Executive Orders

[g5000]

There are only two Obama EOs which gave the fair weather constitution lovers heartburn.

You want to ban the burning of the flag? They're cool with stomping the First Amendment. You want to let a kid who doesn't even speak Spanish stay in America? NO WAY, JOSE!

The one EO to keep your eye on is the one in which Obama decided to put the Dreamers at the back of the prosecutorial bus.

The other EO which gave them heartburn was the extension of the employer mandate. Which is kind of funny when you think about it. The Right HATES the employer mandate. And then Obama extended the deadline for the mandate, and THAT pissed them off, too!

Schizo much?

The employer mandate deadline has come and gone, so that EO is moot. But Trump will probably make a big show about tearing it up, hoping the rubes don't notice he is leaving the Dreamer EO alone.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

If comparative raw numbers can be used for vindication, such as for Obama's EOs in this thread, it must stand to reason that raw numbers can equally be used for condemnation.

For example, which religion has had the most modern day terrorists?

 

[Coyote]

Obama has about 30 days left for his EOs. I hope he enjoys them. They are one of the reasons that Trump is POTUS 45.

Really? Which of his EO's did the electorate oppose? I can't find anything in polls saying that the election was against Obama - he has a high favorability rating. It was Clinton that was the problem.

When Obama was campaigning for Hillary. Obama specifically told the electorate that a vote for Trump Is a personal insult to him. How did that campaigning for Hillary work out? Is she POTUS 45?

If you don't think Trump's win is an indictment of Obama's administration, you have to be Helen Keller.

Obama's win was a reaction to Bush's administration.

That is how this usually happens.

Obama issued EOs to change line items on Obamacare. He had EOs overturned by SCOTUS 9-0 because they were unconstitutional.

I think there was only ONE EO overturned 9-0.

Some interesting points on this....one being the issue of expanding the presidents authority. This is a precedent set in the GW Bush administration, through Cheney's influence and the idea of the "Unitary Executive". At the time, people were warning it wasn't a good idea. The other issue that might get resolved in the courts is the Minimum Wage Order for federal contractors. A number of Obama lawsuits and cases have not faired well in the courts but keep in mind the SCOTUS was majority conservative and many decisions were made on a 5-4 vote, not 9-0. A number of cases were left over from the Bush administration where the Obama administration advocated for the same position.

Obama and Executive Overreach - FactCheck.org

In one of the Bush-era cases, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the administration contested a Lutheran church’s claim of a ministerial exemption to an employment-related suit involving a teacher of secular subjects. Religious organizations do have such an exemption from most suits involving employees in religious positions. “It was left to the courts to determine if this claim should be upheld,” Lempert says. “What we have here is a normal contest over how the meaning of a statute with substantial First Amendment implications should be defined.” Cruz, however, describes the case as an attempt by the Obama administration to give the federal government the power to “interfere with a church’s selection of its own ministers.”


In PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Obama administration defended a decision by a Bush IRS Commissioner to disallow certain tax credits related to income earned abroad. Two more cases that began under Bush: Gabelli v. SEC, which concerned whether the statute of limitations on SEC fraud cases began when the fraud occurred or when it could have been discovered; and Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States, in which the state sued the Army Corps of Engineers for harm caused to state property by the Corps imposing a temporary flood regime. (Cruz described the Obama administration’s defense as an effort to have power to “destroy private property without paying just compensation.”) Horne v. USDA involved raisin farmers fighting production quotas (since the early 2000s) and a question of court jurisdiction.

...To be sure, there is some interpretation involved in Supreme Court cases, and rulings. Winkler says the Obama administration hasn’t fared well with the High Court in general. “This administration has lost an unusually large number of cases over the years. The Solicitor General usually wins about 70% of cases in which he’s a party at the Supreme Court. Over the past three terms, Obama’s Solicitor General has won less than half his cases.” But that depends on how you categorize wins and losses. In an article on SCOTUSblog.com, lawyer Andrew Pincus found a 71 percent win rate, noting that the multiple issues in some cases makes determining such a record difficult.​

See how the far left uses known far left hack sites for their "facts"?

As a practical matter, there is little legal difference between executive orders and presidential memoranda, as both are used by presidents to direct the actions of government officials and agencies. However, under the law, executive orders are required to be published in the Federal Register and are numbered; there is no such requirement for presidential memoranda.

Claims regarding Obama’s use of executive orders and presidential memoranda

Once again the far left drone fails and should step down as a mod!

Did you miss the title of the topic? Executive orders? Is the claim I made incorrect? Is the term his critics use not "Executive Orders"? Maybe you should step down as a member.

