Executive Order limitations

[Votto]

With the pending Executive Orders to come out regarding the second amendment and gun control, what is everyones opinion in regards to limitations on the Executive Order if any?

 

[rightwinger]

With the pending Executive Orders to come out regarding the second amendment and gun control, what is everyones opinion in regards to limitations on the Executive Order if any?

What has been ordered in terms of gun control?

How do you know power is being abused?

 

[Votto]

With the pending Executive Orders to come out regarding the second amendment and gun control, what is everyones opinion in regards to limitations on the Executive Order if any?

What has been orsered in terms of gun control?

How do you know power is being abused?

It is rumored that Barry will come out with an Executive Order regarding gun control.

That aside, looking at past Executive Orders, what should be allowed and what should be disallowed? For example, cap and trade and the Dream Act could not get pushed through Congress, so Obama wrote Executive Orders to bypass this dilemma. Should they be used to bypass the legislative power of Congress?

Also, do you think they are Constitutional? Clearly they have been used in the past for Unconstitutional powers. For example, FDR used them to lock up Japanese Americans, a clear Constitutional violation that even you can't dispute. However, our wonderful checks and balances in government did nothing to stop it. Go figure.

 

[rightwinger]

With the pending Executive Orders to come out regarding the second amendment and gun control, what is everyones opinion in regards to limitations on the Executive Order if any?

What has been orsered in terms of gun control?

How do you know power is being abused?

It is rumored that Barry will come out with an Executive Order regarding gun control.

That aside, looking at past Executive Orders, what should be allowed and what should be disallowed? For example, cap and trade and the Dream Act could not get pushed through Congress, so Obama wrote Executive Orders to bypass this dilemma. Should they be used to bypass the legislative power of Congress?

Also, do you think they are Constitutional? Clearly they have been used in the past for Unconstitutional powers. For example, FDR used them to lock up Japanese Americans, a clear Constitutional violation that even you can't dispute. However, our wonderful checks and balances in government did nothing to stop it. Go figure.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order

 

[Votto]

What has been orsered in terms of gun control?

How do you know power is being abused?

It is rumored that Barry will come out with an Executive Order regarding gun control.

That aside, looking at past Executive Orders, what should be allowed and what should be disallowed? For example, cap and trade and the Dream Act could not get pushed through Congress, so Obama wrote Executive Orders to bypass this dilemma. Should they be used to bypass the legislative power of Congress?

Also, do you think they are Constitutional? Clearly they have been used in the past for Unconstitutional powers. For example, FDR used them to lock up Japanese Americans, a clear Constitutional violation that even you can't dispute. However, our wonderful checks and balances in government did nothing to stop it. Go figure.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order

So what should their limitaions be, if any?

For example, what if a President viewed the unborn as Lincoln viewed the slaves and simply wrote and Executive Order bypassing Roe vs. Wade?

 

[beretta304]

Let me guess, rw changed the subject again by posing a strawman counterpoint. (I actually want to see what he said and if I'm right when someone replies to him)

 

[beretta304]

It is rumored that Barry will come out with an Executive Order regarding gun control.

That aside, looking at past Executive Orders, what should be allowed and what should be disallowed? For example, cap and trade and the Dream Act could not get pushed through Congress, so Obama wrote Executive Orders to bypass this dilemma. Should they be used to bypass the legislative power of Congress?

Also, do you think they are Constitutional? Clearly they have been used in the past for Unconstitutional powers. For example, FDR used them to lock up Japanese Americans, a clear Constitutional violation that even you can't dispute. However, our wonderful checks and balances in government did nothing to stop it. Go figure.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order

So what should their limitaions be, if any?

For example, what if a President viewed the unborn as Lincoln viewed the slaves and simply wrote and Executive Order bypassing Roe vs. Wade?

I knew it. See post # 6

 

[rightwinger]

The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order

So what should their limitaions be, if any?

For example, what if a President viewed the unborn as Lincoln viewed the slaves and simply wrote and Executive Order bypassing Roe vs. Wade?

I knew it. See post # 6

Go away

Grownups are talking

 

[Votto]

So what should their limitaions be, if any?

For example, what if a President viewed the unborn as Lincoln viewed the slaves and simply wrote and Executive Order bypassing Roe vs. Wade?

I knew it. See post # 6

Go away

Grownups are talking

I await a response.

 

[rightwinger]

It is rumored that Barry will come out with an Executive Order regarding gun control.

That aside, looking at past Executive Orders, what should be allowed and what should be disallowed? For example, cap and trade and the Dream Act could not get pushed through Congress, so Obama wrote Executive Orders to bypass this dilemma. Should they be used to bypass the legislative power of Congress?

Also, do you think they are Constitutional? Clearly they have been used in the past for Unconstitutional powers. For example, FDR used them to lock up Japanese Americans, a clear Constitutional violation that even you can't dispute. However, our wonderful checks and balances in government did nothing to stop it. Go figure.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order

So what should their limitaions be, if any?

For example, what if a President viewed the unborn as Lincoln viewed the slaves and simply wrote and Executive Order bypassing Roe vs. Wade?

We need to rely on checks and balances

Executive Orders have always been reigned in by Legislation and the courts.

