Barack Obama once again missed a legal deadline for sending a budget proposal to Congress. For the fourth time in five years, the Obama Administration proves that it is the laziest and most illegal presidency in the history of America. Only in 2011 did the White House send its budget proposal to Congress before the deadline of the first Monday of February. Propaganda Secretary Jay Carney claims that they are late due to the Fiscal Cliff debate. But this simply does not pass the smell test as each administration has a team which should be doing nothing but working year-round on budget issues. So is this a case of a lack of leadership, or just another sign of the contempt that Obama has for the laws of our nation, including the Constitution?
I would say a bit of all of the above! Obama is the laziest president in U.S. history. He has already been shown to disregard the Constitution on many occasions. Obama sees himself far above the law, not only with budget and fiscal matters, but in sending U.S. military forces into harms way without Congressional approval and his protocols for drone strikes leaves many people suspicious. His Justice Department picks and chooses which laws they intend to enforce, be it immigration or DOMA. While Obama is now talking up gun control his administration handed out thousands of ′assault weapons′ to Mexican drug gangs, responsible for killing not only Americans but hundreds, if not thousands, of Mexican citizens.
This leaves us with the question of just how far will Obama go in breaking our nation′s laws? Will there be some attempt to alter or ignore the Constitution to allow Obama to run for a third term? Is he setting the stage to make himself president for life? Who can say?
The bottom line is that once again, Barack Obama has missed the legal deadline for submitting a budget proposal to Congress. The Obama White House, either through laziness or arrogance, or both, continues its testing of the limits of executive authority under the U.S. Constitution. The Obama Administration routinely breaks the laws of America. But since he does so to allegedly benefit the Low Information Voters, the State-controlled Media gives him a pass.
February 5th, 2013 at 10:39 am
Why should Obama obey the law? No one will hold him accountable. The Republicans are whoosies, the media is Obama’s propaganda tool. What is right is wrong and what is wrong is right. That is Obama’s and the Democrats Party’s communists manifasto.
Obama’s plan is to transform this country. He has to break alot of laws to do that.
WORK! Kings and their ruling class never work. The smelly masses or peasants work. Obama does not know how to work! He has never done it. He life is about self promotion. A guy who agitated strangers and MAYBE ATTEND CLASSES. Taught one or two classes on constitutional law. Love the fact he claims he could of had a great career at a law firm. Yeah! Knowing the law business. The Firm probable asked him to leave after a year because he could not produce or maybe he left on his own because he did not want to produce. Young lawyers fresh out of law school work long hours and you better be proficient in the law. No hanging out pretending you are smart you better be smart.
Media refused to investigate or vet Obama. Now the average citizen grass roots have to hold The Republicans feet to the fire to help stop THE Democrats Destructive Policies. The Sad truth is that the Republicans are not doing their job either.
February 5th, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Don’t overlook the value of incompetence.
February 5th, 2013 at 2:35 pm
obama is waiting on more guidance from the Chinese. They are our paymasters, so it is only fair they get to have their say. Be patient.
February 5th, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Hi there, every time i used to check blog posts here in the early hours in the dawn, as i love to
find out more and more.
February 5th, 2013 at 11:15 pm
The Constitution requires Obama to submit a budget?
Fail! Nice try.
February 5th, 2013 at 11:24 pm
The Constitution requires Obama to submit a budget? Nice try.
February 6th, 2013 at 2:28 am
More importantly, liberals don’t require Obama to be competent. ROFL.
February 6th, 2013 at 3:02 am
There is no constituional requirement for the president to draft a budget. That is the responsibility of the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, they are a bunch of spineless bags of crazy and are scared of the public reaction when we see what they want to cut. They may be the butt lickers of the wealthy but they still fear the unwashed mobs with metaphorical pitchforks. Why do you think they want to limit voting?
February 6th, 2013 at 7:18 am
@ Best Stinking Stinker,
Nobody said that the law requiring Obama to submit a budget by the first Monday in February was in the Constitution, IDIOT! The law requiring such is the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, or Public Law 67–13, 42 Statute 20.
“In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. In recent times, the President’s budget submission, entitled Budget of the U.S. Government, has been issued in the first week of February.”
So there, MORON! Better luck next time!!!
February 6th, 2013 at 9:57 pm
Andy, your Micky impersonation is not making it.
So you think our Constitution gives Congress power to force people to make budgets? What is next… forcing people to buy health insurance?
