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

[TooTall]

Had over twice as many orders. Yet you call Obama dictator? LOL

How many and which ones were legal and which ones were illegal.

 

[Seawytch]

Lol,

George w Bush 291
Clinton 364
George hw Bush 166
King Reagan 381!

George Washington 8
Thomas Jefferson 4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

You just hate Obama for the same reason the left hated Bush.

I don't hate Obama, I merely think that he continually violates the Constitution with his EO's that change the law illegally. If someone can show me an EO that Bush signed that did that, I would condemn him for it as well.

And, I don't know if Bush did, but I would like to see it.

And yet nobody is impeaching him for "violating the Constitution" with EOs. Why is that?

 

[The Rabbi]

So, come on chickenshits, impeach already. What are you waiting for?

Waiting for the Democrats to realize they are ruining this country by handing dictatorial power to Obama. It will be a long wait.
Either that or the upcoming election will hand a House majority and 2/3 Senate to the GOP and we can commence impeachment.
Simple, wasn't it?

 

[Howey]

And [MENTION=42946]NTG[/MENTION], the source your looking for is

Mississippi v. Johnson 71 U.S. 475 (1866),

In this Supreme Court decision, a unanimous one, it held that the President has two kinds of task to perform: ministerial and discretionary. Executive Orders help facilitate the execution of the Executive's ministerial duties.

But what this ruling falls short of is allowing Executive Orders to substitute for legislation.

Executive Orders allow the smooth transition of a congressional law into operation. I guess that's the easiest way to put it. Factually, many of the Executive Orders signed by Obama in reference to Obamacare are to ease the transition for employers, not make it more difficult or to punish them.

And remember, Article II, section 3, of the Constitution: "The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...", thereby giving him power to issue Executive Orders.

 

[The Rabbi]

And [MENTION=42946]NTG[/MENTION], the source your looking for is

Mississippi v. Johnson 71 U.S. 475 (1866),

In this Supreme Court decision, a unanimous one, it held that the President has two kinds of task to perform: ministerial and discretionary. Executive Orders help facilitate the execution of the Executive's ministerial duties.

But what this ruling falls short of is allowing Executive Orders to substitute for legislation.

Executive Orders allow the smooth transition of a congressional law into operation. I guess that's the easiest way to put it. Factually, many of the Executive Orders signed by Obama in reference to Obamacare are to ease the transition for employers, not make it more difficult or to punish them.

And remember, Article II, section 3, of the Constitution: "The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...", thereby giving him power to issue Executive Orders.

Abolishing laws or changing timetables set in the law is not "easing" anything. Only a moron would think that was the case.

 

[Howey]

Simple, wasn't it?

Simple minded? Yes, you are.

And if you really are Jewish and a rabbi, you're a disgrace to the tribe.

 

[The Rabbi]

Simple, wasn't it?

Simple minded? Yes, you are.

And if you really are Jewish and a rabbi, you're a disgrace to the tribe.

Sez the guy who cannot read, cannot reason, cannot defend his positions and has a gay avatar.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Especially when Dubya issued far more executive orders at this time in his
*cough* presidency.

The oft repeated claim by Obama's supporters that he's "just doing what everyone else did!" misses the point. It's not the number of executive orders that a President issues...it's whether those executive orders undermine the separation of powers concept that was built into our system of government. When Barack Obama threatens to make something the law without having it passed by Congress then he is treading on perilous constitutional ground because of the precedent that is being set.

It's time Barry put his big boy pants on and learned how to do the JOB of being President. He's the leader of the country and as such he's responsible for making things run. In his first two years he had the luxury of Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate...a situation that allowed him NOT to have to craft alliances across the aisle in order to pass legislation. Because of that we didn't grasp how bad he was at that part of politics. To make matters worse he had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid...two far left leaders in the House and Senate who were ALSO terrible at crafting bi-partisan support. You want to know why little has been done over the past five years? The people we have running things are simply not suited for the jobs they hold.

If the Left actually faced the issue honestly they would admit Obama is a dictator in training. Of course they can't. So they pretend the issue is something else.

