President
Obama violated a “clear and unambiguous” law when he released five
Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl,
the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday.
“[The Department of Defense] violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the GAO report said. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation.”
The GAO rejected the idea that the action was legal and sidestepped the Obama team’s suggestion that the law is unconstitutional.
“It is not our role or our practice to determine the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes,” the report says. “In our view, where legislation has been passed by Congress and signed by the President, thereby satisfying the bicameralism and presentment requirements in the Constitution, that legislation is entitled to a heavy presumption in favor of constitutionality.”
“[The Department of Defense] violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the GAO report said. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation.”
The GAO rejected the idea that the action was legal and sidestepped the Obama team’s suggestion that the law is unconstitutional.
“It is not our role or our practice to determine the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes,” the report says. “In our view, where legislation has been passed by Congress and signed by the President, thereby satisfying the bicameralism and presentment requirements in the Constitution, that legislation is entitled to a heavy presumption in favor of constitutionality.”
You will if you don't start paying your taxes
ReplyDeleteRick Perry has been indicted for withholding funding from a state agency lead by a drunk.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess that counts.
Look at who is behind the lawsuit.
DeleteThe group that filed the complaint against Governor Rick Perry in the first place, Texans For Public Justice, has a history of going after Republican leaders.
“We primarily keep databases of campaign contributions and lobby expenditures in an effort to fair it out in terms of who’s paying who to do what to whom in Texas politics,” explained Andrew Wheat, the research director for Texans for Public Justice.
Groups biggest contributor: George Soros. 500K.
Follow the money.
Because the bar for conviction is so high Perry will probably flim flam his way out of this....but the group has hit his intent right on the head. The agency was in the process of investigating some of his donors and some questionable grant awards made with Perry's approval.
DeletePolitics as usual, is anyone surprised?
ReplyDeleteWhere did Perry get those glasses. Has he bumped his head. Are those the glasses that people with brain damage wear?.
ReplyDeleteYour a funny guy.
DeleteA president violates the law via the DOD and you dis Perry's glasses.
The divisiveness continues.
You claim the bar for conviction is so high, he will flim flam his way out of a bogus charge.
Seems your partisanship is showing big time this AM.
The glasses comment was a joke louman. It is poking fun at the Republicans who accused Hillary Clinton of having brain damage because of the glasses she wore. Partisanship is always showing on this site. Now, actually Perry is being indicted because he vetoed a bill, which one presumes is his right as Governor. What would happen is we began indicting every Governor who vetoed a bill? I'll tell you, eventually no one would run for Governor. At least that would reduce the size of Government wouldn't it? Given that, the Tea Party should support this indictment don't you think?
DeleteThat may be a joke from you but not so much from Rick. Strictly a partisan comment.
DeleteMy position exactly, the attempt to prosecute a governor for doing the job as written is beyond an over reach of the left or the right should they attempt a similar action.
Nope louman was exactly as described by Mick. Just shows the hypocrisy of the right. You say it about a D but don't fucking say it about a T.
Delete"President Obama violated a “clear and unambiguous” law when he released five Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday."
ReplyDeleteI find this interesting and suggest it should be apolitical. Pease allow me to look at the situation another way. All America wants Gtmo shut down, it is a laudable aspiration to recover the soldier. Both causes were assisted by the actions and yet there is concern that a law has been breached. Can I suggest that the law is for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools? Time to move on to the next issue perhaps.
Cheers from Aussie
Might I suggest that laws are not mere suggestions to be acted on depending on the prevailing wind. When laws become mere suggestions, then men and not laws rule the day and the more laws that are distorted by precedent, the more likelihood that dubious intentions and lesser leaders overtake the process of governance....
DeleteSomeone on this site has suggested repeatedly that documents expounding on the relevance of various provisions of the constitution mean nothing, that because a president in the past created a precedent in the law, future presidents are entitled to the same privilege of legal distortion and even out right lies mean little because well... everyone does it.