February 7th, 2013 at 8:11 am
Well, BTT/BSS,
The Constitution certainly does give the Congress the power to pass laws and requires a presidential signature, unless a veto is used and Congress trumps it. But your comment #10 is yet another silly position. The law does not force “people” to make budgets, just the President since he is allegedly the figure-head of the Executive Branch. DUH!!!
February 7th, 2013 at 10:50 am
Hi Andy,
Congressional power over the president? Well, they can override his vetoes, and he needs their consent for treaties and appointments, and they can impeach him. Where among their enumerated powers do you find this “we order the president to submit a budget” power?
Can they also command him to eat broccoli? Let’s hear the argument.
February 7th, 2013 at 11:52 am
“Andy, your Micky impersonation is not making it.”
Five mistakes and/or wrong arguments here.
1st
No one can impersonate me, ass-hole.
2nd
First you got your asinine claim of the presidents legal obligation to submit budgets shot right back up your ass by Andy.
3rd.
Then out of desperation you changed your argument of legality to the congress.
4th
“and he needs their consent for treaties and appointments, ”
Wrong, hes been hiring,firing and appointing with impunity while obtaining a license to kill Americans.
Sec of State submits treaties.
Shes never submitted one we know of, to congress or the prez and hes submitted none either.
I could be wrong, but they’ve never been markable.
5th
“So you think our Constitution gives Congress power to force people to make budgets? What is next… forcing people to buy health insurance?”
You changed the argument again, and bolstered the idiocy I thought was complete in # 1-2-3-4
No, congress cannot force “people” to have budgets, albeit most of us manage to do so anyway,not withstanding the POTUS who is not just “people” but a public servant required by oath to submit budgets in the constitutional parameters Andy shoved up your ass.
And yes, we are forced to buy insurance, especially in matters of liable… high school sociology could teach you that.
Next time you accuse a nice man like Andy of attempting to impersonate me you might want to cast your assumptions closer the hood of Sam Kinison or Don Rickles.
You wont piss me off so much, and you’ll appear to have a clue.
You should really change your moniker.
If you’re the best thinking thinker then my lower hanging left nut is God.
February 7th, 2013 at 2:06 pm
BTT, nothing in the constitution says that the president has to wear pants. When things have been done a certain way for 200 years, just go with the precedent instead of making excuses for incompetence.
February 7th, 2013 at 3:30 pm
Hi folks,
The criticism here is of Obama as being in violation of law concerning submitting budgets to Congress. But then I see waffling from some of the regulars here about whether it is Congress (i.e. a law) or some un-named provision in the Constitution that makes Obama a criminal. And if the answer is Congress, then does the Constitution give such power to Congress?
I am just curious if anyone around here can point out the governing legal authority that would make Obama a criminal. And if that authority can compel the president to submit budgets, can it also compel him to eat broccoli?
I am hoping that someone can give me some answer that makes sense.
February 7th, 2013 at 4:44 pm
“I am hoping that someone can give me some answer that makes sense.”
Not with your list of stupid questions.
You’re original question/statement was answered.
Google “impeachment hearings”, “tribunals” etc…
We are not your drivers ed manual
February 7th, 2013 at 5:50 pm
The president is in violation of the Budget Act of 1974, which requires Potus to submit a budget proposal to congress each February. That is the law that turns the vague wording of the constitution into statutory requirements. So yeah, he is both incompetent and an un-prosecuted “criminal”.
February 8th, 2013 at 3:43 am
Thank you, McCain. So you believe that Congress has the Constitutional authority to compel the president to submit a budget.
Which “vague wording” in the Constitution gives Congress this authority over the president? And who will answer the question: Can Congress also require him to eat broccoli?
February 8th, 2013 at 6:58 am
I suppose if the Congress were to pass such a act, and it was signed into law by the president and passed any legal challenges in the courts, then the president might be required to eat broccoli.
Naturally, this is a ridiculous notion from the mind of a desperate, moronic Liberal. BTT has failed to grasp the significance of the issue at hand. That our nation has been functioning essentially on auto-pilot for the last four years since Obama and the Democrats have been unwilling to pass an annual budget. Something which the past presidents were able to do. Even the dreaded George W. Bush!
February 8th, 2013 at 9:05 am
“With enough care and effort you can grow your own Barack-oli.”
Only Michelle can make him eat broccoli
http://www.styleite.com/media/michelle-obama-barack-broccoli/
I’m still a little confused.
