Congress? A dictator doesn't need Congress

[konradv]

you first..I doubt your sour ass will be missed.

You even understand what an executive order is and its history?

Damn you're still here.
go dump your sour ass on the rest here, that seems to be your mission on this board.

Another words this isn't about truth or facts, just "Get Obama", right?!?!

 

[BDBoop]

Why the hell are we even paying for a Congress?

We should send them all home and just let the Obama rule by dictator, I mean by executive orders.

Go away stupid.

Stupid did go away. This is where he landed.

 

[SeekingSanity]

MEH! He can be fired; he works for us... so he'd better go back and look up the rules again. Congress, better do this too. Congress is responsible for expenditures by the gov't - exec order or no exec order. We pay them plenty to show up for work and actually know what their job is... and do it. I don't expect them to unanimously agree on everything. They can't if we're paying them to faithfully represent US, right? We sure don't all agree. (Part 2 of that job, is voting or compromising in a useful fashion for the "common good" of the country, as a whole. Not just the latest lobbyist.)

Mr. O is just a sad, pathetic, desperate man trying to prove we 'need' him. UH-HUH... suuurrrre.
We really 'need' leaders who blame everyone else for the fact that he hasn't taken his own advisor's recommendations seriously, and therefore we're further in the hole every day... and who keeps trying the same thing that failed the last time.

I'd advise him to man up, but I'm afraid he has the wrong idea of what I mean. So it would appear, from his latest debacle. I hate to see a grown man squirm like this... weasel around trying to find something solid to hang on to, when it's pretty clear it's just too damn late to rescue the "relationship"... and it's his own damn fault.

When they start making an issue of changing definitions of words, rules that have been around forever, and engaging in doublespeak never meaning what they say... well, it's just over at that point. Isn't it?

 

[Salt Jones]

MEH! He can be fired; he works for us... so he'd better go back and look up the rules again. Congress, better do this too. Congress is responsible for expenditures by the gov't - exec order or no exec order. We pay them plenty to show up for work and actually know what their job is... and do it. I don't expect them to unanimously agree on everything. They can't if we're paying them to faithfully represent US, right? We sure don't all agree. (Part 2 of that job, is voting or compromising in a useful fashion for the "common good" of the country, as a whole. Not just the latest lobbyist.)

Mr. O is just a sad, pathetic, desperate man trying to prove we 'need' him. UH-HUH... suuurrrre.
We really 'need' leaders who blame everyone else for the fact that he hasn't taken his own advisor's recommendations seriously, and therefore we're further in the hole every day... and who keeps trying the same thing that failed the last time.

I'd advise him to man up, but I'm afraid he has the wrong idea of what I mean. So it would appear, from his latest debacle. I hate to see a grown man squirm like this... weasel around trying to find something solid to hang on to, when it's pretty clear it's just too damn late to rescue the "relationship"... and it's his own damn fault.

When they start making an issue of changing definitions of words, rules that have been around forever, and engaging in doublespeak never meaning what they say... well, it's just over at that point. Isn't it?

Are executive orders constitutional?

 

[The Infidel]

You guys weren't so upset when this shit happened..

George W. Bush Executive Orders Subjects
List of Presidential Signing Statements Issued by George W. Bush
Executive privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cheney Executive Privilege | Cheney's executive decision - Los Angeles Times

Like..what changed?

I was.... just sayin'


Bush was a HUGE disappointment in my eyes. Not a conservative at all

 

[The Infidel]

Are executive orders constitutional?

It is to the libs..... but, only if there is a "D" behind his name.



Last time I checked there was 3 branches of gov't.

 

[konradv]

MEH! He can be fired; he works for us... so he'd better go back and look up the rules again. Congress, better do this too. Congress is responsible for expenditures by the gov't - exec order or no exec order. We pay them plenty to show up for work and actually know what their job is... and do it. I don't expect them to unanimously agree on everything. They can't if we're paying them to faithfully represent US, right? We sure don't all agree. (Part 2 of that job, is voting or compromising in a useful fashion for the "common good" of the country, as a whole. Not just the latest lobbyist.)

