorate who will. The problem isn't socialized medicine, it's the person/party that Americans elect as president.

Re:yep, what powers Obama is allowed, Palin will h

[gtall]

Yes, let's let the insurance companies run health care. Prior condition? Sorry, you're SOL because here at Medical Decision Are Us, we only insure healthy people. Get a really costly disease? Sorry, we only cover you until you die or we've spent $100,000, which ever comes first, we aren't particular.

I'm not convinced government run health care is better, but I think it is clear that insurance company run health care is failing. Something must change. And the Affordable Care Act is government run health care light, the insurance companies still exist. And we still spend more per capita on health care than other Western countries. And yes we do have the best health care money can provide, and if you don't have the money...well...it's still the best health care money can provide, it just won't be provided to you.

You've got Carter all wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice list, but you mischararacterize Carter. The "he was a pussy" line is Reaganista propaganda and extremely inaccurate (as you'd know if you'd actually met the man - he needs a wheelbarrow to move his enormous brass balls).

So change the Carter line on the list to this:

Carter signed off on the FISA "star court" system that completely eliminated local checks and balances on federal wiretapping and set the stage for the Obama & Bush administration's exemption of the telcos from respecting individual privacy.

Ford was the best president in my lifetime. His pardon of Nixon saved the country billions of dollars, without doing any harm to anyone. King Log is far better than King Stork!

Curious, killing your son wouldn't affect you?

[raymorris]

> As someone who lives in a country with universal health care (albeit I'm male, so the right to choose doesn't directly effect me),

I've always thought that was the strangest statement. Killing your son wouldn't affect you? It would affect me deeply, permanently.
I don't suppose that's actually happened to you yet, has it? You spend a few months getting ready for your new baby, all excited to be a dad,
then she kills your baby, saying she doesn't want to feel fat for another few months? That would most definitely affect me in the most
extreme way.

Re:Curious, killing your son wouldn't affect you?

[Anonymous Coward]

> As someone who lives in a country with universal health care (albeit I'm male, so the right to choose doesn't directly effect me),

I've always thought that was the strangest statement. Killing your son wouldn't affect you? It would affect me deeply, permanently.

As a guy who is sterile through no choice of his own(congenital defect + rare condition), I can only agree.
I had always expected to have a large family, and it hit me hard to find out that I couldn't.

If I was ever with someone who willingly and permanently took my child away from me before I could even meet them, I do not think I could ever stand to look that person in the face again.

Posting AC because those that rated the parent used -1 troll = I disagree

Re:Curious, killing your son wouldn't affect you?

[Myopic]

Anyone who kills a baby gets prosecuted for murder. An no woman has ever said she had an abortion in order to not be fat.

Good straw men, though. A fetus born brain dead might be stupid enough to agree with those arguments.

Let's stick our head in the sand...

[Squidlips]

and pretend that there is no nuclear waste to worry about, in which case closing Yucca Mountain makes perfect sense

Re:Fast becoming the rule rather than the exceptio

[Anonymous Coward]

we've seen the administration declare loudly that they'll refuse to enforce other laws, including immigration laws and the Obamacare employer mandate. /p>

Tell me though, if the President wasn't allowed to prioritize law enforcement based on policy, what power would the Office of the President have?

Re:I can switch insurance easier than switch presi

[smaddox]

I currently work at a university, and must use the university health plan, or pay for another health plan entirely by myself. That's hardly a choice.

Re:Fast becoming the rule rather than the exceptio

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bully pulpit. The position doesn't have the power to selectively do its job based on political reasoning.

Re:Fast becoming the rule rather than the exceptio

[jensend]

How about the following powers?

Section 2.

        The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

        He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

        The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3.

        He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Note that it doesn't say "he shall choose which Laws shall be faithfully executed." Those are legislative, not administrative, powers; when legislation and administration are vested in the same individual it's a dictatorship.

If you think the president should have other powers, go ahead and try to build national consensus around an amendment.

(The Constitution was made to be amended, but since the FDR era, rather than even trying to build real national consensus around constitutional changes, people have simply pretended the Constitution said what they wanted it to say. This is true of people in both parties and in all three branches of government, regardless of how narrow their election victory or how dubious their appointment. There are good reasons why the Constitution requires such a supermajority for amendments- see Morsi in Egypt for an example of what happens when a slim majority can simply rewrite the constitution to fit its whims.)

You're right. I am ashamed I forgot Huntsman.

[Valdrax]

That is not even slightly true; John Huntsman was way more moderate than Romney was. In fact, I believe Huntsman would have been capable of attracting enough liberal votes to win the general election (which was, of course, exactly why he was incapable of winning the primary).

Oh, man. How could I forget Huntsman? You are right, and I am deeply embarrassed to have made that error.

Huntsman was a pretty solid moderate, and I think I would have had a much harder time voting for Obama if he'd been up for the general election. That said, I think he had a snowball's chance in hell because of his moderation. Romney was cynical enough to play to the base; Huntsman considered some of his more moderate positions on immigration and welfare to be a matter of his religious values and was unlikely to flex on them as easily.

I honestly liked Huntsman a good bit. I feel like crap for forgetting him.

Re:You're right. I am ashamed I forgot Huntsman.

[mrchaotica]

Huntsman was the only candidate in the entire race (perhaps aside from some minor third-parties) that I felt like I could actually vote for, rather than "against the alternative."

Re:I think that the party you don't like will get

[halltk1983]

Until it is later mandated that their way is the right way, and they regulate what insurance is allowed to cover, and that isn't part of it. And then mandated that you have to use their insurance only. And then that only procedures that are covered are allowed.

Re:I can switch insurance easier than switch presi

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Well a lot of people can't switch (it's linked to their employment and the only affordable option) or they actually can't get it at all (though that's changing for the better). I guess you don't have any pre-existing conditions.

It is a matter of public good vs individualism here and the balance between the two is shifting a little for health care. There are lots of other things the government does for the public good that affect you as well. Would you rather pay for your own security force vs have the government require you to pay for their police? I'm sure you can think of other examples. The deal is that they have decided the public good issue relating to health care is important enough at this time that things need to change. I think they're probably correct, and that in the long run pretty much everyone will benefit.

Re:I think that the party you don't like will get

[Myopic]

You're not going to stop me from supporting a good law by inventing hypothetical situations about bad laws. I'm not quite stupid enough to fall for that.

Re:I think that the party you don't like will get

[Myopic]

I agree. The USA has had socialized health care since before anyone alive today was old enough to vote. To say that federal health systems lead to tyranny is evidently wrong.

The bigger picture, we are storing NUCLEAR waste

[Trifecta01]

in America where people live! This could harm people's livelihood. Can't we just offshore the waste like we do everything else?