Wasnt it Bush that hated broccoli ?
Someone moonbat dropped a truckload by the front gate ?
From what I’ve seen, Barry will swallow anything green.
Its funny watching these morons spend so much time trying to repair or create sense out of their absolutely wrong opening statements.
February 8th, 2013 at 4:05 pm
BTT, I see that you are not very well versed in our system. The president signed the law, which makes it the law of the land, and he is subject to laws the same as you and me. That’s why we have a president rather than a king. There are laws against killing people too. He cannot do that either.
February 9th, 2013 at 1:46 am
McCain, I am versed enough to expect that claims about the Constitution be accompanied by a citation of one or other of its sections. I am still waiting for someone to direct me to the part that has Congress bossing the president around in this manner. I am actually curious about this.
Can Congress require him to deliver the budget in person while balancing a book on his head? And then to exit from the building doing cartwheels?
And then to eat broccoli?
February 9th, 2013 at 2:07 am
BTT, yes I understand, and allow that you are ignorant of our constitutional system. The president is not allowed to break the law. He cannot kill you when you show up to visit the White House, nor can he set fire to the White House, nor can he shout fire in a crowded movie theater, just as he cannot disobey the budget law. Reread Article 1.8.18 since you are having trouble understanding how laws are made.
The answer to your broccoli question is no. A president would not sign a law that requires him to eat broccoli, so that will never become the law of the land. The president did sign the budget law, so the budget deadlines are the law of the land.
(LOL, feel like I am teaching kindergarten!)
February 9th, 2013 at 7:06 am
I know, Patrick! BTT is just trying to deflect the real tragedy here. That we have an incompetent boob of a president who has failed to get a new annual federal budget passed in four years.
February 9th, 2013 at 10:04 am
I think we need to start at the very beginning with this guy.
An elementary introduction to our government,its three major branchs and how it works, or in this case, is supposed to work.
“Can Congress require him to deliver the budget in person while balancing a book on his head? And then to exit from the building doing cartwheels?”
No one with an honest argument would ask a question like this because no one here opined that there would such a ridiculous balance of power to the congress.
He figures if he keeps this thread going long enough someone will get the time of day wrong so he can point it out and claim victory.
His moniker commits him to more responsibility than he can handle
February 9th, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Hi all!
Under our Constitution, the legislative power resides in Congress. Congress can override a veto… so yes, Congress could pass a law ordering the president to do cartwheels and eat broccoli. But does the Constitution authorize Congress to legislate in such matters?
McCain, you have helpfully advanced the discussion by actually referencing the enumerated powers of Congress. Can someone please elaborate how those powers permit Congress to boss the president around in the matter at hand?
February 9th, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Yes, in the necessary-and-proper clause I gave you before (1.8.18). Conservatives hate this clause because it has been used by our federal government to greatly increase its power for decades. Unfortunately however it is settled law.
It’s not “bossing around” the president, but rather creating laws that bind people whether it is the president or us little people. You are making the typical liberal’s mistake of venerating presidents like kings. They are just citizens like everyone else, bound to rule of law like everyone else.
Obamacare opens the door to your broccoli question. In the Obamacare law, citizens are now required to buy a product they don’t want. It seems that our federal government, in the infinite wisdom of the liberals who supported this law, could now compel citizens to buy broccoli by simply documenting that it is “proper” to do so. Compelling them to eat it is a whole different matter, although it is still an interesting question. Minors are compelled to ingest medications whether they want to or not, so it’s not such an Orwellian stretch for the government to compel citizens to eat foods that are good for them.
When they get around to doing such a thing, it will be challenged in court and one would expect the Supreme Court to nullify the law you are imagining might happen. So no, the president could not be compelled to eat broccoli or do cartwheels, assuming the Court agrees.
Now back from nonsensical questions to reality. The President is required by law to submit a budget every February. He is breaking the law, and should he be prosecuted and convicted for it he would then be a “criminal” as you labeled him before.
February 9th, 2013 at 5:36 pm
I expected an answer that had something to do with showing how the enumerated powers of Congress, made actionable by the Necessary and Proper clause, give Congress the authority to order the president to submit a budget.
Can someone please explain how this obligation on the president, ordered up by Congress, is constitutional?
February 9th, 2013 at 6:12 pm
Again, you are assuming for reasons that are unclear that presidents are above the law. Get over the kingly worship idea. Laws are constitutionally binding until they are challenged in court and get nullified, something Obama could do with this law but hasn’t. By the way, he would lose because it is necessary and proper, something made obvious by the last four years of having no budget. And besides, challenging the law would make no sense because the president (a president) signed the law.