Mr. O is just a sad, pathetic, desperate man trying to prove we 'need' him. UH-HUH... suuurrrre.
We really 'need' leaders who blame everyone else for the fact that he hasn't taken his own advisor's recommendations seriously, and therefore we're further in the hole every day... and who keeps trying the same thing that failed the last time.

I'd advise him to man up, but I'm afraid he has the wrong idea of what I mean. So it would appear, from his latest debacle. I hate to see a grown man squirm like this... weasel around trying to find something solid to hang on to, when it's pretty clear it's just too damn late to rescue the "relationship"... and it's his own damn fault.

When they start making an issue of changing definitions of words, rules that have been around forever, and engaging in doublespeak never meaning what they say... well, it's just over at that point. Isn't it?

Are executive orders constitutional?

They must be or we wouldn't be talking about them. They've been around for a while, so undoubtedly someone has challenged them in the past and lost.

 

[The Infidel]

Why the hell are we even paying for a Congress?

We should send them all home and just let the Obama rule by dictator, I mean by executive orders.

Go away stupid.

Stupid did go away. This is where he landed.

So.... you two idiots dont like our form of gov't ?

Executive, Judicial, and legislative...

 

[Navy1960]

Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4.

Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While not a constitutional lawyer, it would appear that the President is granted powers to issue so called " Executive Orders" on laws already in place. Then the question becomes is there a Law already in place that the Executive Order is using to see that it is faithfully executed. There is one case in that link where the Supreme Court basically said the President has no authority to make laws with such power.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579
Justice Black wrote for the majority, although the number of divergent concurring opinions made it clear that he did not necessarily speak for it. Black took, as he often did, an absolutist view, holding that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[konradv]

Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4.

Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While not a constitutional lawyer, it would appear that the President is granted powers to issue so called " Executive Orders" on laws already in place. Then the question becomes is there a Law already in place that the Executive Order is using to see that it is faithfully executed. There is one case in that link where the Supreme Court basically said the President has no authority to make laws with such power.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579
Justice Black wrote for the majority, although the number of divergent concurring opinions made it clear that he did not necessarily speak for it. Black took, as he often did, an absolutist view, holding that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That case was about seizure of property and may not be "on point". EOs are authorized by Congress, but aren't enforced except at the president's discretion.

 

[Navy1960]

Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4.

Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While not a constitutional lawyer, it would appear that the President is granted powers to issue so called " Executive Orders" on laws already in place. Then the question becomes is there a Law already in place that the Executive Order is using to see that it is faithfully executed. There is one case in that link where the Supreme Court basically said the President has no authority to make laws with such power.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579
Justice Black wrote for the majority, although the number of divergent concurring opinions made it clear that he did not necessarily speak for it. Black took, as he often did, an absolutist view, holding that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That case was about seizure of property and may not be "on point". EOs are authorized by Congress, but aren't enforced except at the president's discretion.

Being more specific, those laws are passed by congress, and therefor, yes your correct they are. My point in the case mentioned was simply to point out that when a President oversteps those bounds, He/She is going beyond their constitutional authority.

 

[Dragon]

All executive orders are based on authority of the president already granted either by the Constitution or by previous acts of Congress. There is nothing illegal going on here nor being proposed.

 

[Navy1960]

So Dragon, then the question becomes, if there is no power granted by congress to issue EO's as they apply to mortgage adjustments, and admittedly have not looked into it yet, is the current EO beyond his authority ? As for the constitution, it's fairly clear under his constitution if he is simply issuing an EO based on any authority given for such mortgage adjustments then he is simply seeing to it that they are faithfully executed, a power granted under the constitution. Although, am sure it can be argued that any congressional authority given the President to issue EO's might be used, however, at least in my humble opinion thats a little bit of a stretch.

 

[Dragon]

So Dragon, then the question becomes, if there is no power granted by congress to issue EO's as they apply to mortgage adjustments, and admittedly have not looked into it yet, is the current EO beyond his authority ?

IF that is the case, THEN, yes, it would be beyond his authority. As that would be a pretty obvious error on his part, I seriously doubt that it is the case.

