What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why do so many leftists believe in the Executive Order?

Foolardi

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
4,086
Reaction score
2,127
Points
938
Congress already passed legislation banning automatic rifles to the public without special permits.
So the EO on bump stocks was not "out of the blue" and was based on legislation passed by Congress.
Plus Old Joe already warned Obama in September { 2008 }
" I guarantee ya' Barack Obama ain't takin' my
shotgun,so don't buy that malarkey. "
 

jbander

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
7,143
Reaction score
2,308
Points
265
Christ you are FUCKING DENSE

I didn't say congress gave him executive order rights.

I said CONGRESS CONTROLS THE FUCKING BUDGET.

NO PRESIDENT CAN SPEND MONEY NOT AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS REGARDLESS OF THEIR EO powers.

Get a God damn grip idiot
Listen you little microbe, what you said and what everyone read you say is this.
Christ you are FUCKING DENSE

I didn't say congress gave him executive order rights.

I said CONGRESS CONTROLS THE FUCKING BUDGET.

NO PRESIDENT CAN SPEND MONEY NOT AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS REGARDLESS OF THEIR EO powers.

Get a God damn grip idiot
Here is the post and your responce
Biden making noise about banning guns with an EO, but we in this country seem too stupid to know that it would not effect the population, because a President can not change law on his own, and certainly can't change the Constitution...
Come on bro. (you)

BOTH sides abuse the fuck out of this. And who can complain when the fuckers we voted for ceded that power to the executive branch.
Biden is just the latest one to ABUSE HIS POWER

That is the comment and your response, and this is what I said. The constitution ceded the power to the executive branch not congress as you say , that is the comment you are responding to with your response and then my response to you . You can't bullshit your way out of this , I'm copy and pasting the comment you are responding to and your response so ace , it is what you said and of course what you said is wrong. NO ONE WE VOTED FOR CEDED THAT POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THE WRITERS OF THE CONSTITUTION DID < NOW CAN YOU BE ANY MORE WRONG Than THIS SEQUENCE< YOU WON'T BULLSHIT YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS > IT IS HERE FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO READ IT. And I just won't let you bullshit your way out of this.
 

jbander

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
7,143
Reaction score
2,308
Points
265
Instead of "assault weapon" they should call it a small, light, low recoil weapon that allows for quick pointing and quick firing.
The most common use of an AR is for hunting or home defense.
Its not very good for the military since it is too short range.
Hunting what , Hamburger ?thats what everything turns into when shot by that caliper of gun. You people are idiots.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
29,729
Reaction score
7,677
Points
280
Location
Washington
As SCOTUS will with the student loan nonsense
Although the intent of law may or may not have been to cancel student debt, that is exactly what it allows.

20 U.S. Code § 1087hh - General authority of Secretary​

"In carrying out the provisions of this part, the Secretary is authorized to:
(2) to enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption;"

Although the intent of law may or may not have been to cancel student debt, that is exactly what it does thus allowing the president to issue an EO ordering the Secretary of Education to do so.

IMHO, this is part of a plan to cancel all student debt and thus force congress into revising the law on Federal Financial Aid.
 
Last edited:

jbander

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
7,143
Reaction score
2,308
Points
265
I don't get what you mean with this?
An EO is just the executive branch, and both the legislative and judicial branch can over ride the EO.
Almost impossible for congress to override. And the court has to define it being unconstitutional, they can't just go against it because they want to. About the only time the court has made a decision just because they wanted to is overturning Row Vs Wade. They couldn't say it is unconstitutional, they had to say that the decision, and it's basis to do it in the first place was unconstitutional
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
29,729
Reaction score
7,677
Points
280
Location
Washington
Instead of "assault weapon" they should call it a small, light, low recoil weapon that allows for quick pointing and quick firing.
The most common use of an AR is for hunting or home defense.
Its not very good for the military since it is too short range.
That's sort of like saying the most common use of nuclear weapons is as a detergent so we shouldn't control them.

As a local parent said, you don't grasp the significance of the problem until it's your child that doesn't walk away from the shooting.
 