In another example, the debt ceiling limit is arbitrarily set by Congress, and binding on the president because we have laws for how debt ceilings are raised. Obama can’t just raise the debt ceiling, because you see, it would be a king’s power to print money whenever he wants, but we have a citizen president bound by law rather than a king.
Conversations with liberals can be very strange because their attention to trivial details loses the big picture. There is another more recent thread in which the president was called in all seriousness a “daddy” to Americans. Liberals have a very strange reverence for government, particularly willing to cede unlimited power to this president for some reason. Anyone know why?
February 9th, 2013 at 6:23 pm
Dude, are you fcking brain dead ?
Congress drew up this requirement of the prez around 1920 and the judiciary has never had to judge on its constitutional merits.
The Congress by statute, requires the President to submit a budget to the Congress each year. By doing so, the President establishes the starting point and the framework of the annual budget debate.
And where the hell’d you get this sht that the congress can make the prez eat anything ?
You’re just jerkin everyone off and wasting they’re time because you cant back your opening assertion that the constitution doesnt say Obama has to submit yearly budget.
By way of constitutional legislation he in fact does.
February 9th, 2013 at 6:26 pm
Sorry Patrick, “Dude” would be BTT
February 10th, 2013 at 12:26 am
I am still hoping to hear about the constitutionally enumerated powers that give Congress authority to boss the president around in the matter at hand. “Necessary and proper” to implement which of the enumerated powers?
Can Congress also require the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to deliver a budget for the U.S government? Can it require the governor of South Dakota to do so? The Dean of the Kennedy School?
Where are the limits of Congress’ power in the matter at hand? And can it make these guys eat broccoli?
February 10th, 2013 at 2:08 am
Insanity. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our government works. Read Article 1 of the constitution, Section 3, the part that says presidents need to make sure that the laws of congress are faithfully executed. You can research the court cases on that clause that have resulted in the popular expression that a president is not above the law.
Then get back to the fact that there is a law that requires the president to submit a budget, something that is “necessary and proper.” Your red herring arguments about broccoli and cartwheels fail because they would be thrown out by the court as not necessary and proper should an incompetent president actually sign such a law and a successor challenge it.
Is any of this making sense? You are beginning to repeat the same questions that have already been answered, so reread, study the issue yourself, and come back a little more educated. I will be happy to debate this issue with you in the future, but I think you need to do some homework first.
(and yes Micky, I know full well when I’m getting dicked around but the questions actually interest me!)
February 10th, 2013 at 12:08 pm
Guys like BTT ought to understand that its people like him jerking us off are the ones who lose any hope of a respectful discussion on my part
Like the used car salesman I dealt with once who quoted me some insane price for piece of sht, which was all I could afford at the time.
After his outrageous asking price being floated past my ears I floated a just as outrageous offer past his ears to which I concluded, “you make me ridiculous offer and give you back one just as ridiculous.
When you’re ready to be honest and reasonable we’ll talk some more. Until then you’re an ass hole
If he’d rather have the false pride and empty satisfaction of telling himself he blew off a hopeless prospect while my moneys still in my pocket and not his he gets what he deserves.
And that would be a summary in Angies list saying hes a fcktard you dont want to business with.
BTT is more interested in finding something he can pin on you as wrong, win some stupid ego boosting contest.
All this and in the meantime when he should really be asking, much like the car salesman, “what needs to be done to reach a deal”?
That action would need to be for the president to engage in the traditional 3 way negotiation regulated by law Where the House and Senate budget committees begin consideration of the President’s budget proposals.
If the president will not be a part of the legal process BTT needs to ask “why” we are subjected to his dereliction of duty instead of asking his critics how much power congress has to make Obama do broccoli cartwheels.
Seems everyone except BTT is aware of the limits and extents of congressional power.
All he needs to do is ask Nixon, or Clinton.
At least Nixon had enough class to resign before costing anyone more hassle than needed.
The left is quite content in spending more time getting Obamas ass out of slings than they are about fixing an economy that continually costs more than it produces.
Any responsible corporation would fire their CEO for not submitting a budget as contracted part of his duty.
And if so, according to the constitution, would be legal.
If the Senate were also a republican majority I’m willing to bet more constitutional motivations would be leaned against him.
