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.
There is no line, which is intentional. The role of the Executive was never clearly defined because no one was sure what he might be called upon to do. It's a balance thing, not a hard and fast rule thing.
No.There is no line, which is intentional. The role of the Executive was never clearly defined because no one was sure what he might be called upon to do. It's a balance thing, not a hard and fast rule thing.
The question is if you could draw one what would it be. Given the fact that Presidents both left and right keep expanding the use of executive orders don't you think it might be a good idea to have some clearly defined restrictions on them?
To be fair, FDR and Bush had more EO's, nevertheless, Herr Obama picks and chooses laws he wants to enforce and ones that he does not. When he gets in a bind he just picks up his pen and his phone!
All the impeachment talk were getting goes back to the President and executive orders and how he has used them so here is the question if you could draw the line on the use of executive orders by the President where would you draw it at? When you draw this line keep in mind it applies to all who will become President not just the ones you like and agree with.
[E]xecutive orders are just one type of executive power and do not necessarily reflect the true might of the president. Presidents can issue signing statements, presidential memoranda, presidential proclamations, engage in rulemaking (regulatory) authority, reassign appointees, influence budgeting decisions, and use a host of other means of influencing outcomes.
There is much misinformation about President Obamas use of executive orders[...] Like many criticisms of many presidents, policy disagreements stemming from presidential actions do not automatically make those actions illegal. Executive orders are no different. They are not an abuse of power, but a necessary presidential power critical to the function of government.
Obama's Executive Orders; A Reality Check | Brookings Institution
Alright I hope you feel the same way when the next President you disagree with uses and expands them even more I find it disturbing so many seem to be fine with the by any means necessary idea.No.There is no line, which is intentional. The role of the Executive was never clearly defined because no one was sure what he might be called upon to do. It's a balance thing, not a hard and fast rule thing.
The question is if you could draw one what would it be. Given the fact that Presidents both left and right keep expanding the use of executive orders don't you think it might be a good idea to have some clearly defined restrictions on them?
What I think is we need to start getting shit done again. Whatever that requires we'd better decide upon, and soon...
I'm not but it can come into play.Alright I hope you feel the same way when the next President you disagree with uses and expands them even more I find it disturbing so many seem to be fine with the by any means necessary idea.No.The question is if you could draw one what would it be. Given the fact that Presidents both left and right keep expanding the use of executive orders don't you think it might be a good idea to have some clearly defined restrictions on them?
What I think is we need to start getting shit done again. Whatever that requires we'd better decide upon, and soon...
To be fair, FDR and Bush had more EO's, nevertheless, Herr Obama picks and chooses laws he wants to enforce and ones that he does not. When he gets in a bind he just picks up his pen and his phone!
I agree that other Presidents have issued as many (if not more) than Barry. Here's the problem. The vast majority of the EO's issued by other administrations were relatively simple matters - appointments and short term executive actions - basically so they could give away Monte Blanc pens.
Obama's EO's are becoming more and more sweeping legislative actions that by-pass Congress completely - in the vein of a King.
There is a HUGE difference in an executive order that appoints Joe Blow to the position of Dog Catcher and one that wipes out an entire industry (coal) and costs hundreds of thousands of jobs. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Additionally, we constantly hear from the Nazi left - that we are a "nation of laws". Someone needs to tell Herr Obama that. He picks and chooses what "laws" he will enforce and which laws he ignores. But WE, THE PEOPLE, are expected to blindly obey.
All the impeachment talk were getting goes back to the President and executive orders and how he has used them so here is the question if you could draw the line on the use of executive orders by the President where would you draw it at? When you draw this line keep in mind it applies to all who will become President not just the ones you like and agree with.
To be fair, FDR and Bush had more EO's, nevertheless, Herr Obama picks and chooses laws he wants to enforce and ones that he does not. When he gets in a bind he just picks up his pen and his phone!
I agree that other Presidents have issued as many (if not more) than Barry. Here's the problem. The vast majority of the EO's issued by other administrations were relatively simple matters - appointments and short term executive actions - basically so they could give away Monte Blanc pens.