As for the constitution, it's fairly clear under his constitution if he is simply issuing an EO based on any authority given for such mortgage adjustments then he is simply seeing to it that they are faithfully executed, a power granted under the constitution. Although, am sure it can be argued that any congressional authority given the President to issue EO's might be used, however, at least in my humble opinion thats a little bit of a stretch.

What exactly is an "executive order"? It's simply instructions from the president to various departments of the executive branch of the federal government. Obviously the president, as head of the government and commander in chief of the military, has the authority to do that.

Acts of Congress often give the executive branch (which ultimately means the president) leeway and discretion in how the law is to be implemented. It's clear enough from the context that Obama is simply looking for ways in which he can act to improve the economy based on authorization which Congress has already granted. He isn't trying to supplant Congress, nor could he do so.

 

[Navy1960]

S.896 - Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009
This bill would provide government bonuses for lenders that voluntarily modify troubled mortgages, provide legal protection to mortgage servicers who work out loan modifications, make several changes to the Hope for Homeowners program, reform the FDIC insurance fund, and more.

S.896: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

So then if congress, and the constitution allows for the President to faithfully execute law's as well as gives the President authority to issue EO's, then the above law might fit that catagory.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Oh. So George W. Bush making up shit to go into Iraq,

Why is it Shallow, that you don't have a fucking honest bone in your body?

Look, you're a drone, I get it. You say what serves the party, I get it. You don't care what you say, as long as it serves the party. The hive instructs you on what to say, and you say it, I get it.

BUT is there no humanity at all in you? Have you no remnant of a cognitive process? Have you never had a thought that wasn't dictated to you by the party bosses?

Seriously!

You know full well that Bush continued the language and message of Bill Clinton, Harry Reid and the rest of your party bosses. I've posted their words dozens of times.

suspending Habeas Corpus on American citizens,

And pulled the wings off of kittens!

Seriously dude, why are you such a fucking liar? Just to mindlessly serve your shameful party?

Why not claim Bush murdered and raped coeds in the oval office? It's no less true than your claim that Habeas Corpus was suspended.

lying about getting warrants to electronically spy on American citizens, pulling airplane manifests, and trying to pull library and medical records but being stopped by Doctors and Librarians, authorizing torture, putting fake articles into newspapers, putting up fake news stories on networks, having gay male prostitutes pitch softball questions at him in whitehouse news conferences, and issuing a plethora of executive orders, signing statements and priviledges helped keep you sleeping.

ROFL

If you were sentient, you'd be a fucking nutjob. Since you are a drone, you don't even know the meaning of the words you spew.

Tell you what, stupid fuck, crawl back to the hive and ask your bosses to program you with examples of "fake articles" put into newspapers (yeah, the party press is going to do that, alright....)

Tells you something.

That your party is so full of shit that nothing you or other drones post here has any merit at all?

Yep!

 

[Lovebears65]

Obama is trying to bankrupt our country and he is doing a real good job of doing it.We can not afford for him to be in office one more day let alone 4 more years

 

[Uncensored2008]

shut up birther.

Seriously Shitter, you're telling others to shut up?

ROFL.....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obama is trying to bankrupt our country and he is doing a real good job of doing it.We can not afford for him to be in office one more day let alone 4 more years.

That’s an ignorant statement.

Why would Obama want to ‘bankrupt’ the country, whatever that means. The Executive has no taxing/spending authority, that’s Congress’ sole authority. In 2001 there was a budget surplus, gone six years later after republican rule.

Obama can’t bankrupt something already bankrupt.

 

[Lovebears65]

Obama is trying to bankrupt our country and he is doing a real good job of doing it.We can not afford for him to be in office one more day let alone 4 more years.

That’s an ignorant statement.

Why would Obama want to ‘bankrupt’ the country, whatever that means. The Executive has no taxing/spending authority, that’s Congress’ sole authority. In 2001 there was a budget surplus, gone six years later after republican rule.

Obama can’t bankrupt something already bankrupt.

He wants a new world order,[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CV8Xt2VWvc]Obama Calls For New World Order In Berlin - YouTube[/ame]


and Obama has doubled what Bush gave us