February 10th, 2013 at 5:51 pm
McCain,
You would do well to study up on the War Powers Act, another attempt by Congress to boss the president around, and which Reagan and Clinton both violated (they considered it unconstitutional). The conservatives of the day insisted that Reagan was above the law (using your phrasing, not theirs).
The “necessary and proper” clause is an enumerated power that authorizes Congress to pass laws that fulfill the *other* enumerated powers in the Constitution. So I remain in the dark about the authority that you find in our constitution for Congress to boss the president around in this matter.
But I will take the bait on “necessity”. Obama has been sending budgets to Congress for years, and each year they are pronounced “dead on arrival” by Congress, who then go about their constitutional business of legislating taxes and spending. Obama’s 2011 budget was rejected by a vote of 99-0 in the Senate.
Reagan’s LATE (law-breaking?) budgets were also pronounced “dead on arrival” by the Congress of the day, who also then went about their constitutional business of legislating taxes and spending.
So this fails even a very expansive definition of “necessary.” Presidential budgets are just political posturing, as is the faux outrage about them that I hear of late.
But we don’t get as far as debating “necessity” until someone puts forward a constitutional authority for Congress to boss the president around in this matter.
Maybe it is there. But so far all I have heard is “it’s the law”.
February 10th, 2013 at 6:12 pm
Article 1, section 3, requires the president to implement the laws, something you want to ignore. Do you understand that point now?
You cannot argue that Obama believes this law is unconstitutional, because he already followed this law, and if he did believe it was unconstitutional he would be violating his oath of office by not defending the constitution, something he is also constitutionally bound to do. That makes it different than Reagan’s handling of the War Powers Act, which Reagan believed was unconstitutional. Lots of theory about the War Powers Act, but another red herring as it doesn’t apply here.
February 10th, 2013 at 6:14 pm
But, but… what about…
February 10th, 2013 at 6:43 pm
http://budget.house.gov/budgetprocess/
February 10th, 2013 at 6:44 pm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/1105
February 10th, 2013 at 8:49 pm
McCain, So you are back to saying “It’s the Law”. I am getting tired of this.
You guys insist that Obama should be regarded as a criminal because he submitted budgets late, and I will suppose that you guys (out of consistency) also think Ronald Reagan was a criminal because HE submitted late budgets, and that they both thereby displayed “contempt for the Constitution” to quote Andy.
This seems important. So I have asked for something that you all are either unable or unwilling to put forth: the enumerated power that authorizes Congress to boss the president around in the matter at hand. Maybe there is one, but you guys have out-lasted me: I will give up trying to find an answer here.
February 10th, 2013 at 10:19 pm
It’s the constitution. The constitution requires that the president execute the laws. Keep thinking about it and you might understand the words and figure it all out. For now you are just sounding obtuse, but I think it’s more likely you just don’t want the constitution to be so because it’s inconvenient to the president you venerate as king and daddy.
February 11th, 2013 at 11:34 am
“This seems important. So I have asked for something that you all are either unable or unwilling to put forth: the enumerated power that authorizes Congress to boss the president around in the matter at hand.”
First of all, “boss around” is a bullsht argument.
Congress can however leverage many legal actions as deterrents or incentives.
No one is going to take legal action against him in this matter because of three reasons.
1, It would be counter-productive to the goal at hand.
2. Even if he did submit a budget it would suck as much as the rest of his economic policies.
3.
The Senate would never decide against him.
But there can be no doubt of his contempt for due process and legally binding protocols as is “enumerated” in the Cornell link I supplied above.
These procedures are binding by Congressional amendments made in 1921.
He has failed to fulfill his oath to defend that Constitution. There is no doubt about that.
If Reagan committed the same dereliction so be it. That doesnt make right what Obama has done many more times.
He has sworn to execute these duties as laid out …
============
31 USC § 1105 – Budget contents and submission to Congress
(a) On or after the first Monday in January but not later than the first Monday in February of each year, the President shall submit a budget of the United States Government for the following fiscal year. Each budget shall include a budget message and summary and supporting information. The President shall include in each budget the following:…
Obama has failed to perform any of the duties “enumerated” in USC § 1105 which happens to be a very long list of requirements and procedures.
Here is your enumerated list of the powers Congress has that allow them to act on the presidents failure.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors, a reading on the meaning of this strange phrase that is the grounds for most impeachments and an activity in which students determine the outcome of hypothetical impeachment proceedings.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
The U.S. Constitution provides impeachment as the method for removing the president, vice president, federal judges, and other federal officials from office. The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives and follows these steps:
The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official.
