What is the **legitimate** usage of Executive Orders?

[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 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.

Then the proper course of action is for someone with standing to challenge the EO in court, and get it ruled unconstitutional,

and enough with all the other hysterics.

Right. That should only take a couple of years after the Executive Order is issued. Plenty of time for the illegals to be scattered to the four winds and gone.

GREAT plan.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The usual nonsense from the usual fanatic liberal.

If the EO does something the Congress's law never mentioned, and opposes what they did say, it's unconstitutional.

So simple a cave man could figure it out. Except for liberal cave men, who keep saying they need a court to explain it to them.

 

[bripat9643]

Go with the Republican Formula: When anyone named Obama does it its wrong.

It's especially humorous when a liberal trying desperately to change the subject, puts a quote in his avatar saying that "Strong minds discuss ideas... weak minds discuss people"... and then goes on to discuss people instead of the idea in the thread.

Back to the subject:
When the President issues an Executive Order that specifically contradicts a law passed by Congress... for the express purpose of contradicting and overruling that law... is he actually weakening the fabric of the country? Or merely violating his oath of office?

The Idea that an Executive Order is only NOW after 200 plus years is destroying our country has something to do with either Executive Orders as a whole (which you dont object to) or the person doing it.

So tell me you are against all Executive Orders and forgot to mention it until 2009. Go ahead.

This has been explained 1000 times already, moron.

 

[whitehall]

FDR incarcerated American citizens behind barbed wire and guard towers without due process with an executive order #9066. Harry "give 'em hell" Truman sent Troops to Korea with an executive order and we lost about 50,000 Troops in three years. It seems, with the cooperation of the dishonest media, the left focuses only on benign republican executive orders while justifying or ignoring the craziness of left wing administrations.

 

[Little-Acorn]

This has been explained 1000 times already, moron.

This liberal probably figures that enough time has gone by since he last got his ass whooped on the subject, that he can start re-stating his already-debunked fib as though it has never been refuted, and his base will have a short enough memory that they won't remember.

Democrats absolutely depend on their constituents not remembering what they did last year... or even last week.

 

[Little-Acorn]

FDR incarcerated American citizens behind barbed wire and guard towers without due process with an executive order #9066. Harry "give 'em hell" Truman sent Troops to Korea with an executive order and we lost about 50,000 Troops in three years. It seems, with the cooperation of the dishonest media, the left focuses only on benign republican executive orders while justifying or ignoring the craziness of left wing administrations.

They talk about them so they can lie about them.

It's what liberals do.

 

[Little-Acorn]

We still have liberal fanatics posting, pretending that all EOs are unconstitutional, or otherwise wrong.

So, time for a bump.

 

[NYcarbineer]

EO's are unconstitutional if they are ruled unconstitutional, as many of Trump's will be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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).

So what law is Trump carrying out that he and Congress passed on singling out Muslims for extreme vetting?

 

[Little-Acorn]

If the EO does something the Congress's law never mentioned, and opposes what they did say, it's unconstitutional.
So simple a cave man could figure it out.
Except for liberal cave men, who keep saying they need a court to explain it to them.

EO's are unconstitutional if they are ruled unconstitutional, as many of Trump's will be.

See?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the EO does something the Congress's law never mentioned, and opposes what they did say, it's unconstitutional.
So simple a cave man could figure it out.
Except for liberal cave men, who keep saying they need a court to explain it to them.

EO's are unconstitutional if they are ruled unconstitutional, as many of Trump's will be.

See?

What am I wrong about?

 

[Mac1958]

EO's are always unconstitutional when a President from the "other" party uses them.

But yeah, when a President from MY party uses them, they ROCK!


.

 

[bripat9643]

EO's are unconstitutional if they are ruled unconstitutional, as many of Trump's will be.

Why would you say that?

 

[bripat9643]

If the EO does something the Congress's law never mentioned, and opposes what they did say, it's unconstitutional.
So simple a cave man could figure it out.
Except for liberal cave men, who keep saying they need a court to explain it to them.

EO's are unconstitutional if they are ruled unconstitutional, as many of Trump's will be.

See?

What am I wrong about?

What aren't you wrong about?

 

[bripat9643]

EO's are always unconstitutional when a President from the "other" party uses them.

But yeah, when a President from MY party uses them, they ROCK!


.

Thanks for illustrating how Democrats think.

 

[bripat9643]

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).

So what law is Trump carrying out that he and Congress passed on singling out Muslims for extreme vetting?

He's using the law that says the President can bar immigrants from any country for any reason.

 

[bripat9643]

EO's are unconstitutional if they are ruled unconstitutional, as many of Trump's will be.

On lib douche bags respect the theory that the Constitution says whatever 9 unelected judges say it says.