The left will not let the first black president fail, period. That's the crux of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The humor continues as the liberals try to pretend that things that violate clear Constitutional dictates, are actually not unconstitutional, because the courts have not tuled on it.

Also known as the "Bart Simpson Defense": "i didn't do it nobody saw me do it you can't prove anything....."

Executive orders are ‘legitimate’ and Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952).

To be consistent in your criticism of the current president’s use of EOs, you would need to be equally critical of EOs issued by GWB and other republican presidents, which you and others on the right have failed to do.

Please post the list of EOs that Bush signed that negated black letter law, or refused to enforce duly enacted laws.
We won't hold our breath.

Check out the international treaties that the Bush admin backed out of on EOs in the first year and a half of his admin. They clearly indicate that military action overseas was imminent.

 

[BlindBoo]

Especially when Dubya issued far more executive orders at this time in his
*cough* presidency.

The oft repeated claim by Obama's supporters that he's "just doing what everyone else did!" misses the point. It's not the number of executive orders that a President issues...it's whether those executive orders undermine the separation of powers concept that was built into our system of government. When Barack Obama threatens to make something the law without having it passed by Congress then he is treading on perilous constitutional ground because of the precedent that is being set.

It's time Barry put his big boy pants on and learned how to do the JOB of being President. He's the leader of the country and as such he's responsible for making things run. In his first two years he had the luxury of Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate...a situation that allowed him NOT to have to craft alliances across the aisle in order to pass legislation. Because of that we didn't grasp how bad he was at that part of politics. To make matters worse he had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid...two far left leaders in the House and Senate who were ALSO terrible at crafting bi-partisan support. You want to know why little has been done over the past five years? The people we have running things are simply not suited for the jobs they hold.

If the Left actually faced the issue honestly they would admit Obama is a dictator in training. Of course they can't. So they pretend the issue is something else.

Making him the absolute worst dictator in training ever. When the hell is he going to make his move and take over already.

Outlaw the Republican party and set his enemies a swinging. Is that what you're predicting?

Dictator in training my ass...........

 

[g5000]

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.

Please list them, and explain how they are unconstitutional. Then provide the court cases challenging those EOs.

Otherwise, you are speaking out of your ass, as usual.

 

[The Rabbi]

Executive orders are ‘legitimate’ and Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952).

To be consistent in your criticism of the current president’s use of EOs, you would need to be equally critical of EOs issued by GWB and other republican presidents, which you and others on the right have failed to do.

Please post the list of EOs that Bush signed that negated black letter law, or refused to enforce duly enacted laws.
We won't hold our breath.

Check out the international treaties that the Bush admin backed out of on EOs in the first year and a half of his admin. They clearly indicate that military action overseas was imminent.

Post evidence or STFU.
Oh wait, you're Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement.
WOn't happen.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Please list them, and explain how they are unconstitutional. Then provide the court cases challenging those EOs.

Otherwise, you are speaking out of your ass, as usual.

They've been listed many many times. Go find another sand box to play in.

 

[TooTall]

Lol,

George w Bush 291
Clinton 364
George hw Bush 166
King Reagan 381!

George Washington 8
Thomas Jefferson 4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

You just hate Obama for the same reason the left hated Bush.

I don't hate Obama, I merely think that he continually violates the Constitution with his EO's that change the law illegally. If someone can show me an EO that Bush signed that did that, I would condemn him for it as well.

And, I don't know if Bush did, but I would like to see it.

And yet nobody is impeaching him for "violating the Constitution" with EOs. Why is that?

I don't recall anyone impeaching Bush and see post #58 for the reason Obama hasn't been impeached.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Please post the list of EOs that Bush signed that negated black letter law, or refused to enforce duly enacted laws.
We won't hold our breath.

Check out the international treaties that the Bush admin backed out of on EOs in the first year and a half of his admin. They clearly indicate that military action overseas was imminent.

Post evidence or STFU.
Oh wait, you're Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement.
WOn't happen.

I gave you that moniker years ago, TR, and you are still worthy of it.

You have given us no evidence at all that Clinton, Bush, and Obama's use of EOs are anything but similar.

You have the Affirmation.

No one has to post any rebuttal evidence until you make a case.

