Is there any legitimate use for Executive Orders?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Is there any legitimate use for Executive Orders?"

Yes.

Note this isn't an issue for rightists when a Republican is president; such is the hypocrisy of conservatives.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

EO's are fine during time of war but have NO PLACE during peace time.

Why not? What's the difference? EOs simply dictate how a President's executive will be operated.

That office has to much power during peace time. In case you missed it Gunocrat power resides with the states.

You should have mentioned that when they were writing the constitution.

actually, it sort of is there, the constitution outlines what the federal government can do, everything outside of those things are states issues.

Odd that the Supreme Court seems to disagree with you.

odd that the constitution seems to disagree with the no longer supreme court.
I bet if I picked the whole supreme court they would rule differently.

 

[Little-Acorn]

There is nothing intrinsically unconstitutional about an Executive Order. But if an EO is used for the wrong thing, then it CAN be unconstitutional.... as many of Obama's are.

Executive Orders are what a President is supposed to use to carry out something passed by Congress (and signed into law by the Prez, of course).

Classic example is, Congress passes something saying that a group of Federal buildings on a corner in DC will be painted brown. Obama signs it into law. Obama then issues an Exec Order to solicit three companies for bids on the painting work, issues another order to check the bidding companies' qualifications etc. Obama is issuing Exec Orders pursuant to something Congress passed into law.

If he's issuing Exec Orders to do something Congress did NOT pass, such as to delay implementation of part of Obamacare for a year, that's the equivalent of issuing an EO to paint the buildings red instead of brown. It does NOT carry out what Congress passed. In fact, it's the act of a dictator with no Congressional oversight or adherence to procedures required by the Constitution, at all.

Or, if Congress passes something that violates the Constitution, such as a law that says people must have a license granted by government before they can buy or sell firearms, then any EO that implements it must be equally unconstitutional.

Executive orders have a legitimate use... but a narrow one. They must implement something Congress has already passed, and the law they are implementing must constitutional itself.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If we are going to require permits to exercise a legal right then we should require permits for all the rights enumerated in the Constitution

Is it a good idea tio give government the power to require permits... thus giving them the power to REFUSE permits to some?

Doesn't the 2nd amendment specifically forbid govt from having that power, over guns at least?

 

[BULLDOG]

Why not? What's the difference? EOs simply dictate how a President's executive will be operated.

That office has to much power during peace time. In case you missed it Gunocrat power resides with the states.

You should have mentioned that when they were writing the constitution.

actually, it sort of is there, the constitution outlines what the federal government can do, everything outside of those things are states issues.

Odd that the Supreme Court seems to disagree with you.

odd that the constitution seems to disagree with the no longer supreme court.
I bet if I picked the whole supreme court they would rule differently.

Fortunately, the SC is not chosen by some crazy anonymous poster from the internet.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

That office has to much power during peace time. In case you missed it Gunocrat power resides with the states.

You should have mentioned that when they were writing the constitution.

actually, it sort of is there, the constitution outlines what the federal government can do, everything outside of those things are states issues.

Odd that the Supreme Court seems to disagree with you.

odd that the constitution seems to disagree with the no longer supreme court.
I bet if I picked the whole supreme court they would rule differently.

Fortunately, the SC is not chosen by some crazy anonymous poster from the internet.

Instead it gets chosen by some Anti American Unconstitutional piece of shit.
How much credit do you put into any that comes out of that court when one of the judges came right out and said she hated white men? That slut needs to go too.

 

[BULLDOG]

You should have mentioned that when they were writing the constitution.

actually, it sort of is there, the constitution outlines what the federal government can do, everything outside of those things are states issues.

Odd that the Supreme Court seems to disagree with you.

odd that the constitution seems to disagree with the no longer supreme court.
I bet if I picked the whole supreme court they would rule differently.

Fortunately, the SC is not chosen by some crazy anonymous poster from the internet.

Instead it gets chosen by some Anti American Unconstitutional piece of shit.
How much credit do you put into any that comes out of that court when one of the judges came right out and said she hated white men? That slut needs to go too.

A claim like that deserves a link.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

actually, it sort of is there, the constitution outlines what the federal government can do, everything outside of those things are states issues.

Odd that the Supreme Court seems to disagree with you.

odd that the constitution seems to disagree with the no longer supreme court.
I bet if I picked the whole supreme court they would rule differently.

Fortunately, the SC is not chosen by some crazy anonymous poster from the internet.

Instead it gets chosen by some Anti American Unconstitutional piece of shit.
How much credit do you put into any that comes out of that court when one of the judges came right out and said she hated white men? That slut needs to go too.

A claim like that deserves a link.

I guess you don't remember this comment from the racist slut?
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Maybe its because Im a white male that I am better able to understand these than say, a woman or a black. It is a known fact that being white does give one a better grasp on reality.

 

[BULLDOG]

Odd that the Supreme Court seems to disagree with you.

odd that the constitution seems to disagree with the no longer supreme court.
I bet if I picked the whole supreme court they would rule differently.

Fortunately, the SC is not chosen by some crazy anonymous poster from the internet.