If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.
If a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.
For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again.
The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.”
http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html
I guess if you want call ousting his ass to the curb “bossing around” it would not be a stretch.
Your questions have all been made clear, abnd in good faith…
“The Constitution requires Obama to submit a budget?
Fail!”
No fail at all.
The facts have been laid out for you.
The Constitutional amendment of 1921 makes this requirement abundantly clear.
Any further inquiries on your part are only to detract from your ignorance.
Simply put, you’re wrong and you’re too much of an ass hole to admit it so you ask for complicated but irrelevant answers to irrelevant questions as a smoke screen to hide your idiocy.
February 11th, 2013 at 9:55 pm
Why did I bother checking in again?
In the original post, our friend Andrew went on and on about how Obama violated the Constitution by failing to submit a budget on time. When I called him on it, he retreated and said he was talking about a law passed by Congress (duh!) and not the Constitution. Score one for me.
Next (helpfully advancing the discussion) I asked whether Congress had constitutional authority to pass such a law. But the discussion ground to a halt as you guys a) failed to cite any relevant text giving Congress authority to boss the president around with budget deadlines, and b) tried to change the subject to whether the president should obey budget deadlines created by an act of Congress.
And now here is Micky, claiming that there was a “Constitutional amendment of 1921″ that establishes a presidential budget deadline. (“Look at the graph, moron!”)
I am ready to declare an implicit admission on your collective parts that you cannot find any place in the Constitution granting Congress the authority to boss the president around with budget deadlines. Maybe it is there, but I won’t learn about it here.
BTW, I am curious if you guys have the same contempt for Reagan as you do for Obama in this matter. Both submitted budgets after the deadline set for them by Congress.
February 11th, 2013 at 10:06 pm
a) The constitution requires that the president execute the laws.
b) The Budget Act (just another law that the president is required to execute like any other law) requires that the president submit a budget each February. Obama did not do so.
c) Therefore, because of a) and b), he is acting unconstitutionally. That makes him a felon.
The problem with your whole approach to this thread is you were ignorant that a) exists in the constitution. You learned that here, and yet you continue to repeat the same line rather than adapt.
February 12th, 2013 at 7:18 am
Two points, BTT:
1) The above article does not drone on and on about how Obama violates the Constitution, but rather drones on and on about his contempt for it. You are probably confusing this with an earlier article about Obama violating the Constitution with his recess appointments, which a federal court did verify.
2) Reagan did indeed submit some late budgets, 3, of which 2 during his 1st term he sought and got extensions on the deadline from Congress. Only in the 3rd year of his second term was he late, by 45 days, due to a quirk in the law which set the deadline that year for Jan.4, 1988.
One must also keep in mind, that Reagan, along with every president before Obama, submitted actual budgets. Thick, lengthy, highly detailed budgets covering everything. The last three Obama has submitted were essentially just outlines, each barely 20 pages long, if that. Little wonder that they were all rejected by the Senate with unanimous votes.
February 12th, 2013 at 7:19 am
Here is a rundown on when all past federal budgets were submitted by presidents:
http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=276880
February 12th, 2013 at 9:04 am
“And now here is Micky, claiming that there was a “Constitutional amendment of 1921″ that establishes a presidential budget deadline. (“Look at the graph, moron!”)”
Hey ass hole, I’m simply showing you when the law you cant seem to fathom was enacted.
I’ve bounced back n forth with you on this by being patient and accommodating you with numerous pertinent facts proving you wrong, to calling you a jerk off ass hole.
At this point you leave me little choice as any sense of diplomacy I’ve got left has gone right out the fcking window.
You’re nothing but a cantemptuos antagoning little punk who thinks hes got some major fcking piint to get across when really all you’re doing is creating a slew of sht to hide your fckin inability to grasp the simple concept of an answer to a question proving you wrong.
You’re like the loser who wife tells him shes divorcing him and answers every statement she makes or question she asks with “why?”
Its not up to her to answer why you’re a fckin limp dick with no future for both of you or yourself yet you persist on asking why as if being her fault she’d have the ansdwer.
“Badly Thinking Thinker I’m leaving you”
“Why”?
Because you’re a limp dick loser”
Why” ?
Because you only screw me when your see yourself in the mirror”
“Why”
“Because you’re a narcissistic ass hole”
“Why ” ?
