Executive orders and the President

[Dad2three]

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?

No.

What I think is we need to start getting shit done again. Whatever that requires we'd better decide upon, and soon...

No, what we need is for Obama to stop causing one crisis after another, one problem after another, and faking that congress won't work with him.

He's a tin-horn dictator who refuses to follow the law. Nothing more.

 

[Dad2three]

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

I wondered how long it would be before it was Bush's fault again.........Jesus. What next? It's the founders fault??


Presidents Cannot Ignore Laws as Written - NYTimes.com

Good you agree,. Dubya was MUCH worse on E/O than Obama...

 

[RandallFlagg]

" 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

I wondered how long it would be before it was Bush's fault again.........Jesus. What next? It's the founders fault??


Presidents Cannot Ignore Laws as Written - NYTimes.com

Good you agree,. Dubya was MUCH worse on E/O than Obama...

Of course!! Why wouldn't you ******* Nazis blame the guy who has been gone for the last 5.5 years!?!? Surely that RAVING ******* LUNATIC in the office now isn't responsible for shit, is he?

 

[blackhawk]

It seems no one really has any problem with how far a President pushes the use of executive orders as long as they belong to the party you back.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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."

Cite the number of just ONE EO and its topic you falsely claim is a legislative action!

 

[Dad2three]

I wondered how long it would be before it was Bush's fault again.........Jesus. What next? It's the founders fault??


Presidents Cannot Ignore Laws as Written - NYTimes.com

Good you agree,. Dubya was MUCH worse on E/O than Obama...

Of course!! Why wouldn't you ******* Nazis blame the guy who has been gone for the last 5.5 years!?!? Surely that RAVING ******* LUNATIC in the office now isn't responsible for shit, is he?

Executive Action: It’s Only a Problem When President Obama Does It


...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.

 

[Dad2three]

It seems no one really has any problem with how far a President pushes the use of executive orders as long as they belong to the party you back.

I have no problem with E/O, from ANYONE, think it's not constitutional? Bring it to court!

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

What he said is not QFT. Obama has done no such thing. It is a nutter talking point.

You do not understand the law.

 

[blackhawk]

It seems no one really has any problem with how far a President pushes the use of executive orders as long as they belong to the party you back.

I have no problem with E/O, from ANYONE, think it's not constitutional? Bring it to court!

I believe that is what the House Republicans have done something the left is trashing them over.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Man........the false assumptions that USMB nutters BEGIN with is hampering their ability to grasp some fairly simple concepts.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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."

Cite the number of just ONE EO and its topic you falsely claim is a legislative action!

Sure no problem! How about making changes to LAWS (The ACA for example) without amendments from Congress....Good enough for you?

How about making changes (retroactively) to the Immigration laws that have stood for the last 50 or so years - without Congressional amendment? Although I don't believe that he has done anything yet - expect him to circumvent Congress (AND THE LAW) this week.

That work for you? You can't have it both ways. Either he is breaking existing laws by fiat - or he isn't. Which is it going to be? Or, are you going to Grover Cleveland as another president who did it?

Excusing bad behaviors by pointing to OTHER bad behavios is no way to go through life...

 

[RandallFlagg]

Good you agree,. Dubya was MUCH worse on E/O than Obama...

Of course!! Why wouldn't you ******* Nazis blame the guy who has been gone for the last 5.5 years!?!? Surely that RAVING ******* LUNATIC in the office now isn't responsible for shit, is he?

Executive Action: It’s Only a Problem When President Obama Does It


...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.

Once more. Excusing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior makes your side look weak and pitiful. George Bush hasn't been president in well over 5 years.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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."

Cite the number of just ONE EO and its topic you falsely claim is a legislative action!

Sure no problem! How about making changes to LAWS (The ACA for example) without amendments from Congress....Good enough for you?

How about making changes (retroactively) to the Immigration laws that have stood for the last 50 or so years - without Congressional amendment? Although I don't believe that he has done anything yet - expect him to circumvent Congress (AND THE LAW) this week.

That work for you? You can't have it both ways. Either he is breaking existing laws by fiat - or he isn't. Which is it going to be? Or, are you going to Grover Cleveland as another president who did it?

Excusing bad behaviors by pointing to OTHER bad behavios is no way to go through life...

