Snopes Resolves the whole NAU Nutjob Theory

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The constitution isn't a list of things that are allowed. The Constitution is a list of exceptions. A democracy lets the people make any rules the people want. The constitution is an exception to that. Basically a list saying (well, you can't do this).

It's not a list of what CAN be done, but what CAN'T.

Do you understand the purpose of the constitution OR the executive branch? There IS a purpose for the executive branch if you didn't know.

Nope. You are familiar with the phrase "all rights reserved"?

I says right in the document that the federal government can ONLY do what the document states it can do.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Corsair 115]

It is headed by the executives of the three nations. You can not honestly divorce the heads of the organization from their positions as the heads of the nations they are representing.

Ultimately means nothing since any legislation still has to pass through Congress or Parliament. Prime Ministers here have had to, on occasion, step back from proposed legislation due to the public backlash.

 

[Horatius]

Ever think the appearance of allusions could be projection? I leave it to you to discern who and why.

Once again showing that you haven't bothered to comprehend what you have copy/pasted out side of the headlines and bullets.

Yeah, sure, I'm projecting. Right.

O.K., WE will give it a go.

The President can act unilaterally under the authority of executively controlled entities. With this power he can implement the recommendations which are agreed upon by the three executives of sovereign nations contained within the "non-treaty".

Please explain how acting upon an agreement with others nations without the approval of the congress is constitutional.

Except that he can't.

Federal regulations created by the regulatory agencies are subject to review by both the president and Congress under Executive Order 12866 and the Congressional Review Act of 1966.

Congress may not choose to use it's power, but the power is there. The President can't just wave his hand and make new law. Ultimately, the legislative authority to implement regulations comes from the Congress, which passes the legislation that establishes the regulatory agencies, and which oversees the regulatory actions of these agencies.

 

[proxywar]

Horatius your link doesn't work.

 

[Horatius]

Hmmm....still works for me. Odd. Try it again, and if it still doesn't work, I'll try to find another site.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Ultimately means nothing since any legislation still has to pass through Congress or Parliament. Prime Ministers here have had to, on occasion, step back from proposed legislation due to the public backlash.

No, all agencies under the authority of the executive write regulations that are not voted upon by congress. Think about executive orders which are in effect law.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Except that he can't.

You just presented an executive order to evidence that executives do not write law. That's ironic, don't you think?

 

[Horatius]

And you didn't bother to read the link again, did you?

While some requirements of Executive Order 12866 apply only to executive branch agencies, all federal regulatory agencies fall under the controls of the Congressional Review Act.

And that's not ironic, it's pretty much exactly what I expected from you.


And now I'm done. You don't have any interest in learning anything. Everyone else here is posting links and quotes from actual sources to support their views, while you do nothing but post bare allegations backed up by nothing more than your own paranoia and self importance. Perhaps you should take a long look at how it is you've come to believe as you do, considered in this light.

Perhaps you should, but you won't.

Have fun wallowing in your self deception.

 

[Checkmite]

It is headed by the executives of the three nations. You can not honestly divorce the heads of the organization from their positions as the heads of the nations they are representing.

It means nothing. The president of the US appoints an ambassador to the United Nations; therefore, the ambassador represents the president and speaks with his authority.

Yet CONGRESS still has to vote on whether or not the US will abide by any resolutions the UN passes, no matter what the president (through his ambassador) says about the matter.

Same thing with the SPP.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Nope. You are familiar with the phrase "all rights reserved"?

I says right in the document that the federal government can ONLY do what the document states it can do.

And hopefully you will realize that that doesn't help your argument. Nor does it change that you are jumping from one strawman to another. I recommend studying what the executive branch does and why we have one, and why it's a bad idea to go with your ideals of there being no executive branch and having everything decided by congress.

But in the meantime we'll jump from NAU, to SPP, to executive branch, and whatever other dance you can do to pretend the NAU is real.

 

[Corsair 115]

No, all agencies under the authority of the executive write regulations that are not voted upon by congress. Think about executive orders which are in effect law.

Then perhaps you can explain why President Bush didn't ram through his proposed changes to Social Security from a few years back if he had such power to ignore Congress at his whim.

You're seriously trying to claim Bush (or any president) could ram through a "North American Union," something far more complex and wide-ranging than reforming Social Security?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Then perhaps you can explain why President Bush didn't ram through his proposed changes to Social Security from a few years back if he had such power to override Congress at his whim.

You're seriously trying to claim Bush (or any president) could ram through a "North American Union," something far more complex and wide-ranging than reforming Social Security?

Because what he stated that he wanted done was not in reality what he wanted done.

HERE is what he wanted done and did do.

Pay particular attention to the restrictions placed on the commission formed and contrast this to the rhetoric that he presented to the public.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And hopefully you will realize that that doesn't help your argument. Nor does it change that you are jumping from one strawman to another. I recommend studying what the executive branch does and why we have one, and why it's a bad idea to go with your ideals of there being no executive branch and having everything decided by congress.

But in the meantime we'll jump from NAU, to SPP, to executive branch, and whatever other dance you can do to pretend the NAU is real.

I am sorry that you attempted to excoriate me and found yourself lost in the simple language of the constitution which contradicts your point.

Please, explain how what the constitution says evidences your point and not mine.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It means nothing. The president of the US appoints an ambassador to the United Nations; therefore, the ambassador represents the president and speaks with his authority.

Yet CONGRESS still has to vote on whether or not the US will abide by any resolutions the UN passes, no matter what the president (through his ambassador) says about the matter.

Same thing with the SPP.

Opps, according to the SPP facts/myths section this in not true. Apparently the departments under the executive will be acting upon the initiatives of the council.

The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP.

 

[WildCat]

Apparently the departments under the executive will be acting upon the initiatives of the council.

And the next POTUS can do what they wish with the SPP. The executive branch is allowed under the Constitution to actually do things you know... there's that whole separation of powers thing you may wish to become acquainted with.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And you didn't bother to read the link again, did you?

Of course I did. That is how I knew that you presented an executive order (presidential created law) as an example of the president not creating law.

 

[WildCat]

Of course I did. That is how I knew that you presented an executive order (presidential created law) as an example of the president not creating law.

It's not law. It's a directive to agencies under the control of the Executive Branch.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And the next POTUS can do what they wish with the SPP. The executive branch is allowed under the Constitution to actually do things you know... there's that whole separation of powers thing you may wish to become acquainted with.

Sure, the next POTUS can do what they wish, this does not make it legal. The separation of powers is delineated in the constitution and the executive making and acting upon treaties is a violation of this separation.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It's not law. It's a directive to agencies under the control of the Executive Branch.

Equivocation!

 

[WildCat]

Sure, the next POTUS can do what they wish, this does not make it legal. The separation of powers is delineated in the constitution and the executive making and acting upon treaties is a violation of this separation.

It's not a treaty of any sort. And the POTUS doesn't need Congressional approval to issue directives to the agencies under his control.