Because you jacked your brain off into some superiority complex”
Why ?
Because you cant accept the truth about yourself.”
Why ” ?
Because you’re a liberal”
“Why” ?
Because you’re a narcissistic ass hole who thinks everyone owes you something, you’re lazy. So lazy that you cant muster the courage and humility to accept your failures”
Why” ?
Because courage is the one thing the government cant take from someone else and give to you”
“Why”
Bottom line is you’d rather jerk off your ole lady in an attempt to look like you’re in control of some sht, as retarded as it is, instead of acceting truth and using it to reach agreement.
Pat, Andy, and myself have been more than gracious in supplying you with relevancy and truth and yet you continue to ask questions as if you’re grinding the organ and were your fckin monkeys.
Monkeys throw sht at you when they’ve had enough of your crap, or just dont like the way you look.
Its time for you to shut the fck up and leave, or duck.
“s control of budgetary decision-making, Congress is
also empowered to create formal mechanisms of communication
between the executive and the legislature on budgetary matters.
Prior to 1921, the President had no statutory responsibilities for submitting a budget.
1s
The President’s formal role began with the
Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (1921 Act),19 which Congress
enacted in response to the huge national debt accumulated during
World War I. The 1921 Act required the President to construct
and submit an annual budget, but it allowed Congress complete
freedom to alter the budget.20 Congress was expected to coordinate its revenue and spending decisions with the President’s budgetary recommendations. The President was supposed to be responsible for overall budget aggregates, with Congress retaining
the right to set priorities within those aggregates. 21
Although the 1921 Act accorded greater budgetary responsibility to the President, it did not alter the fundamental balance of
power between Congress and the President.
22 The President’s responsibility to establish budget aggregates was more than tempered by Congress’ power to increase or decrease the President’s
budget by a simple majority vote. The 1921 Act thus respected
two essential constitutional principles: the President’s responsibility for his own proposals and Congress’ ultimate responsibility for
appropriations, subject only to the President’s veto. Under the
1921 Act, Congress did not surrender or dilute its fiscal prerogatives, nor invade any executive prerogatives. In fact, the 1921 Act
did not subordinate executive prerogatives.
Congress sought again to protect its budgetary prerogatives,
and preserve the balance of power between the executive and itself, when it enacted the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (Budget Act).2!1 Congress passed the Budget
Act in response to the impoundment controversy of the early…
cont… http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1409&context=facpubs
end of story schmuck
February 13th, 2013 at 12:20 am
Hi all,
Finally, someone (Micky of all people) stumbles into actually responding to my question. He accidentally includes a (partially cut off) hint at an actual constitutional defense, namely…..
That Congress, because of its “control of budgetary decision making” is “empowered to create formal mechanisms of communication” between the executive and Congress on budget matters.
So maybe this:
Congress has the power to tax and spend: these are enumerated powers found in the the Constitution. So… Check! But Congress thinks they can’t exercise these powers unless the president tells them what to do, so it becomes “necessary and proper” that we have a law that makes him tell them, while they retain complete power to ignore or change every aspect of it. And… Check!!
Is that it? For all I know it could be perfectly sound constitutional law.
Thank you, Micky!
What was so hard about that? Why couldn’t the rest of you guys step up like Micky?
(One of the Tea Party demands was to get a commitment by Congress to include within the text of any new laws an explanation of how said law fell within the enumerated powers of Congress. You should not be annoyed by these kinds of questions, guys.)
February 13th, 2013 at 2:28 am
Liberals are wonderfully, lovably dense aren’t they?
a) The constitution requires that the president execute the laws.
b) The Budget Act (just another law that the president is required to execute like any other law) requires that the president submit a budget each February. Obama did not do so.
c) Therefore, because of a) and b), he is acting unconstitutionally. That makes him a felon.
The problem with your whole approach to this thread is you were ignorant that a) exists in the constitution. You learned that here, and yet you continue to repeat the same line rather than adapt.
February 13th, 2013 at 7:36 am
Uh… McCain’s “a” refers to the responsibilities of the president, not to the constitutional powers of Congress, so I guess we are back to not responding to my question.
That means that Micky now sets the bar for intellectual achievement here. Bravo, Micky!
A “felon”? Obama but not (somehow) Reagan? (Please see Andy’s last).
February 13th, 2013 at 11:06 am
“That means that Micky now sets the bar for intellectual achievement here. Bravo, Micky!”
As well as you set the bar for ass holism.
