Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's too many. I don't care about comparisons to past Presidents. That doesn't make it right. And this current President did openly & publicly announce he would no longer be working with Congress. That was pretty brazen on his part. The MSM has been very quiet on this. So shame on them too. Dr. Paul is right...As usual.
Show me in the Constitution or established law where the POTUS is limited to the number of EO's he or she can issue, then you might have a point. Until then, this is just Paul proving once again how out of touch with reality he is.
Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
EO's are a Presidential power not designated by the Constitution.
Show me in the Constitution or established law where the POTUS is limited to the number of EO's he or she can issue, then you might have a point. Until then, this is just Paul proving once again how out of touch with reality he is.
Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
EO's are a Presidential power not designated by the Constitution.
I'm no constitutional or political science scholar; but I believe that Congress, through legislation, gave presidents the power to issue EO's. In that case, EO's fall squarely in line with the passage you cited.
Not to mention the fact that if you are right (you're not), every president who has ever issued an EO would have violated the Constitution.
It's too many. I don't care about comparisons to past Presidents. That doesn't make it right. And this current President did openly & publicly announce he would no longer be working with Congress. That was pretty brazen on his part. The MSM has been very quiet on this. So shame on them too. Dr. Paul is right...As usual.
Show me in the Constitution or established law where the POTUS is limited to the number of EO's he or she can issue, then you might have a point. Until then, this is just Paul proving once again how out of touch with reality he is.
There is nothing out of touch about what RP said... Obama said he will be doing things without congress. Now even with an EO that still is the mentality of a dictator.
Again the issue is not so much the use of an EO rather than what Obama wants to do with the EO's... Obama wants to spend more money and grow Government in a direction he alone agrees with, or this wouldn't be an issue.
Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
EO's are a Presidential power not designated by the Constitution.
I'm no constitutional or political science scholar; but I believe that Congress, through legislation, gave presidents the power to issue EO's. In that case, EO's fall squarely in line with the passage you cited.
Not to mention the fact that if you are right (you're not), every president who has ever issued an EO would have violated the Constitution.
That's correct. Congress cannot grant Presidential power.. Why even have a Constitution?? The more we allow government to pervert that document the more our freedom will erode. That's simply an irrefutable fact.
Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
EO's are a Presidential power not designated by the Constitution.
I'm no constitutional or political science scholar; but I believe that Congress, through legislation, gave presidents the power to issue EO's. In that case, EO's fall squarely in line with the passage you cited.
Not to mention the fact that if you are right (you're not), every president who has ever issued an EO would have violated the Constitution.
That's correct. Congress cannot grant Presidential power.. Why even have a Constitution?? The more we allow government to pervert that document the more our freedom will erode. That's simply an irrefutable fact.
I'm no constitutional or political science scholar; but I believe that Congress, through legislation, gave presidents the power to issue EO's. In that case, EO's fall squarely in line with the passage you cited.
Not to mention the fact that if you are right (you're not), every president who has ever issued an EO would have violated the Constitution.
That's correct. Congress cannot grant Presidential power.. Why even have a Constitution?? The more we allow government to pervert that document the more our freedom will erode. That's simply an irrefutable fact.
So, you can't refute what I posted? Just another emotional response? That's what I thought. Get back to me when you can make an argument based on fact, not what you feel.
That's correct. Congress cannot grant Presidential power.. Why even have a Constitution?? The more we allow government to pervert that document the more our freedom will erode. That's simply an irrefutable fact.
So, you can't refute what I posted? Just another emotional response? That's what I thought. Get back to me when you can make an argument based on fact, not what you feel.
You're argument by your own definition was nothing more than an emotional response... You are part of the problem in this country today, a stupid voter who hates when one President does something (Bush) but defends another (Obama) for doing the same fucking thing. Keep voting for the problem, we all take you very seriously.
So, you can't refute what I posted? Just another emotional response? That's what I thought. Get back to me when you can make an argument based on fact, not what you feel.
You're argument by your own definition was nothing more than an emotional response... You are part of the problem in this country today, a stupid voter who hates when one President does something (Bush) but defends another (Obama) for doing the same fucking thing. Keep voting for the problem, we all take you very seriously.
Once again, you can't refute the fact that Obama is not violating the Constitution any more than Bush, Reagan or John Q Adams were when they issued their EO's; so you resort to more emotional responses. Care to show me where I said that I hated Bush for his EO's? Oh, you can't? Perhaps you shouldn't make accusations that you can't back up.
You're argument by your own definition was nothing more than an emotional response... You are part of the problem in this country today, a stupid voter who hates when one President does something (Bush) but defends another (Obama) for doing the same fucking thing. Keep voting for the problem, we all take you very seriously.
Once again, you can't refute the fact that Obama is not violating the Constitution any more than Bush, Reagan or John Q Adams were when they issued their EO's; so you resort to more emotional responses. Care to show me where I said that I hated Bush for his EO's? Oh, you can't? Perhaps you shouldn't make accusations that you can't back up.
Care to show where I let others off the hook?
Ron Paul apparently has a warning for America.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says President Obama's continued use of the executive order "brings the modern presidency dangerously close to an elective dictatorship."
"That is arrogant," Paul said of Obama frequently using the executive order function as of late. "It is flaunting the Constitution and the whole principle of how were supposed to operate. The idea they can just do this and take over the legislative function and brag about it -- and Congress does nothing and the courts do nothing about it, it's very, very bad."
"He's dictatorial, is what he is," Rep. Paul said before the end of the interview.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/09/ron_paul_obama_presidency
_on_the_verge_of_being_a_dictatorship.html
Really? What's the number of EOs that Obama has signed in a little less than 3 years? The answer is 100.
In 8 years in office, Reagan signed 381 Executive Orders.