FDRs EO ordering internment of Japanese citizens was a prime example. Even though it was an obvious constitutional violation, neither the Congress nor the courts made a serious challenge. Why? Because of rampant anti-Japanese hysteria

Will guns be the same? Will we overreact to the Sandy Hook massacre and allow a questionable EO to stand?

We will have to see

 

[Seawytch]

If an EO were to come out of all of this, my guess would be something that would close the gun show loophole or require background checks on private sales.

 

[beretta304]

I knew it. See post # 6

Go away

Grownups are talking

I await a response.

You're going to be waiting a long time if you think he's going to give a direct answer.

 

[catzmeow]

With the pending Executive Orders to come out regarding the second amendment and gun control, what is everyones opinion in regards to limitations on the Executive Order if any?

Executive orders are issued by the President in his role as CEO of the government, and are designed to expedite implementation of legislation, not circumvent it.

If Obama's EO's exceed these limitations, they will likely be challenged in court and overturned. That's how the checks/balances system in our government works.

As far as FDR's incarceration of the Japanese in internment camps, sometimes it takes a while for the process to work:

In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation said that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".[13] The U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion in reparations to Japanese Americans who had been interned and their heirs.[14]

The process doesn't always work perfectly, but that's how our founding fathers set it up.

 

[rightwinger]

If an EO were to come out of all of this, my guess would be something that would close the gun show loophole or require background checks on private sales.

Agree

Obama does not have the power or political capital to order a ban. He can use EO to set federal requirements for background checks. Tie federal aid to enforcement

We will have to wait and see

 

[yidnar]

What has been orsered in terms of gun control?

How do you know power is being abused?

It is rumored that Barry will come out with an Executive Order regarding gun control.

That aside, looking at past Executive Orders, what should be allowed and what should be disallowed? For example, cap and trade and the Dream Act could not get pushed through Congress, so Obama wrote Executive Orders to bypass this dilemma. Should they be used to bypass the legislative power of Congress?

Also, do you think they are Constitutional? Clearly they have been used in the past for Unconstitutional powers. For example, FDR used them to lock up Japanese Americans, a clear Constitutional violation that even you can't dispute. However, our wonderful checks and balances in government did nothing to stop it. Go figure.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order

stop deflecting and just say yes !we all know libbs don't give a damn about the constitution !!

 

[beretta304]

"Critics have accused presidents of abusing executive orders, of using them to make laws without Congressional approval, and of moving existing laws away from their original mandates. Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been effected through executive order, including the integration of the armed forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower."


Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sallow]

The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order

So what should their limitaions be, if any?

For example, what if a President viewed the unborn as Lincoln viewed the slaves and simply wrote and Executive Order bypassing Roe vs. Wade?

We need to rely on checks and balances

Executive Orders have always been reigned in by Legislation and the courts.

FDRs EO ordering internment of Japanese citizens was a prime example. Even though it was an obvious constitutional violation, neither the Congress nor the courts made a serious challenge. Why? Because of rampant anti-Japanese hysteria

Will guns be the same? Will we overreact to the Sandy Hook massacre and allow a questionable EO to stand?

We will have to see

And this is exactly what are happening to a plethora of our rights.

No one is challenging the huge leaps in executive power left over from the last administration.

Heck..has anyone even suggested an end to the AUMF?

 

[beretta304]

It is rumored that Barry will come out with an Executive Order regarding gun control.

That aside, looking at past Executive Orders, what should be allowed and what should be disallowed? For example, cap and trade and the Dream Act could not get pushed through Congress, so Obama wrote Executive Orders to bypass this dilemma. Should they be used to bypass the legislative power of Congress?

Also, do you think they are Constitutional? Clearly they have been used in the past for Unconstitutional powers. For example, FDR used them to lock up Japanese Americans, a clear Constitutional violation that even you can't dispute. However, our wonderful checks and balances in government did nothing to stop it. Go figure.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order

stop deflecting and just say yes !we all know libbs don't give a damn about the constitution !!

Rightwinger deflect?

And here he said that I was the only one who said that he does it with every reply he makes.... I count 4 people in 2 days that told him the exact same thing.

 

[Votto]

With the pending Executive Orders to come out regarding the second amendment and gun control, what is everyones opinion in regards to limitations on the Executive Order if any?

Executive orders are issued by the President in his role as CEO of the government, and are designed to expedite implementation of legislation, not circumvent it.

If Obama's EO's exceed these limitations, they will likely be challenged in court and overturned. That's how the checks/balances system in our government works.

As far as FDR's incarceration of the Japanese in internment camps, sometimes it takes a while for the process to work:

In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation said that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".[13] The U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion in reparations to Japanese Americans who had been interned and their heirs.[14]

The process doesn't always work perfectly, but that's how our founding fathers set it up.

Actually, in the case of FDR the checks and balances never worked.

 

[catzmeow]

"Critics have accused presidents of abusing executive orders, of using them to make laws without Congressional approval, and of moving existing laws away from their original mandates. Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been effected through executive order, including the integration of the armed forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower."


Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, in many cases, after legal challenges and under later review by the courts, those orders have been found unconstitutional and overturned. Others have been upheld.

Government isn't a clean process and there are some gray areas built into the constitution and the design of the 3 branches of government. Our founders designed a messy system. It generally works, but sometimes it takes a while.