 

[Coyote]

If comparative raw numbers can be used for vindication, such as for Obama's EOs in this thread, it must stand to reason that raw numbers can equally be used for condemnation.

For example, which religion has had the most modern day terrorists?

What category of people are responsible for the largest number of violent deaths? Gun owners

Apples and oranges and a total attempt at diversion

 

[Kosh]

Obama has about 30 days left for his EOs. I hope he enjoys them. They are one of the reasons that Trump is POTUS 45.

Really? Which of his EO's did the electorate oppose? I can't find anything in polls saying that the election was against Obama - he has a high favorability rating. It was Clinton that was the problem.

When Obama was campaigning for Hillary. Obama specifically told the electorate that a vote for Trump Is a personal insult to him. How did that campaigning for Hillary work out? Is she POTUS 45?

If you don't think Trump's win is an indictment of Obama's administration, you have to be Helen Keller.

Obama's win was a reaction to Bush's administration.

That is how this usually happens.

Obama issued EOs to change line items on Obamacare. He had EOs overturned by SCOTUS 9-0 because they were unconstitutional.

I think there was only ONE EO overturned 9-0.

Some interesting points on this....one being the issue of expanding the presidents authority. This is a precedent set in the GW Bush administration, through Cheney's influence and the idea of the "Unitary Executive". At the time, people were warning it wasn't a good idea. The other issue that might get resolved in the courts is the Minimum Wage Order for federal contractors. A number of Obama lawsuits and cases have not faired well in the courts but keep in mind the SCOTUS was majority conservative and many decisions were made on a 5-4 vote, not 9-0. A number of cases were left over from the Bush administration where the Obama administration advocated for the same position.

Obama and Executive Overreach - FactCheck.org

In one of the Bush-era cases, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the administration contested a Lutheran church’s claim of a ministerial exemption to an employment-related suit involving a teacher of secular subjects. Religious organizations do have such an exemption from most suits involving employees in religious positions. “It was left to the courts to determine if this claim should be upheld,” Lempert says. “What we have here is a normal contest over how the meaning of a statute with substantial First Amendment implications should be defined.” Cruz, however, describes the case as an attempt by the Obama administration to give the federal government the power to “interfere with a church’s selection of its own ministers.”


In PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Obama administration defended a decision by a Bush IRS Commissioner to disallow certain tax credits related to income earned abroad. Two more cases that began under Bush: Gabelli v. SEC, which concerned whether the statute of limitations on SEC fraud cases began when the fraud occurred or when it could have been discovered; and Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States, in which the state sued the Army Corps of Engineers for harm caused to state property by the Corps imposing a temporary flood regime. (Cruz described the Obama administration’s defense as an effort to have power to “destroy private property without paying just compensation.”) Horne v. USDA involved raisin farmers fighting production quotas (since the early 2000s) and a question of court jurisdiction.

...To be sure, there is some interpretation involved in Supreme Court cases, and rulings. Winkler says the Obama administration hasn’t fared well with the High Court in general. “This administration has lost an unusually large number of cases over the years. The Solicitor General usually wins about 70% of cases in which he’s a party at the Supreme Court. Over the past three terms, Obama’s Solicitor General has won less than half his cases.” But that depends on how you categorize wins and losses. In an article on SCOTUSblog.com, lawyer Andrew Pincus found a 71 percent win rate, noting that the multiple issues in some cases makes determining such a record difficult.​

See how the far left uses known far left hack sites for their "facts"?

As a practical matter, there is little legal difference between executive orders and presidential memoranda, as both are used by presidents to direct the actions of government officials and agencies. However, under the law, executive orders are required to be published in the Federal Register and are numbered; there is no such requirement for presidential memoranda.

Claims regarding Obama’s use of executive orders and presidential memoranda

Once again the far left drone fails and should step down as a mod!

Did you miss the title of the topic? Executive orders? Is the claim I made incorrect? Is the term his critics use not "Executive Orders"? Maybe you should step down as a member.

Another far left drone tactic to deflect from the fact that they are pushing a debunked far left religious narrative.

And yes you should step as mod and admit that you are wrong!

Instead the far left would much rather watch the world burn than admit they were wrong!

So concede!

 

[Kosh]

If comparative raw numbers can be used for vindication, such as for Obama's EOs in this thread, it must stand to reason that raw numbers can equally be used for condemnation.

For example, which religion has had the most modern day terrorists?

What category of people are responsible for the largest number of violent deaths? Gun owners

Apples and oranges and a total attempt at diversion

Another debunked far left religious narrative not connected to reality!

It is time for you to step as mod and admit you are wrong!