Instead it gets chosen by some Anti American Unconstitutional piece of shit.
How much credit do you put into any that comes out of that court when one of the judges came right out and said she hated white men? That slut needs to go too.

A claim like that deserves a link.

I guess you don't remember this comment from the racist slut?
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Maybe its because Im a white male that I am better able to understand these than say, a woman or a black. It is a known fact that being white does give one a better grasp on reality.

Where was hate of white men mentioned in that, or are you confusing her quote with what the voices in your head tell you? I've been told those voices can say some pretty mean things. How troubling that must be for you.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

odd that the constitution seems to disagree with the no longer supreme court.
I bet if I picked the whole supreme court they would rule differently.

Fortunately, the SC is not chosen by some crazy anonymous poster from the internet.

Instead it gets chosen by some Anti American Unconstitutional piece of shit.
How much credit do you put into any that comes out of that court when one of the judges came right out and said she hated white men? That slut needs to go too.

A claim like that deserves a link.

I guess you don't remember this comment from the racist slut?
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Maybe its because Im a white male that I am better able to understand these than say, a woman or a black. It is a known fact that being white does give one a better grasp on reality.

Where was hate of white men mentioned in that, or are you confusing her quote with what the voices in your head tell you? I've been told those voices can say some pretty mean things. How troubling that must be for you.

If you cant see the hate she has then that's on you.
But if I said that being white made me smarter than all blacks, Im pretty sure you would look at that differently.
Of course you could google it and see how many racist things she has said, done and supported. She has no right to be sitting on the supreme court, she should step down and let someone with a larger brain capacity take her place.

 

[BULLDOG]

Fortunately, the SC is not chosen by some crazy anonymous poster from the internet.

Instead it gets chosen by some Anti American Unconstitutional piece of shit.
How much credit do you put into any that comes out of that court when one of the judges came right out and said she hated white men? That slut needs to go too.

A claim like that deserves a link.

I guess you don't remember this comment from the racist slut?
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Maybe its because Im a white male that I am better able to understand these than say, a woman or a black. It is a known fact that being white does give one a better grasp on reality.

Where was hate of white men mentioned in that, or are you confusing her quote with what the voices in your head tell you? I've been told those voices can say some pretty mean things. How troubling that must be for you.

If you cant see the hate she has then that's on you.
But if I said that being white made me smarter than all blacks, Im pretty sure you would look at that differently.
Of course you could google it and see how many racist things she has said, done and supported. She has no right to be sitting on the supreme court, she should step down and let someone with a larger brain capacity take her place.

But you claimed she said she hated white men. Why does the right lie about everything?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Back to the subject:
There is nothing intrinsically unconstitutional about an Executive Order. But if an EO is used for the wrong thing, then it CAN be unconstitutional.... as many of Obama's are.

Executive Orders are what a President is supposed to use to carry out something passed by Congress (and signed into law by the Prez, of course).

Classic example is, Congress passes something saying that a group of Federal buildings on a corner in DC will be painted brown. Obama signs it into law. Obama then issues an Exec Order to solicit three companies for bids on the painting work, issues another order to check the bidding companies' qualifications etc. Obama is issuing Exec Orders pursuant to something Congress passed into law.

If he's issuing Exec Orders to do something Congress did NOT pass, such as to delay implementation of part of Obamacare for a year, that's the equivalent of issuing an EO to paint the buildings red instead of brown. It does NOT carry out what Congress passed. In fact, it's the act of a dictator with no Congressional oversight or adherence to procedures required by the Constitution, at all.

Or, if Congress passes something that violates the Constitution, such as a law that says people must have a license granted by government before they can buy or sell firearms, then any EO that implements it must be equally unconstitutional.

Executive orders have a legitimate use... but a narrow one. They must implement something Congress has already passed, and the law they are implementing must constitutional itself.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Obama has issued 227 EO's.

Reagan issued 381. Not a peep out of cons.
G W Bush issued 291. Not a peep.

Its the same old crap from the cons, whatever a Republican president does is perfectly fine, and anything a Democrat does is a sign of the apocalypse.

Get over it dopes, when I see cons call for a trial for Bush for his EO's then you might get taken seriously, until then shut yer yappers.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Obama has issued 227 EO's.

How many were unconstitutional?

Reagan issued 381.

How many were unconstitutional?

G W Bush issued 291.

How many were unconstitutional?

Oh, I get it. This liberal is trying to pretend conservatives think ALL Executive Orders are unconstitutional, even though no conservative has said so. And they're trying to bash them for that.

Do these liberals ever address actual truth? About anything? Or is all they do, is to lie about conservatives and try to smear them?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Obama has issued 227 EO's.

How many were unconstitutional?

Reagan issued 381.

How many were unconstitutional?

G W Bush issued 291.

How many were unconstitutional?

Oh, I get it. This liberal is trying to pretend conservatives think ALL Executive Orders are unconstitutional, even though no conservative has said so. And they're trying to bash them for that.

Do these liberals ever address actual truth? About anything? Or is all they do, is to lie about conservatives and try to smear them?

Its easy to find out, go look up how many were challenged and changed by one of the other two branches of government. But we already know the answer eh Copernicus.