Amend & Rescind

[JakeStarkey]

 

[Delldude]

President Walker and the right to work country.

 

[emilynghiem]

In December, 2009 Taqiyya the Liar amended:

. . . President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.

Wither Sovereignty
Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America - Is The ICC Next?
By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton December 23, 2009

ThreatsWatch.Org PrincipalAnalysis Wither Sovereignty​

So far, Tea Party favorite Rand Paul is the only wannabe I ever heard say he would rescind previous EOs:

Rand Paul tells audience he would use executive orders only to rescind past orders if elected president

Paul: 'I would use executive orders to undo executive orders that have encroached on our jurisprudence, our ability to defend ourselves, the right to a trial'

By Chris Moody August 12, 2014 7:28 PM Yahoo News

Rand Paul tells audience he would use executive orders only to rescind past orders if elected president - Yahoo News​

Taqiyya the Liar’s INTERPOL executive order was an act of treason on behalf of the United Nations that was largely ignored by the media. Let’s hope that Rand Paul will undo that one along with the ones on illegal aliens, the ACA, the EPA, and so on.

Amend & Rescind is such an obvious solution to repairing most of Taqiyya the Liar’s constitutional holocaust, I am not surprised talking heads avoid the subject. To no one’s surprise media mouths want the public to focus on Boehner, McConnell and the Courts. Media reasons for staying away from Amend & Rescind are obvious. It works, and it can done by the right president on his own hook.

I do not expect any of Karl Rove’s choices to use Amend & Rescind, while every Tea Party conservative wannabe should be jumping on Rand Paul’s bandwagon. The beauty is that the Chicago sewer rat’s surrogates cannot object to the next president doing exactly the same thing their messiah did.

The media will object to rescinding Taqiyya’s EOs to be sure. Media mouths have already trotted out Hispanic anger if the Republicans torpedo any part of amnesty for illegals. Frankly, Hispanic anger is a hollow threat coming from people who cannot vote anyway; at least they are not supposed to vote. Even if every Hispanic here legally voted for the Democrat it would only affect a small number of districts in House races. In fact, a large number of Hispanic who played by the rules do not support open-borders or amnesty for illegals.

Finally, it is far too early to zero in on Amend & Rescind. The herd has to be thinned out quite a bit before Tea Party conservatives get to that point. When the primaries get started the few remaining on their feet should be asked to declare their intentions on Amend & Rescind. Happily, it’s the type of question that demands an unequivocal answer Tea Party candidates can answer with ease, while establishment Republicans will have trouble answering.

To prevent abuse of Executive Office to act as unilateral Judicial Review,
I would recommend setting up Constitutional Conventions and include representation by party.

Review any orders, ruling or laws that people contest.
Resolve conflicts by consensus.
And where people/parties/states cannot agree, allow them to develop separate policies so there is no imposition.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What some consider "Imposition" is one of the inevitable results of government.

I am not trying to impose, only oppose.

 

[emilynghiem]

What some consider "Imposition" is one of the inevitable results of government.

JakeStarkey if they CONSENT to that.
but with people's religious and political beliefs, this seems to require their full consent in order not to violate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You, I think, are implying that full consent is required for your plans.

Is that correct?

 

[emilynghiem]

You, I think, are implying that full consent is required for your plans.

Is that correct?

I don't believe in imposing things without people's consent who are affected. I find that if solutions are truly effective, people choose to adapt them freely and don't need to be forced. It's no surprise to find the programs that work most effectively are self-directed and by free will.

If people AGREE to implement these through the regular due process that uses 3/4 or 2/3 or whatever that's fine, but I don't see that this is good enough when political and religious beliefs are involved. For those areas I recommend conflict resolution by experienced mediators.

I have NO PROBLEM where people agree to follow the standard rules for
"secular issues" but I see MAJOR problems erupt when forcing govt to address
religious or political beliefs.

I see a higher threshold of consent is required for religious or political beliefs involving things like:
* prochoice or prolife
* gun rights or voting rights
* marriage laws and health care policies
* death penalty and euthanasia
so for areas like this I have seen too many cases that require more sensitive mediation
and avoid imposing such personal religious or spiritual matters onto govt to force decisions for people.

That tends to cause backlash because neither side can tolerate less than 100% inclusion of their beliefs. so from my experience, the usual thresholds of majority rule aren't enough to settle the issues and just create further political division, lawsuits, and other destruction and damage to good faith relations with govt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have not made a compelling argument, as far as I am concerned, and that's only me.