Most Americans understood from its opening that Gitmo was extralegal and that provisions of the NDAA are down right unconstitutional. When abstraction becomes the guiding light in law enforcement (and creation)... you arrive at lawlessness. You are correct however that this discussion should be apolitical... except some people fine no guidance in the law or its roots, only something to overcome, circumvent and most recently, just ignore..
Its not an issue to move on from... it is the issue.
because a president in the past created a precedent in the law, future presidents are entitled to the same privilege
DeleteA great concept as long as you party remains in power. When the opposing party takes office the concept no longer applies, at least until their party takes power again.
Imagine a Republican and deciding he no longer wants to enforce the ACA. Entirely plausible with the excuse Obama changes the law so am I.
The laws have been changed stretched and manipulated by every president we've had. it started about 2 minutes after the constitution was signed. Never really mattered to anyone until this president. Oh the black man is in power. Get over it.
DeleteBlack man in power?
DeleteThought he was the president. You know 1 leg of the 3 legs of government.
Legislative, Judicial and Executive Branch
Like Obama, you seem to forget how government is suppose to work.
I know exactly how it works lou do you? I am also a realist and know that it never has really worked as planned. Your small govt hero Thomas Jefferson went to the grave believing he violated the law by purchasing Louisiana. Louisiana that which moved us off the coast and into the heartland of this great continent. He was never really sure he did it right. But nobody threatened him did they.Obama made 19 executive orders just yesterday to help with the problems at the VA. Where's your beef on that one? You pick and choose that which you wish to bitch about. If he's so wrong IMPEACH HIM. Hell you guys tried to impeach Clinton for getting a little head on the side. He said he didn't have sex with the woman and he didn't. Even a rape case takes penetration and there was none, none that was not invited anyway. A Cigar I believe it was.
DeleteNow to me Obama is my president. to you yeah HNIC. The black man in power.
All America wants Gtmo shut down
ReplyDeleteAn over statement at best.
Either a law was broken or not. Not a political issue at all.
No Lou all Americans do want Gitmo shut down.
Delete
DeleteA bit out of touch??
Most Americans do not want President Obama to shut down the United State's terrorist detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a poll released this afternoon.
Americans continue to be wary of releasing prisoners with terrorist ties like the ones swapped last month for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl or moving them to prisons in the U.S.
Two in three Americans told Gallup that they want president Obama to keep the 149 suspected terrorists being held at Gitmo under lock and key on foreign soil instead of shutting down the camp.
The majority of Americans don't want the president to close the terrorist holding facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
The majority of Americans don't want the president to close the terrorist holding facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
American have never wanted the president to close Guantanamo Bay, but the number against it has increased since the president promised to shut it down on the campaign trail
American have never wanted the president to close Guantanamo Bay, but the number against it has increased since the president promised to shut it down on the campaign trail
Closing Guantanamo Bay was one of the president's core campaign promises in the 2008 presidential election.
On his first full day in office, Obama stated that 'Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now.'
That never happened, in part, because the idea became politically unpopular and Congress clamped down on the president's authority to release and transfer detainees.
Americans have never wanted president Obama to close the prison and move the most dangerous inmates to prisons on U.S. soil, but the number in favor of keeping it open has sharply increased since the president brought attention to it by promising to shut it down
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657476/Majority-Americans-NOT-want-Obama-shut-Guantanamo-Bay.html
Then let's bring them to trial and be done with it. If guilty kill them if not send them home they have been in limbo long enough. See Louman it is you that is out of touch. The real reason Gitmo is still open is that we are kinda stuck with these people. Their home countries don't want them back and refuse to take them. So we get to keep them and figure it out without the rest of the world., A problem of our own making.
DeleteAs for your poll look at the question. It says close and move these people to American soil. Of course nobody wants that. Gallup also asked if the prisoners should be moved to a prison in the answerers own state 74% said no. Lou everyone is for closing that hell hole if you ask the question without the "bring the prisoners to American soil" part of it.
Delete