ROTFLMAO............for certain. Crap for the pathetically credulous and way too easily misinformed products of a piss poor education.
Quote:
Paul Dezso deHolczer, History buff
Updated Mar 12, 2015 · Author has 2.3k answers and 2.3m answer views
I have read similar charges against this President. Those types of charges are often repeated on Facebook by people with less education and understanding than I have and less interest in delving behind them to find out if they are based on sufficient facts.
It takes a lot of time to dissect these kinds of charges -- much longer than it takes to make them. It is wearying to undertake the research, and especially so when you know that your very own research will likely fall on deaf and hostile ears.
Furthermore, as someone who is not of the same Party as the President, I would not normally want to undertake that research. The accusations which plague this President, made so frequently in mainstream media, are so outrageous that my own criticisms of him are withheld lest I encourage the yahoos who think this sort of thing is acceptable.
After all, they accuse him of so much that is verifiably false and malicious that it is much like the tale of the boy who cried "Wolf!"
https://www.quora.com/Im-trying-to-fact-check...statements
It looks like you copied and pasted this list from the conservative blogger Doug Ross from here:
directorblue.blogspot.com...
I am glad to help if you seek to ascertain certain facts and publish a more balanced view of important achievements or new challenges a president faces when he/she comes to office. I am though not certain that "the first" style is a very informative way to achieve this.
I started working on the list below. Spending about half an hour on the first three statements, I conclude that I do not want to proceed since the list has too many shortcomings and it looks it is written with a very negative connotation towards the president. It would take me many days of work that I do not have to present a factual view of the content of this list.
If you are truly interested in details that you cannot find yourself, highlight the most important one so the Quora community can help. It would be also useful to know what you want to achieve since the list is just a copy/paste and not your original compilation. Are you planning to publish a blog / book? If so, there is a lot of work to be done.
1) First president to violate war powers act: The war powers act was created in 1941 and gave the executive office very large power. In 1973 in response to Vietnam War the congress the War Powers Resolution then restricted the executive office to some extent, although technically it leaves the president still a lot of power. I suspect this. "First claim" is related to the 1973 act. If so, it is more likely than not that he did not violate that act either. The exact judgment of the claim is complex. Even Mr. Boehner doubts that what Obama did was in violation. I would rate this claim as very dubious.
2) Warrantless wire taps. The ability for wire taps without warrant was granted by Congress to President Bush as part of the Patriot Act. The patriot act was renewed in part in 2011 by congress. The renewal included the ability for warrantless wire taps. Depending on the time frame you are looking at, it is indeed true that the Obama administration increased the number of wire taps. Some say even by a factor of four. That he is the first president to have such a large increase is not a surprise of course since he is only the second president authorized to do so and the threat of terrorism has markedly increased. Since there is little historic precedent, I would be careful calling this a first.
3) Hold potential US citizens terrorist without trial ... This bill was indeed signed. The contentious riders is in the routine Defense Authorization Bill enacted by congress in 2012.
The section that is referenced is controversial and subject to legal review. The final version of the bill also provides, in sub-section(e), that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States".
As reflected in Senate debate over the bill, there is a great deal of controversy over the status of existing law. Here again it is highly doubtful that the act provides the president authority to detain without habeas corpus US citizens. In terms of him being first. I guess it is the first time the NDAA bill contained that rider. So no surprise here.
1