I would think the answers are in what you as an individual can do: do or don't have an abortion; do or do not use self euthanasia; do or do not marry some one you don't want to marry. do or don't buy a gun.

However, you, if you are a conservative Christian 'constitutionalist', I think the opportunity to secure your type of world ended in April 1865.

The generation of millennials become the largest voting block by age group next year. They are not afraid of government . They believe in democratic constitutional republican procedures for running government.

 

[emilynghiem]

You have not made a compelling argument, as far as I am concerned, and that's only me.

I would think the answers are in what you as an individual can do: do or don't have an abortion; do or do not use self euthanasia; do or do not marry some one you don't want to marry. do or don't buy a gun.

However, you, if you are a conservative Christian 'constitutionalist', I think the opportunity to secure your type of world ended in April 1865.

The generation of millennials become the largest voting block by age group next year. They are not afraid of government . They believe in democratic constitutional republican procedures for running government.

No, I am a secular Constitutionalist. The reason I am not a Christian Constitutionalist is this idea that you have to obey and worship what the govt authority hands down as coming from God is too much for me to agree to.

I believe you retain the right to petition to redress grievances until there is a consensus.
So that is almost atheist level "proof" that something is the truth, by reaching consensus on it as proof
it is not imposing on someone's beliefs unfairly.

P.S. I agree with what you said about an INDIVIDUAL doing, but unfortunately
because the left has tied in govt funding into things, then PUBLIC FUNDS have to be agreed upon or else you are forcing people to fund things they don't believe in. it is no longer private once you mandate it through govt; and that's what is going wrong with gay marriage and health care, you drag the public into all your decisions and half the public may not agree to your beliefs.

If you look at the pattern of laws and rulings, you will see the prolife are winning their arguments against FUNDING abortion. So that is what I mean by consent on policies.
If these were written by consent, the funding would be separated to begin with.
Instead of wasting taxpayer money pushing this through law just to fight to get it back out again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

BOTH the left and the right have tied up the funding is the more accurate statement.

And neither party will give that up, I believe. The abortion funding argument is a good one.

Since right now almost 80% believe in some sort of regulated abortion from life of the mother only to on demand, I don't see a final consensus developing any time soon.

 

[emilynghiem]

BOTH the left and the right have tied up the funding is the more accurate statement.

And neither party will give that up, I believe. The abortion funding argument is a good one.

Since right now almost 80% believe in some sort of regulated abortion from life of the mother only to on demand, I don't see a final consensus developing any time soon.

That's because they'd both have to agree to stop imposing and start recognizing political beliefs equally.

I think that will happen the MORE people realize they don't like being imposed upon.
So eventually they will figure out they can't impose either.

Like this whole ACA mandate business: either it is backlash from Bush imposing collective punishment of war on innocent people without due process (and overriding any objections as 'purely political and nothing to do with Constitutional limits on govt', or it could be backlash from prolife people pushing, and threatening prochoice people screaming for the right to choose without penalty. Not it's the prolife people's turn to scream and "not be heard but dismissed."

So after both sides understand how miserable it is to have your beliefs dictated and excluded by law, maybe they will both figure it out.

If not, I will plan a hunger strike, and explain why, and give people time to figure it out this is NOT acceptable.

Either the Constitution means "free exercise of religion" for all people and views
and "equal protection of the laws" for people of all beliefs, or it means nothing, it means you can "overrule beliefs left and right as long as you get majority".

So you decide. And so will I. I cannot force my beliefs on others, but I do not have to live on the planet with a bunch of freaks who can't figure out what equal protection and inclusion means.

If i can figure it out, surely the President of the United States with a Harvard law degree can figure it out. And If not, I'm out of here. I don't have to stick around and see how stupidly this ends. No thanks, I've seen enough!

 

[Flanders]

If terminating the Iran Deal is Scott Walker’s only shtick he is an hour late and a dollar short:

Scott Walker Vows to ‘Terminate’ Iranian Nuclear Agreement if Elected President
Kate Scanlon
August 09, 2015

Scott Walker Vows to Terminate Iranian Nuclear Agreement​

Walker can pick up some serious gravitas if he also promises to undo the liar’s EOs:

Amend & Rescind is such an obvious solution to repairing most of Taqiyya the Liar’s constitutional holocaust,