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.
heres some more stats for teh Big Gov't, Repub-voters
For years Reagan wanted a line-item veto. Finally it was passed. Shortly after Clinton started using it, the SCOTUS decided it was unconstitutional.
Obamacare was unconstitutional and had to be rewritten by the Chief Justice to make it constitutional.
Now Obama has been applying the law any way he chooses, excluding friends and political donors from the damaging effects of Obamacare. He refuses to enforce immigration laws, even helps break it at times.
His threats to go around Congress are worrying, because it takes years to get anything to the SC, so any damage he does will be irreversible.
heres some more stats for teh Big Gov't, Repub-voters
What the left is admitting here is that Executive Orders are not desirable.
However, all they do to defend Obama is to show that some Republicans have written more of them?
Does this make any sense to anyone?
heres some more stats for teh Big Gov't, Repub-voters
What the left is admitting here is that Executive Orders are not desirable.
However, all they do to defend Obama is to show that some Republicans have written more of them?
Does this make any sense to anyone?
I have never once indicated that they are undesirable. Sometimes, they are very necessary. The point is made, however, for those on the Right who claim "Imperial" Presidency of Obama based on OEs, they are barking up the wrong tree. Once again.
Well, there goes the "Obama as dictator" meme.
I don't see why there was ever any question about the statistics 
Maybe for low-information rw'ers but not for the thinking-populace.
Well, there goes the "Obama as dictator" meme.
yep.
This pretty much puts the whole "Imperial" thing to rest:
GOP Slams ?Imperial? Obama After Fewest Executive Orders In 100 Years (CHART)
Until now, President Obama has issued 168 executive orders. That makes for less than 0.1 order per day in office. You can see it at the graph above.
Here the exact numbers:
List of United States federal executive orders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Obama and the last five presidents before:
Obama (to-date): 168
Bush, Jr: 291 (over 8 years)
Clinton: 364 (over 8 years)
Bush, Sr. 166 (over four years)
Reagan: 381 (over 8 years)
Carter: 320 (over 4 years)
You can see that in the first 50 years of the twentieth century, Presidents issued considerably more EO's. Starting with Eisenhower, that trend lessened.
Another member (I think it was Amelia) made a good point on another thread, namely, that Obama is about 60% through his full tenure in office and when you extrapolate his current number of EOs out to eight years, he would likely end up with as many EO's as his predecessor, George W. Bush, Jr.:
5 / 8 = 62.5%
168 / 0.625 = 268.8, or 269 EOs.
But both of these gentlemen, Obama AND Bush, Jr., for all presidents who have served 8 years (2 full terms) will have had the least number of EOs all the way back to Ulysses S. Grant.
It's all in the wiki link.
-----------------------------------------------------
Now, people can freely debate whether an individual EO is constitutional or not, but rest assured, each President gets legal counsel as to the veracity and legality of an EO BEFORE signing it.
Feel free to vent, but maybe a couple of facts would be nice, too...
Oh, I almost forgot: the Emancipation Proclamation, signed by President Abraham Lincoln (R), was an EO:
Let us not forget, it isn't the number of orders issued, but impact those orders have on the country. Some are significant, some others aren't. But what Obama is planning to do is usurp the legislative branch altogether.
LOL!If FDR was a tyrant then why does the left look up to him like they do?
Looking at your chart it is clear what the Progressive era has done to this country. Obama is but one of many. Luckily, conservatives have a greater voice than they did in the era of FDR. Back then FDR would have thrown us all in concentration camps. Then again, Obama could arrest us under the NDAA without trial. We could all just disappear now.
If FDR was a tyrant then why does the left look up to him like they do?
Looking at your chart it is clear what the Progressive era has done to this country. Obama is but one of many. Luckily, conservatives have a greater voice than they did in the era of FDR. Back then FDR would have thrown us all in concentration camps. Then again, Obama could arrest us under the NDAA without trial. We could all just disappear now.
Because FDR wasn't a tyrant.
He had to deal with the Depression (which was a direct result of conservative policies) and the Nazis (A bunch of German Theocratic Conservatives).
One of the major roles of the Chief Executive is to keep the country functional during crisis.
That's what he did.
LOL!If FDR was a tyrant then why does the left look up to him like they do?
Looking at your chart it is clear what the Progressive era has done to this country. Obama is but one of many. Luckily, conservatives have a greater voice than they did in the era of FDR. Back then FDR would have thrown us all in concentration camps. Then again, Obama could arrest us under the NDAA without trial. We could all just disappear now.
I'm hoping you're joking, and not delusional.
If FDR was a tyrant then why does the left look up to him like they do?
Looking at your chart it is clear what the Progressive era has done to this country. Obama is but one of many. Luckily, conservatives have a greater voice than they did in the era of FDR. Back then FDR would have thrown us all in concentration camps. Then again, Obama could arrest us under the NDAA without trial. We could all just disappear now.
