Educating Democrats: Executive Order

[Seawytch]

I think it is that Executive Orders should be few and far between.

They were meant to be, but each new president seems to abusive them more than the last.

So you're saying that President Obama has signed more EOs than his predecessor?

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats can't be educated. They don't think. They cannot reason. Their entire existence is motivated by feelings.

 

[The Rabbi]

Words.....when put into combinations with other words......suggest ideas that go beyond the meaning of the words themselves. I'm now of the opinion that you really don't grasp the theme of this discussion. I apologize for giving you more credit than you deserve.

Whicj part of "The OP said the president CREATES laws, that's not it at all" did you miss or find unclear? I realize basic reading and comprehension are rare talents among libs. But this is pretty easy.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think it is that Executive Orders should be few and far between.

They were meant to be, but each new president seems to abusive them more than the last.

So you're saying that President Obama has signed more EOs than his predecessor?

No, where did you ever get that idea? That's like saying that because men and women procreate it's OK to use an avatar of two lesbos in the sack. Totally :

 

[g5000]

This OP is screamingly hilarious considering it was the rabid right wingers who got confused over what EOs are about. It was the Right which got all sweaty over Obama's pending "gun grabbing EOs".

I sincerely hope your family and friends get you the mental healthcare you so desperately need. Since you're obviously suffering more than normal right now, I'm going to break this down slowly for you. Now, I need you to stop your irrational mind from racing, take a deep breath, and read s-l-o-w-l-y.

The president is part of the executive branch, right? Well, you probably don't know that, but go research it and come back......... Ok, done? Ready to begin again? Now, laws can only be made by the legislative branch, right? Well, you probably don't know that either, but go research it and come back......... Ok, done? Ready to begin again?

Now, since everything stated right there is FACT - how is it that "right wingers" were "confused over what EO's are about" because they "got all sweaty over Obama's pending gun grabbing EO's"? They were right to be concerned, because presidents have been abusing EO's for many years and using them to implement their own law.

You literally contradict yourself in your own argument. That is how seriously in need of some mental healthcare you are. You sound like a confused ******* idiot arguing with themselves on the street.

Furthermore, what the hell do other "right wingers" on USMB have to do with me? If some other "right winger" on USMB doesn't know what EO's are, how is that my sin? Damn, you really are a ****'n moron at times. How are you not embarrassed by such an incompetent post?

You crack me up. You really do. Go to the links I provided from this board and you will find your fellow piss drinkers were schooled on EOs. Your running mates thought Biden's comments about EOs meant Obama was going to make dictatorial unconstitutional laws. Their posts revealed they knew nothing about EOs and had never even bothered to read one in their lives. The only knowledge they had of EOs was what their masters told them to believe. They were busted on that point several times.

So it is they who needed the education, and we already took care of educating them on the errors of their ways. Not they they actually learned anything. You can't teach the willfully blind.

And then you come along like none of that ever happened and decide it is time for you to teach Democrats about EOs. We are supposed to believe this pathetic revisionist projecting of the stupidity of the Right onto Democrats is just a coincidence, right?

Listening to you try to educate others is like watching a toddler try to mimic his parents.

You are a very amusing child who is clueless as to how obvious his cute little antics are.

Coming here to tell us "the educated knows" these things. BWA-HA-HA-HA!

 

[hazlnut]

After seeing how woefully uninformed our friends on the left are about government, I've decided to start a series to educate them. The first one is on Executive Orders.

Sadly, the left believes the president of the United States is the "ultimate ruler" - responsible for making all decisions/laws in the U.S.

The educated knows nothing could be further from the truth. The president belongs to the executive branch, while laws are made by the legislative branch (Congress). Which brings us to Executive Orders. Since the president cannot make laws, what are Executive Orders and what are their purpose?

Executive Orders are simply "official" declarations for the people who work for the president. So, for example, Congress passes a law that says the C.I.A. is strictly forbidden from spying domestically (as they actually did in the 1970's). That is the law - as passed by the legislative branch. The president could then issue an Executive Order giving the C.I.A. 2 weeks to remove all domestic wire taps, remove all domestic "bugs", stop all domestic operations, etc. The Executive Order supports the law passed by Congress by ordering those who report to the president to be compliant and a time frame for that compliance. It is NOT for the president to create his own laws.

Do You Know the History of Executive Orders? Plus, Find Out Which President Has Issued the Most (Hint: Not Obama) | Video | TheBlaze.com

Congrats.

You've offered up nothing that would support the far-right fringe retargument that Obama was overreaching.

 

[g5000]

Rott just learned about EOs after the retards embarrassed themselves over the whole "gun grabbing EO" fiasco. Now with his OP, he thought he was imparting something no one else knew.

 

[jillian]

After seeing how woefully uninformed our friends on the left are about government, I've decided to start a series to educate them. The first one is on Executive Orders.

do you really think your threads as you title them, constitute political discussion?

i mean, i'm sure it serves as a nice troll to get people who think just like you to high five you.

but i can promise you, if it comes from the blaze it's nonsense anyway.

have a good day.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

DUH . . . . wrongo! EOs do not clarify laws. Only the Supreme Court has that authority.