A butt-ton of folks are really lacking understanding of the operational structure and functions within the three branches of the Federal.

Those are neither legislative actions nor Executive Orders you present. Can we say Fail?

They are Executive actions, and you would have to talk to Eric Holder's staff at DOJ for the legal opinion of the statutory status of each action they presented to the President before he took action on any of those and many more Executive actions.

 

[Dad2three]

It seems no one really has any problem with how far a President pushes the use of executive orders as long as they belong to the party you back.

I have no problem with E/O, from ANYONE, think it's not constitutional? Bring it to court!

I believe that is what the House Republicans have done something the left is trashing them over.

Really? WHERE THE LAWSUIT? ACA HAS BEEN ONGOING FOR 4+ YEARS/. Lol, GOPers are using it for politics, the 'left' is calling them on it!

It's got ZERO basis in reality to stop the Prez from administering laws!

 

[Dad2three]

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."

Cite the number of just ONE EO and its topic you falsely claim is a legislative action!

Sure no problem! How about making changes to LAWS (The ACA for example) without amendments from Congress....Good enough for you?

How about making changes (retroactively) to the Immigration laws that have stood for the last 50 or so years - without Congressional amendment? Although I don't believe that he has done anything yet - expect him to circumvent Congress (AND THE LAW) this week.

That work for you? You can't have it both ways. Either he is breaking existing laws by fiat - or he isn't. Which is it going to be? Or, are you going to Grover Cleveland as another president who did it?

Excusing bad behaviors by pointing to OTHER bad behavios is no way to go through life...

ALL administrative actions by the branch of Gov't that ad misters the laws, Executive. Grow a brain!

 

[FJO]

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?

No.

What I think is we need to start getting shit done again. Whatever that requires we'd better decide upon, and soon...

Getting shit done your parents were spectacularly successful.

 

[Dad2three]

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."

Cite the number of just ONE EO and its topic you falsely claim is a legislative action!

Sure no problem! How about making changes to LAWS (The ACA for example) without amendments from Congress....Good enough for you?

How about making changes (retroactively) to the Immigration laws that have stood for the last 50 or so years - without Congressional amendment? Although I don't believe that he has done anything yet - expect him to circumvent Congress (AND THE LAW) this week.

That work for you? You can't have it both ways. Either he is breaking existing laws by fiat - or he isn't. Which is it going to be? Or, are you going to Grover Cleveland as another president who did it?

Excusing bad behaviors by pointing to OTHER bad behavios is no way to go through life...

At the same time, Congress has also given the executive branch some flexibility in determining what it means to “faithfully” execute a law. It’s hard, after all, for legislators to predict every thorny issue that will come up in the process of turning laws into regulations.

In 1946, legislators passed the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs the way that regulatory agencies carry out legislation. That law both gives agencies discretion in setting up laws, but holds them accountable for carrying out Congress’s intentions.

“Under the Administrative Procedure Act precedent, the courts can compel agencies that have been unreasonably delayed,” says Simon Lazarus, a senior counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. “Those tend to involve delays that have gone on for years.”

Courts have frequently grappled with issues of what counts as an “unreasonable” delay and, as many experts will tell you, they still haven’t set a bright line between executive discretion and disobedience.



...In Congressional testimony, Treasury makes a counter argument: That the agency is by no means dispensing with the law -- they still plan to implement it -- but rather making an adjustment, well within executive discretion. The agency says this authority stems from its power to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title.”


Moreover, this is something that the agency has done more than a dozen times before, without a peep from Congress.

The White House keeps changing Obamacare. Is that legal? - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

Of course!! Why wouldn't you ******* Nazis blame the guy who has been gone for the last 5.5 years!?!? Surely that RAVING ******* LUNATIC in the office now isn't responsible for shit, is he?

Executive Action: It’s Only a Problem When President Obama Does It


...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.

Once more. Excusing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior makes your side look weak and pitiful. George Bush hasn't been president in well over 5 years.

Executive Action: It’s Only a Problem When President Obama Does It

 

[bravoactual]

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.

And just think, the lame law suit against for President Obama's use of Executive Orders (less than the shrub btw) fell apart after the House Republicans, after rejecting the Boner's Immigration Reform Bill, said that "President Obama can use Administrative Actions (Executive Orders) on Immigration Reform.

 

[Dad2three]