Obama's EO's are becoming more and more sweeping legislative actions that by-pass Congress completely - in the vein of a King.
There is a HUGE difference in an executive order that appoints Joe Blow to the position of Dog Catcher and one that wipes out an entire industry (coal) and costs hundreds of thousands of jobs. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Additionally, we constantly hear from the Nazi left - that we are a "nation of laws". Someone needs to tell Herr Obama that. He picks and chooses what "laws" he will enforce and which laws he ignores. But WE, THE PEOPLE, are expected to blindly obey.
QFT
"The Line" is defined by the office's authority.
We're supposed to have checks and balances so no single branch has more power than the other two.
ACA was law, passed by Congress. Any changes to such law needs to be done through Amendments NOT Executive Order.
And, yes, that holds true to ANY President
To be fair, FDR and Bush had more EO's, nevertheless, Herr Obama picks and chooses laws he wants to enforce and ones that he does not. When he gets in a bind he just picks up his pen and his phone!
To be fair, FDR and Bush had more EO's, nevertheless, Herr Obama picks and chooses laws he wants to enforce and ones that he does not. When he gets in a bind he just picks up his pen and his phone!
I agree that other Presidents have issued as many (if not more) than Barry. Here's the problem. The vast majority of the EO's issued by other administrations were relatively simple matters - appointments and short term executive actions - basically so they could give away Monte Blanc pens.
Obama's EO's are becoming more and more sweeping legislative actions that by-pass Congress completely - in the vein of a King.
There is a HUGE difference in an executive order that appoints Joe Blow to the position of Dog Catcher and one that wipes out an entire industry (coal) and costs hundreds of thousands of jobs. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Additionally, we constantly hear from the Nazi left - that we are a "nation of laws". Someone needs to tell Herr Obama that. He picks and chooses what "laws" he will enforce and which laws he ignores. But WE, THE PEOPLE, are expected to blindly obey.
No.There is no line, which is intentional. The role of the Executive was never clearly defined because no one was sure what he might be called upon to do. It's a balance thing, not a hard and fast rule thing.
The question is if you could draw one what would it be. Given the fact that Presidents both left and right keep expanding the use of executive orders don't you think it might be a good idea to have some clearly defined restrictions on them?
What I think is we need to start getting shit done again. Whatever that requires we'd better decide upon, and soon...
To be fair, FDR and Bush had more EO's, nevertheless, Herr Obama picks and chooses laws he wants to enforce and ones that he does not. When he gets in a bind he just picks up his pen and his phone!
I agree that other Presidents have issued as many (if not more) than Barry. Here's the problem. The vast majority of the EO's issued by other administrations were relatively simple matters - appointments and short term executive actions - basically so they could give away Monte Blanc pens.
Obama's EO's are becoming more and more sweeping legislative actions that by-pass Congress completely - in the vein of a King.
There is a HUGE difference in an executive order that appoints Joe Blow to the position of Dog Catcher and one that wipes out an entire industry (coal) and costs hundreds of thousands of jobs. BIG DIFFERENCE.
Additionally, we constantly hear from the Nazi left - that we are a "nation of laws". Someone needs to tell Herr Obama that. He picks and chooses what "laws" he will enforce and which laws he ignores. But WE, THE PEOPLE, are expected to blindly obey.
" Obama's EO's are becoming more and more sweeping legislative actions that by-pass Congress completely - in the vein of a King."
lol
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.
Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.
Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all
Executive Action: It’s Only a Problem When President Obama Does It
In one frequently used phrase, George W. Bush has routinely asserted that he will not act contrary to the constitutional provisions that direct the president to “supervise the unitary executive branch.” This formulation can be found first in a signing statement of Ronald Reagan, and it was repeated several times by George H. W. Bush. Basically, Bush asserts that Congress cannot pass a law that undercuts the constitutionally granted authorities of the President.
The Boston Globe wrote that Bush had assumed the right to disobey more than 750 laws since he took office, “…declaring that he (Bush) has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws.”
Executive Action: It's Only a Problem When President Obama Does It
If we can't agree on funding our science institutions, infrastructure, education and investment into r&d here in America. We're in fucking trouble!