That requires more than your opinion.

 

[The Rabbi]

Check out the international treaties that the Bush admin backed out of on EOs in the first year and a half of his admin. They clearly indicate that military action overseas was imminent.

Post evidence or STFU.
Oh wait, you're Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement.
WOn't happen.

I gave you that moniker years ago, TR, and you are still worthy of it.

You have given us no evidence at all that Clinton, Bush, and Obama's use of EOs are anything but similar.

You have the Affirmation.

No one has to post any rebuttal evidence until you make a case.

That requires more than your opinion.

As predicted. Jake "Fact-Free" Starkey comes through again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have to post evidence, TR: you have not done that

An unsupported opinion in an affirmation is an automatic fail.

 

[TooTall]

Executive orders are ‘legitimate’ and Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952).

To be consistent in your criticism of the current president’s use of EOs, you would need to be equally critical of EOs issued by GWB and other republican presidents, which you and others on the right have failed to do.

Please post the list of EOs that Bush signed that negated black letter law, or refused to enforce duly enacted laws.
We won't hold our breath.

Check out the international treaties that the Bush admin backed out of on EOs in the first year and a half of his admin. They clearly indicate that military action overseas was imminent.

Like this one that went to the Federal District Court and Bush won.

On June 11, 2002, a group of thirty-two members of the House of
Representatives, led by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), took up Feingold’s lead and filed suit in the District Court of the District of Columbia against President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Kucinich cited that the president “failed to submit the question of treaty termination to either house, nor did he seek congressional consent for the withdrawal” (Kucinich, et al. v. Bush)

Kucinich, et al. v. Bush was decided on December 30, 2002, in favor of the President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. In the opinion offered by United States District Court Judge John D. Bates, based on a 1997 ruling, the court found that the thirty-two congressmen “have not alleged the requisite injury to establish standing to pursue their claim,” and according to the United States Supreme Court’s 1979 dismissal of Goldwater v. Carter, the court “concludes that the treaty termination is a nonjusticiable ‘political question’ that cannot be resolved by the courts” (Kucinich, et al. v. Bush)

http://www.cornellcollege.edu/politics/courses/allin/364/josh-schroeder.2003a.pdf

 

[The Rabbi]

Please post the list of EOs that Bush signed that negated black letter law, or refused to enforce duly enacted laws.
We won't hold our breath.

Check out the international treaties that the Bush admin backed out of on EOs in the first year and a half of his admin. They clearly indicate that military action overseas was imminent.

Like this one that went to the Federal District Court and Bush won.

On June 11, 2002, a group of thirty-two members of the House of
Representatives, led by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), took up Feingold’s lead and filed suit in the District Court of the District of Columbia against President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Kucinich cited that the president “failed to submit the question of treaty termination to either house, nor did he seek congressional consent for the withdrawal” (Kucinich, et al. v. Bush)

Kucinich, et al. v. Bush was decided on December 30, 2002, in favor of the President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. In the opinion offered by United States District Court Judge John D. Bates, based on a 1997 ruling, the court found that the thirty-two congressmen “have not alleged the requisite injury to establish standing to pursue their claim,” and according to the United States Supreme Court’s 1979 dismissal of Goldwater v. Carter, the court “concludes that the treaty termination is a nonjusticiable ‘political question’ that cannot be resolved by the courts” (Kucinich, et al. v. Bush)

http://www.cornellcollege.edu/politics/courses/allin/364/josh-schroeder.2003a.pdf

Oh well, there goes Jake the Fake's argument. Another loser. I'd hate to tally how many times Jake has had his ass handed him to on these boards. I suspect masochism as an explanation for why he continues to post.

 

[g5000]

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.

Please list them, and explain how they are unconstitutional. Then provide the court cases challenging those EOs.

Otherwise, you are speaking out of your ass, as usual.

They've been listed many many times. Go find another sand box to play in.

No, they have not. Jackasses like yourself just say Obama is doing something unconstitutional, and then demonstrate complete ignorance of the Constitution. Something is not unconstitutional just because you, who is about as unauthoritative as it gets, say it is.

Lil' Acorn's claim is an ipse dixit fallacy.