Obama's idea of foriegn policy.......

[sandman 13]

Obama's State Deptartment spends $70,000 on advertising in Pakistan TV on apologies...........

 

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/20/13992235-us-spends-70000-on-pakistan-ad-denouncing-anti-muslim-film?lite

 

 

 

 

 

Result, 17 dead and more than 100 injured across Pakistan, including a "protest" that attempted to overrun and burn our embassy in Islamabad.

 

 

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/09/20129219618263113.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please, stay tuned to watch Obama's next diplomatic masterstroke.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

One, that's as massive a violation of the Establishment Clause as you'll EVER see.

 

Two, I'm really at a loss for words. Romney HAS to win in November...right?

[falcon_hater 11]

Alot of the young are voting obama. they dont understand whats at stake for our country and its future. I am worried

[BHS03 99]

UVA, I have some legal questions.

 

1. Why is Obama able to continue to break laws without any consequence?

 

2. Can anyone take illegal action against him?

[Deleted Account 5,203]

UVA, I have some legal questions.

 

1. Why is Obama able to continue to break laws without any consequence?

 

2. Can anyone take illegal action against him?

 

To the first, it boils down to a breakdown in the checks in power. Congress, over the last two decades, has neutered itself by willingly giving the executive the power reserved to it and it alone. You see this every time Congress forks over responsibility to a federal agency. The judiciary at the federal level has become an exercise of partisanism. On close calls, you're probably going to get a ruling that leans toward the judges ideology. For example, you find most of your conservative rulings in the south (4th/5th/11th circuits), and you find your more liberal rulings in the north/west (1st/2nd/9th circuits). And since the Supreme Court is closer to 5/4 liberal most of the time, Obama's got a built-in advantage.

 

To the second, there are two requirements for federal court. One is a federal question, which things like EPA regulations are. Two is diversity, in which you need (1) diversity of citizenship (i.e. a VA citizen v. a WV citizen), and (2) an amount in dispute over $75K.

 

There are three more requirements for the particular action. One, there must be actual, direct harm (as in, some damage to the person/organization). Two, the suit must be ripe for action (as in, you can't bring a suit in an action in which you anticipate you will be harmed). Three, the suit must not be moot (which means, the harm hasn't been fully rectified...more applicable to monetary damage).

 

And since people are more often indirectly rather than directly harmed by the state's policies, you'll more often see corporations/states fighting them.

Edited October 3, 2012 by UVAObserver

[BHS03 99]

To the first, it boils down to a breakdown in the checks in power. Congress, over the last two decades, has neutered itself by willingly giving the executive the power reserved to it and it alone. You see this every time Congress forks over responsibility to a federal agency. The judiciary at the federal level has become an exercise of partisanism. On close calls, you're probably going to get a ruling that leans toward the judges ideology. For example, you find most of your conservative rulings in the south (4th/5th/11th circuits), and you find your more liberal rulings in the north/west (1st/2nd/9th circuits). And since the Supreme Court is closer to 5/4 liberal most of the time, Obama's got a built-in advantage.

 

To the second, there are two requirements for federal court. One is a federal question, which things like EPA regulations are. Two is diversity, in which you need (1) diversity of citizenship (i.e. a VA citizen v. a WV citizen), and (2) an amount in dispute over $75K.

 

There are three more requirements for the particular action. One, there must be actual, direct harm (as in, some damage to the person/organization). Two, the suit must be ripe for action (as in, you can't bring a suit in an action in which you anticipate you will be harmed). Three, the suit must not be moot (which means, the harm hasn't been fully rectified...more applicable to monetary damage).

 

And since people are more often indirectly rather than directly harmed by the state's policies, you'll more often see corporations/states fighting them.

 

My head is spinning a little but that does help. Thanks for the info!