I got news for you Holmes.
Unlike leftists I’m not ever trying to set the bar for any level of intellect because intellect is subjective, especially by liberals, on the basis that even approaching debate on issues such as global warming automatically makes you an intellectual midget.
So far, on the issue of the presidents legal obligations,you’ve proven the same habit of creating a fictitious level of intellect by asking questions that do not honestly go to making your point, even when answered.
By asserting that the president was not breaking the law you asked how we saw that he was breaking the law. We showed you how he in fact is and has broken the law.
The deeper and more important question that needs to be asked, whether hes legally bound or not, is, “why the fck isnt he doing his job as required by constitutional amendment ?
How is his avoidance of this procedure helping ?
And by not doing so is he harboring some ulterior motive ?
Or is he just a narcissistic rogue idiot whos so delusional he thinks his Midas touch will correct any unintended results ?
because clearly, the mans vision, or “road map to success” is a humoungous failure.
I’m no great intellect. I’m just asnother normal average guy who asks normal questions like ” why hasnt he submitted his required budget proposals for 4 years now ?
And how does he think the three way submission process between him, the house, and the senate can work if he removes himself from that procedure thats required by constitutional law since 1921 ?
Obviously, the intellect you claim to posses cant decipher what issues truly deserve contemplation.
We accused Obama of breaking the law, you opined that we were wrong, we proved you wrong.
We showed you the statutes, and explained why impeachment proceedings for breaking this law would be fruitless effort for a few reasons, mostly because it would never get thru the leftist dominated senate.
I have a feeling you never read the U of Cornells accurate description of the law or you did and are just fcking dumb and hung up on a list of powers that give congress the ability to push the prez around.
Presidents have always been pushed around by congresses implementing solid binding legislation’s against them. And even non legislative means such as not voting on Brenner or Hagel til he tells us the truth about Benghazi
End of story schmuck.
I’ll take a leap and say that from here you’ll be ignored by both Pat and I.
The circle jerk is over and you should pay us for making you feel relevant
February 13th, 2013 at 11:56 am
Until Hagel tells the truth about Benghazi?
So you think he has some “secret” information that he is not disclosing?
This continued nonsense about the “truth” about Benghazi is merely code for someone’s head on a post, and even more accurately, “Would someone please make Obama take the rap and apologize and then rightfully resign.”
I know the right simply can’t understand why this wasn’t Obama’s Watergate. “Why aren’t the American people outraged”? “It must be mainstream media (or “lamestream”, the right never gets tired of that one) coddling the President.
So enough about this quest for the Benghazi secrets”.
Everyone tried to pin it directly to Obama, it didn’t work, move on.
February 13th, 2013 at 11:57 am
5,4,3,2,1…”Four dead Americans”!
February 13th, 2013 at 1:53 pm
“Everyone tried to pin it directly to Obama, it didn’t work, move on.”
Thats nice, our people on a peaceful mission were slaughtered like cattle,his staff is either totally clueless or bustin their asses trying to cover their asses… and you just want to FCKING MOVE ON ?
There are in fact many things about this charade that could be pinned directly to Obama.
Would you like to start with Susan Rice being instructed to show up on every Sunday news show and pump us full of scripted bullsht, or his secretary of state not doing her job ? or the prez being MIA on this matter half the time ? Would you like to hear about why there were no enhanced security on the 911 anniversary ? Sht… they cant even “confirm or deny” a weapons shipment going to Syria ?
By way of Obamas incompetence I can pin all that sht on him.
You act like were trying to convict the man of murder. That would be wrong.
Most people just want a picture that makes sense and to see those who were responsible…held responsible.
February 14th, 2013 at 8:36 pm
It is obvious that none of you folks understand Micky’s (accidentally) brilliant constitutional analysis, even Micky doesn’t get it, since he is back to talking about what the law is (never an issue) rather than what the constitution allows Congress to do (my question after Andy caved on the Constitution vs. law issue).
Can Congress make the president eat broccoli? The rest of you had no answer other than “that’s just silly.” You could offer no limiting principle. But Micky’s brilliant analysis has the answer! Congress’ power IN THIS INSTANCE is rooted in the first enumerated power (to tax and spend), and since eating broccoli has nothing to do with exercising that power, their power over the president IN THE MATTER AT HAND can’t be broadened to include a power to make him eat broccoli. Any asserted power to make him eat broccoli would need to find some other place in the constitution for support.
Why do I have to do all the thinking around here?