Executive Orders list

[IsaacNewton]

Hilarious. Cons now try to parse Criminal Reagan's 381 executive orders as "providing milk for kittens, and one for recognizing bird watchers as good people, and one saying 'let kids jump in mud puddles'". The amount of revision for cons regarding Reagan, one of the most criminal people to ever hold office in the US has no limits.

He wiped his ass with the Constitution every day he was in office. His entire administration was horribly corrupt. He ignored Congress when they said 'you will not deal with Iran and you won't give weapons to any groups in Central America.

Reagan is the poster child for ignoring the Constitution and Congress and committing high crimes.

 

[Kosh]

Hilarious. Cons now try to parse Criminal Reagan's 381 executive orders as "providing milk for kittens, and one for recognizing bird watchers as good people, and one saying 'let kids jump in mud puddles'". The amount of revision for cons regarding Reagan, one of the most criminal people to ever hold office in the US has no limits.

He wiped his ass with the Constitution every day he was in office. His entire administration was horribly corrupt. He ignored Congress when they said 'you will not deal with Iran and you won't give weapons to any groups in Central America.

Reagan is the poster child for ignoring the Constitution and Congress and committing high crimes.

Another far left drone running their religious programming!

Show all of Reagan EO's that were over turned by the Supreme Court.

 

[konradv]

It's not the number of EOs, it's the content. Obama's were a substitute for legislation he couldn't get passed constitutionally.

Translation: Obama is too uppity.

 

[konradv]

It's the content of the order. That's like saying a guy with thirty parking tickets is worse than a guy with one murder on his rap sheet.

Either an EO is legal or it isn't. The content is irrelevant, unless the courts declare them unconstitutional. Maybe you don't like the content, but comparing them to murder is ridiculous.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It's the content of the order. That's like saying a guy with thirty parking tickets is worse than a guy with one murder on his rap sheet.

Either an EO is legal or it isn't. The content is irrelevant, unless the courts declare them unconstitutional. Maybe you don't like the content, but comparing them to murder is ridiculous.

You can put your bullshit away....no one believes it.

 

[saveliberty]

Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'

WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the "Do Nothing Congress" almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.

 

[Rustic]

This is embarassing... froggy you are some right idiot....

It's not the number EOs... It's the extremist nature of them.

 

[S.J.]

It's not the number of EOs, it's the content. Obama's were a substitute for legislation he couldn't get passed constitutionally.

Translation: Obama is too uppity.

Translation: S.J. is right but I have to say something in rebuttal.

 

[konradv]

Either an EO is legal or it isn't. The content is irrelevant, unless the courts declare them unconstitutional. Maybe you don't like the content, but comparing them to murder is ridiculous.

You can put your bullshit away....no one believes it.

You don't have to believe it. The courts do and that's all that counts.

 

[konradv]

It's not the number of EOs, it's the content. Obama's were a substitute for legislation he couldn't get passed constitutionally.

Translation: Obama is too uppity.

Translation: S.J. is right but I have to say something in rebuttal.

How can you be right? If they're unconstitutional, cite the USSC ruling's that say so.

 

[konradv]

It's not the number EOs... It's the extremist nature of them.

Eye of the beholder, but thanks for confirming that they're not unconstitutional.

 

[S.J.]

It's not the number of EOs, it's the content. Obama's were a substitute for legislation he couldn't get passed constitutionally.

Translation: Obama is too uppity.

Translation: S.J. is right but I have to say something in rebuttal.

How can you be right? If they're unconstitutional, cite the USSC ruling's that say so.

Some have been challenged but not ruled on yet.

 

[Wildman]

Wouldn't he be Guilty of Treason?

YES!! ............

 

[Kosh]

It's not the number of EOs, it's the content. Obama's were a substitute for legislation he couldn't get passed constitutionally.

Translation: Obama is too uppity.

Translation: S.J. is right but I have to say something in rebuttal.

How can you be right? If they're unconstitutional, cite the USSC ruling's that say so.

Some have been challenged but not ruled on yet.

I doubt that they could the same with anyone before Obama, except for maybe FDR..

 

[Wildman]

Criminal Reagan issued 381 Executive Orders.Obama has issued maybe 230.

you stupid fucking liberscum! Reagan's EO's did not subvert the Constitution whereas every EO issued by that muslime mulatto son-of-a-bitch (and she was!!) has been UNConstitutional.

 

[80zephyr]

It's not the number of EOs, it's the content. Obama's were a substitute for legislation he couldn't get passed constitutionally.

Translation: Obama is too uppity.

Translation: S.J. is right but I have to say something in rebuttal.

How can you be right? If they're unconstitutional, cite the USSC ruling's that say so.

Will be interesting to see how you feel about them when a conservative becomes president.

Obama is setting up the next president with great power.

Mark

 

[konradv]

It's not the number of EOs, it's the content. Obama's were a substitute for legislation he couldn't get passed constitutionally.

Translation: Obama is too uppity.

Translation: S.J. is right but I have to say something in rebuttal.

How can you be right? If they're unconstitutional, cite the USSC ruling's that say so.

Some have been challenged but not ruled on yet.

So, jumping the gun by calling them definitively unconstitutional.

 

[konradv]

How can you be right? If they're unconstitutional, cite the USSC ruling's that say so.

Will be interesting to see how you feel about them when a conservative becomes president. Obama is setting up the next president with great power.

The difference is that the poster in question didn't say, "I feel they're unconstitutional", they declared them to be unconstitutional. As for giving presidents "great power", we can see from the charts presented in earlier posts that it's hardly something that originated with Obama.

 

[Jackson]

Executive Orders

Section 1. Purpose. The 21st century has witnessed a significant shift in hostage-takings by terrorist organizations and criminal groups abroad. Hostage-takers frequently operate in unstable environments that challenge the ability of the United States Government and its partners and allies to operate effectively. Increasingly, hostage-takers target private citizens -- including journalists and aid workers -- as well as Government officials. They also utilize increasingly sophisticated networks and tactics to derive financial, propaganda, and recruitment benefits from hostage-taking operations. The United States is committed to securing the safe recovery of U.S. nationals held hostage abroad and deterring future hostage-takings by denying hostage-takers any benefits from their actions.

I understand Iran got $1.5 B becaujse of the lifted sanctions. But why did we give them $1.7 in interest (more than the principle???) when we have not received all of our hostages?

 

[S.J.]

It's not the number of EOs, it's the content. Obama's were a substitute for legislation he couldn't get passed constitutionally.

Translation: Obama is too uppity.

Translation: S.J. is right but I have to say something in rebuttal.

How can you be right? If they're unconstitutional, cite the USSC ruling's that say so.

Some have been challenged but not ruled on yet.

So, jumping the gun by calling them definitively unconstitutional.

Anybody with a brain knows they're definitely unconstitutional.