Last edited:

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
122,313
Reaction score
22,598
Points
2,180
I don't get what you mean with this?
An EO is just the executive branch, and both the legislative and judicial branch can over ride the EO.
The EO is a work around for failed legislation
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
122,313
Reaction score
22,598
Points
2,180
Almost impossible for congress to override. And the court has to define it being unconstitutional, they can't just go against it because they want to. About the only time the court has made a decision just because they wanted to is overturning Row Vs Wade. They couldn't say it is unconstitutional, they had to say that the decision, and it's basis to do it in the first place was unconstitutional
Exactly, scotus did it’s own legislation with row
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
29,729
Reaction score
7,677
Points
280
Location
Washington
Almost impossible for congress to override. And the court has to define it being unconstitutional, they can't just go against it because they want to. About the only time the court has made a decision just because they wanted to is overturning Row Vs Wade. They couldn't say it is unconstitutional, they had to say that the decision, and it's basis to do it in the first place was unconstitutional
In most cases the supreme court agrees with lower court rulings on an EO or the issue has already been decided by the high court so they don't need to hear the case. There have been a number of times that the courts have overturned an order by the president. However, it is fairly rare because the legal staff at the White House checks every EO to make sure it's supported by laws and the constitution. Presidents don't like to be overturned by the courts so they rarely issue orders they believe will be overturned.
 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
32,855
Reaction score
19,348
Points
1,788
If an EO can ban one aspect of a gun, why could it not ban another? If an EO banning aspects of a gun is bad, why are they not all bad?
actually trump undid obama’s policy on bump stocks. they aren’t banned m, but treated and defined as they weee prior to obama changing the definition.
 

DBA

Diamond Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Messages
9,097
Reaction score
8,444
Points
2,140
Hunting what , Hamburger ?thats what everything turns into when shot by that caliper of gun. You people are idiots.

Once again, another anti-gun nut who has no idea what they are talking about.

An AR-15 shoots a .556/.223 round. It is a semi-automatic "scary" gun. My 30-06 shoots a MUCH larger(caliber) round but most certainly is not considered an "assault" rifle. Tell me how the AR-15 turns a deer into hamburger meat with a much smaller round?
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
29,729
Reaction score
7,677
Points
280
Location
Washington
actually trump undid obama’s policy on bump stocks. they aren’t banned m, but treated and defined as they weee prior to obama changing the definition.
It’s true that, under Obama, the ATF ruled that it could not prevent the use of certain models of bump stocks due to definitions in the law that prevented the sale of machine guns.
 

Foolardi

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
4,086
Reaction score
2,127
Points
938
The EO is a work around for failed legislation
The simple factoid is that an EO is a run around.Does not
convert to Democracy in any form.It's a way to be like a
King or Queen.With their Edicts.Like Canada's true scumbag
Tyrant { Justin Trudeau }.
However every President manages to use one or many.
Congress can at best deter a Potus from issuing an EO
by withdolding authority of it's use until the Courts step in
and overturn it.The saving grace of certain Courts run by
Radicals who are appointed by Radical Presidents for Radical
policy implementation.
Plus use of sanctions on a President for overreaching on an
Executive Order.Like what transpired with Trump issuing a
Travel Ban during the height of Covid.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
7,077
Points
938
If a president's executive order is really a presidential overreach of power either the congress, the Supreme Court or a lower federal court can stop it.

That doesn't mean they will, hence their abdicating their role in many instances.
 

Foolardi

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
4,086
Reaction score
2,127
Points
938
That doesn't mean they will, hence their abdicating their role in many instances.

- Written in Emerson's Essay's { 1849 }
" The will is free:
Strong is the Soul,and wise,and beautiful:
The seeds of godlike power are in us still:
Gods are we,Bards,Saints,Heroes,if we will. --- "
Matthew Arnold { 1822-1888 } English poet,critic,essayist
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
122,313
Reaction score
22,598
Points
2,180
Being a CRIMINAL lowlife is criminal. See CRIMINALis right there in the posters sentence.
Accept the criminal part doesn’t exist so lowlife is your option
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
65,870
Reaction score
22,360
Points
2,290
Location
Maine
The assault weapons ban your university "study" quotes was in effect from '94 to '96 NOT for ten years. Furthermore they engage in pure speculation as to how many mass killings the ban MAY HAVE PREVENTED. Total pie in the sky. There are much better studies on the FAWB but I'm sure you are not interested in educating yourself. Low information hacks only look for a "study" that gives them the answer they want. FAIL.
But it was in effect for 10yrs?


The 10-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on August 25, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994.[1] The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
24,389
Reaction score
6,167
Points
290
Location
Washington State
That authority was given to him by the writers and signers of the constitution. It is supported in multiple parts of the constitution and philosophically supported by separate writing of many of the writers and signers of the constitution/ That extra power was given to him purposely. And yes, that makes him more powerful than any other part of our government.
No, he does not have that authority and no 'extra power' was given to the president to circumvent congress thorough ordering his agencies to do things they are not empowered to do.

Sorry, that is just how it works.

Finally, it does not make him more powerful than any other part of the government. This is just you looking for a reason to justify making the president a king.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top