Based on the numbers, who better qualifies as a dictator?
You can check the numbers at the link below.
Barack Obama Executive Orders Disposition Tables
I'm no constitutional or political science scholar; but I believe that Congress, through legislation, gave presidents the power to issue EO's. In that case, EO's fall squarely in line with the passage you cited.
Not to mention the fact that if you are right (you're not), every president who has ever issued an EO would have violated the Constitution.
That's correct. Congress cannot grant Presidential power.. Why even have a Constitution?? The more we allow government to pervert that document the more our freedom will erode. That's simply an irrefutable fact.
So, you can't refute what I posted? Just another emotional response? That's what I thought. Get back to me when you can make an argument based on fact, not on what you feel.
Ron Paul apparently has a warning for America.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says President Obama's continued use of the executive order "brings the modern presidency dangerously close to an elective dictatorship."
"That is arrogant," Paul said of Obama frequently using the executive order function as of late. "It is flaunting the Constitution and the whole principle of how were supposed to operate. The idea they can just do this and take over the legislative function and brag about it -- and Congress does nothing and the courts do nothing about it, it's very, very bad."
"He's dictatorial, is what he is," Rep. Paul said before the end of the interview.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/09/ron_paul_obama_presidency
_on_the_verge_of_being_a_dictatorship.html
Really? What's the number of EOs that Obama has signed in a little less than 3 years? The answer is 100.
In 8 years in office, Reagan signed 381 Executive Orders.
Based on the numbers, who better qualifies as a dictator?
You can check the numbers at the link below.
Barack Obama Executive Orders Disposition Tables
Did Reagan ever take over a fucking corporation?
Did Reagan ever bailout his voting base with a stimulus that cost all American taxpayers which only kept a few organizations afloat (unions)??
Did Reagan ever attempt to socialize an entire industry???
Obama is a dictator by de facto - the second he seized GM he became one...
He is certainly a fascist that's for sure...
Hell he demanded his super majority progressive congress ban conventional light bulbs so his GE cronies could push a new more expensive light bulb on the American public..
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the final bill,[3] it passed in the House without amendment in January 2007. When the Act was introduced in the Senate in June 2007, it was combined with Senate Bill S. 1419: Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.[4] This amended version passed the Senate on June 21, 2007.[5][6] After further amendments and negotiation between the House and Senate, a revised bill passed both houses on December 18, 2007[7] and President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law on December 19, 2007 in response to his "Twenty in Ten" challenge to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years.[8]
Ron Paul apparently has a warning for America.
Really? What's the number of EOs that Obama has signed in a little less than 3 years? The answer is 100.
In 8 years in office, Reagan signed 381 Executive Orders.
Based on the numbers, who better qualifies as a dictator?
You can check the numbers at the link below.
Barack Obama Executive Orders Disposition Tables
Did Reagan ever take over a fucking corporation?
Did Reagan ever bailout his voting base with a stimulus that cost all American taxpayers which only kept a few organizations afloat (unions)??
Did Reagan ever attempt to socialize an entire industry???
Obama is a dictator by de facto - the second he seized GM he became one...
He is certainly a fascist that's for sure...
Hell he demanded his super majority progressive congress ban conventional light bulbs so his GE cronies could push a new more expensive light bulb on the American public..
I'll skip the rest of your nonsense and just focus on the last point. The legislation that you're referring to was signed into law by GW Bush in 2007.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the final bill,[3] it passed in the House without amendment in January 2007. When the Act was introduced in the Senate in June 2007, it was combined with Senate Bill S. 1419: Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.[4] This amended version passed the Senate on June 21, 2007.[5][6] After further amendments and negotiation between the House and Senate, a revised bill passed both houses on December 18, 2007[7] and President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law on December 19, 2007 in response to his "Twenty in Ten" challenge to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years.[8]
That's correct. Congress cannot grant Presidential power.. Why even have a Constitution?? The more we allow government to pervert that document the more our freedom will erode. That's simply an irrefutable fact.
So, you can't refute what I posted? Just another emotional response? That's what I thought. Get back to me when you can make an argument based on fact, not on what you feel.
What the hell is emotional about the US Constitution.??. I provided it to you, word for word.. it's not my problem that you're a fucking moron hellbent on believing whatever the fuck your twisted mind comes up with.
ThisNation.com--What is an Executive Order?
Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.
Not all EOs are created equal. Proclamations, for example, are a special type of Executive Order that are generally ceremonial or symbolic, such as when the President declares National Take Your Child To Work Day. Another subset of Executive Orders are those concerned with national security or defense issues. These have generally been known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they have been termed "Presidential Decision Directives."
Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.
Did Reagan ever take over a fucking corporation?
Did Reagan ever bailout his voting base with a stimulus that cost all American taxpayers which only kept a few organizations afloat (unions)??
Did Reagan ever attempt to socialize an entire industry???
Obama is a dictator by de facto - the second he seized GM he became one...
He is certainly a fascist that's for sure...
Hell he demanded his super majority progressive congress ban conventional light bulbs so his GE cronies could push a new more expensive light bulb on the American public..
I'll skip the rest of your nonsense and just focus on the last point. The legislation that you're referring to was signed into law by GW Bush in 2007.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the final bill,[3] it passed in the House without amendment in January 2007. When the Act was introduced in the Senate in June 2007, it was combined with Senate Bill S. 1419: Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.[4] This amended version passed the Senate on June 21, 2007.[5][6] After further amendments and negotiation between the House and Senate, a revised bill passed both houses on December 18, 2007[7] and President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law on December 19, 2007 in response to his "Twenty in Ten" challenge to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years.[8]
I don't recall where the poster mentioned Booooooooosh, shit for brains.