Clarify? No. But the Executive orders are meant to give insight and guidance into how to apply the law. They are not legally binding. Law Enforcement has always had the power to simply "not arrest" someone based on whether they see the law as being broken or not.

If an individual Executive Order were to cross the line, then Congress ultimately has the authority to step in by implementing impeachment proceedings. The Court doesn't have authority until a case is brought (which is difficult to do when it's a matter of refusing to enforce a law).

 

[midcan5]

Now that the republican has been educated, what's your bet he reads some history and puts EOs and other issues in context? Any bets? Losing is such unsweet sorrow.

 

[g5000]

Any day now, Rott will start a topic educating Democrats that Obama was not watching as the Ambassador died, and that there are black people who do not have Voter IDs.

 

[Seawytch]

They were meant to be, but each new president seems to abusive them more than the last.

So you're saying that President Obama has signed more EOs than his predecessor?

No, where did you ever get that idea? That's like saying that because men and women procreate it's OK to use an avatar of two lesbos in the sack. Totally :

By reading the post I was responding to. Did you read it? He claimed that each successive president "abuses" the EO more. President Obama has issued far fewer than his predecessor.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I think it is that Executive Orders should be few and far between.

They were meant to be, but each new president seems to abusive them more than the last.

So you're saying that President Obama has signed more EOs than his predecessor?

No, he wrote "but each new president seems to abusive (sic) them more than the last." I see no indication as to numbers of EOs signed, but that each president is more abusive of this privilege. Abuse also addresses the increasingly egregious violation of the intent of a EO.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Democrats can't be educated. They don't think. They cannot reason. Their entire existence is motivated by feelings.

And once again (citing this very thread), they prove that using flawed logic to conduct a circular argument is a losing proposition. Although they either incapable of recognizing that or are incapable of admitting their flaws and subsequent loss.

 

[The Rabbi]

They were meant to be, but each new president seems to abusive them more than the last.

So you're saying that President Obama has signed more EOs than his predecessor?

No, he wrote "but each new president seems to abusive (sic) them more than the last." I see no indication as to numbers of EOs signed, but that each president is more abusive of this privilege. Abuse also addresses the increasingly egregious violation of the intent of a EO.

Yeah, what you said.

Some people are so stupid they can't figure out that Tab A goes in Socket B.

 

[Seawytch]

They were meant to be, but each new president seems to abusive them more than the last.

So you're saying that President Obama has signed more EOs than his predecessor?

No, he wrote "but each new president seems to abusive (sic) them more than the last." I see no indication as to numbers of EOs signed, but that each president is more abusive of this privilege. Abuse also addresses the increasingly egregious violation of the intent of a EO.

Cite them. Which of Obama's EOs is more "abusive" than Bush's.

 

[gallantwarrior]

So you're saying that President Obama has signed more EOs than his predecessor?

No, he wrote "but each new president seems to abusive (sic) them more than the last." I see no indication as to numbers of EOs signed, but that each president is more abusive of this privilege. Abuse also addresses the increasingly egregious violation of the intent of a EO.

Cite them. Which of Obama's EOs is more "abusive" than Bush's.

OK, ...oh, nevermind...fight with a pig and you'll only get dirty.
You are either too stupid or too completely wound up in your own little, emotional universe that no amount of reason will ever make a dent in your armor of ignorance (intentional or otherwise).

 

[Dr.Traveler]

No, he wrote "but each new president seems to abusive (sic) them more than the last." I see no indication as to numbers of EOs signed, but that each president is more abusive of this privilege. Abuse also addresses the increasingly egregious violation of the intent of a EO.

That claim is difficult to quantify though and boils down to an opinion, not fact. For example, when the Democrats passed laws limiting interrogation methods and other tools Bush used to fight terrorism, GWB basically retaliated by issuing an EO that said "**** you." In legalese of course. Bush also ended up issuing an EO that locks up Presidential records for just this side of forever, something a lot of historians (Left and Right) hate Bush passionately over. Those were fairly abusive EOs.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I'll add this just to be clear: I'm not excusing Obama using EO's. I'm just as pissed about him using EO's as I was about Bush doing the same thing. I see this as a textbook example of the rise of the "Imperial Presidency" and a very real and present danger to our Republic.

The Problem, capital "P", is that Obama is just about as likely to get called on this as Bush was for exactly the same reason. If Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal is in the office in 2017, I don't expect them to stop abusing this or get called on it either. The only branch that actually has the power to call a President on this is the Legislative, and the Legislative process is fairly well broken at this point. We can't even confirm Federal Judges or fill vacancies in government, much less begin Impeachment processes over this issue.

 

[konradv]

Please cite the place where the OP says that. In fact he says the exact opposite. I suspect your comprehension sucks.

You're kidding, right? If I were you I wouldn't question others' comprehension, since you usually don't have a clue.

From the OP:

The Executive Order supports the law passed by Congress by ordering those who report to the president to be compliant and a time frame for that compliance. It is NOT for the president to create his own laws.

You post a quote where it clearly states that EO's are NOT for the president to create his own laws (because ONLY Congress can create laws) as "proof" that I said the president creates his own laws???

My God - get some help reading. The word NOT could NOT be any more obvious in that statement.

I that's not what you meant, you need to present your thoughts more clearly. I hardly expected you to be defending the president, so your convoluted wording definitely makes for confusion.