Discussion in 'Politics' started by Lakhota, Jan 15, 2013.
More: THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Executive Orders and Proclamations - Wikisource, the free online library
If you bothered to pick up the Constitution you would know the answer.
I'll leave that to SCOTUS.
Executive orders can be used in an emergency to enforce laws that are already on the books but they cannot be used to creat new laws or circumvent the constitution.
Issuing a presidential order that attempts to circumvent the constitution would be a big mistake for mister popular.
Oh! that should be president popular - sorry, I forgot my PCness.
Well, Sparky, you obviously ain't no constitutional law professor...
Well, let Obama institute one and we'll find out.
FDR's executive order 9066 authorized the internment of Japanese Americans.
I would call that Unconstitutional...but the Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional.
Just goes to show you again, as with Dred Scott, the Supreme Court might be the final arbitrator, but it is also as flawed as any human institution.
The president has no ability to grant himself or the executive branch powers not granted to them by the Constitution or existing federal law. Any attempt to do so would violate his oath of office, any executive order not backed up by law ain't worth the paper it's printed on. If you bother to read the Constitution, the only right the president may suspend is habeas corpus, nothing else is in his power.
In Article I Section I of the Constitution it is clear that all legislative powers reside in Congress. The Executive Branch has the responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congess. An Executive Order is not legislation it is a order issued by the President to enforce laws passed by the Congress. While Executive Orders are not mentioned in the Constitution it has been a precedent for a President to issue Executive Orders that he deems to be necessary and proper.
The “Necessary and Proper” clause in the Constitution found in Article I Section 8 was not intended to give Congress and the authority to do whatever they felt was a good idea. This clause meant that they had the authority to pass any legislation that was necessary and proper to implement the powers delegated to the United States in Article I Section 8.
The President is the Chief Administrative Officer of the Executive Branch of Government and has the authority to implement policies and procedures that are neccesary for the administration of the duties and responsibilities that have been assigned to him by the Constitution. Policies and procedures passed by Congress are called laws and effect all of the people. An Executive Order is a policy or procedure issued by the President that is a regulation that applies only to employess of the Executive Branch of government.
Any Executive Order that has any effect on individuals that are not government employees in a violation of Article I Section I. Whenever the President issues and Executive Order that extends to all of the people.
Are Executive Orders Constitutional? ? Tenth Amendment Center Blog
i agree with the above
Just ignore the mofo.
Can't we just leave it up to Emperor Obama and not bother anyone.
I sincerely hope he pushes everything he wants this week, then what you will see is how fast congress can shut his ass down, if he gets too inventive.
The world dislikes Obama, he has a nack for pissing off Countries ,the people around him dislike him , many Americans dislike him, he seems to running out of friends. oh I do think the Mexicans like him ,he gives them free shit and American jobs.
No, the world disliked Bush. Obama is much better liked.
Poor Shiiting Bull, you are asking the wrong question.
From the article:
Without Congressional approval, the President now has the power to transfer whole populations to any part of the country, the power to suspend the Press and to force a national registration of all persons. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real or perceived emergency. Unlike Lincoln and Roosevelt, these powers are not derived from a wartime need, but from any crisis, domestic or foreign, hostile or economic. Roosevelt created extraordinary measures during the Great Depression, but any President faced with a similar, or lesser, economic crisis now has extraordinary powers to assume dictatorial status.
I wouldn't think this something to be proud of.
Just how gullible are you? You found some hack's web page and thought it must be true because its on the internet?
Let's start with the first one: Your source says, "EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports."
Here is EO 10990: John F. Kennedy: Executive Order 10990
Please quote the part where the government take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
Next, only two EOs have ever been found to be unconstitutional. Two.
This tells us EOs have been subjected to judicial review. If they were ALL unconstitutional, the court would have said so.
The only fucking morons who think they are are people who have never read a single fucking one, but somehow seem to find the time to find hack web sites and start umpteen stupid topics claiming they are!
Your assuming a cooperative population, I don't see that happening.
Separate names with a comma.