 

[saveliberty]

If comparative raw numbers can be used for vindication, such as for Obama's EOs in this thread, it must stand to reason that raw numbers can equally be used for condemnation.

For example, which religion has had the most modern day terrorists?

What category of people are responsible for the largest number of violent deaths? Gun owners

Apples and oranges and a total attempt at diversion

Nope not gun owners, most murders are by stolen or unregistered firearms.

Are you planning on addressing the fact Executive Orders and Memos are considered the same?

How about Obama's strategy of a weak attempt at passing something through Congress, then doing an end around with his "executive powers"?

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

If comparative raw numbers can be used for vindication, such as for Obama's EOs in this thread, it must stand to reason that raw numbers can equally be used for condemnation.

For example, which religion has had the most modern day terrorists?

What category of people are responsible for the largest number of violent deaths? Gun owners

Apples and oranges and a total attempt at diversion

Car drivers are responsible for the largest number of violent deaths, not guns or gun owners.

Sorry, but not an attempt at diversion. It directly refutes the contention that count is a viable defense to the charge of abuse of executive orders.

Abuse stems from content and intent to bypass the legislative or judicial branches.

 

[Coyote]

If comparative raw numbers can be used for vindication, such as for Obama's EOs in this thread, it must stand to reason that raw numbers can equally be used for condemnation.

For example, which religion has had the most modern day terrorists?

What category of people are responsible for the largest number of violent deaths? Gun owners

Apples and oranges and a total attempt at diversion

Car drivers are responsible for the largest number of violent deaths, not guns or gun owners.

Sorry, but not an attempt at diversion. It directly refutes the contention that count is a viable defense to the charge of abuse of executive orders.

Abuse stems from content and intent to bypass the legislative or judicial branches.

I agree with your last statement, though the claims against Obama have usually referenced numbers and determing whether the content is abuse is largely partisan.

 

[saveliberty]

What President Obama’s executive actions mean for President Trump

Best and most current source I could find.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Face it, Obama dodged Congress a lot.

I don't think your graph means what you think it means.

 

[Coyote]

If comparative raw numbers can be used for vindication, such as for Obama's EOs in this thread, it must stand to reason that raw numbers can equally be used for condemnation.

For example, which religion has had the most modern day terrorists?

What category of people are responsible for the largest number of violent deaths? Gun owners

Apples and oranges and a total attempt at diversion

Nope not gun owners, most murders are by stolen or unregistered firearms.

Are you planning on addressing the fact Executive Orders and Memos are considered the same?

How about Obama's strategy of a weak attempt at passing something through Congress, then doing an end around with his "executive powers"?

And...most terrorism attacks are conducted by extremists "stealing" or hijacking the religion.

There's no real way of measuring Memos etc. is there? So we can't really compare them from president to president but we can with EO's.

Keep in mind - the Republicans vowed not to let a single bit of Obama legislation pass - regardless of the content and it was the Bush administration (by implimenting Cheney's idea of the "unitary executive) that set the precedents. EO's (and memos) are within the president's legal powers.

 

[Moonglow]

I keep hearing fauxrage from the right, that Obama went overboard on executive orders...but what are the facts?

The facts are that the number of EO's issued by any President is completely irrelevant, what's material is the actual CONTENTS of the EO and the circumstances under which EO's were issued.

Show us the difference..Please...

 

[Coyote]

What President Obama’s executive actions mean for President Trump

Best and most current source I could find.

Good article!

 

[saveliberty]

If comparative raw numbers can be used for vindication, such as for Obama's EOs in this thread, it must stand to reason that raw numbers can equally be used for condemnation.

For example, which religion has had the most modern day terrorists?

What category of people are responsible for the largest number of violent deaths? Gun owners

Apples and oranges and a total attempt at diversion

Nope not gun owners, most murders are by stolen or unregistered firearms.

Are you planning on addressing the fact Executive Orders and Memos are considered the same?

How about Obama's strategy of a weak attempt at passing something through Congress, then doing an end around with his "executive powers"?

And...most terrorism attacks are conducted by extremists "stealing" or hijacking the religion.

There's no real way of measuring Memos etc. is there? So we can't really compare them from president to president but we can with EO's.

Keep in mind - the Republicans vowed not to let a single bit of Obama legislation pass - regardless of the content and it was the Bush administration (by implimenting Cheney's idea of the "unitary executive) that set the precedents. EO's (and memos) are within the president's legal powers.

Memos are numbered and recorded as well, so yes, it can be tracked.

Executive orders are not found in the Constitution as a power, so how legal they are is uncertain.

 

[g5000]

For example, which religion has had the most modern day terrorists?

I see what you did there.

If you take out the word "modern day", then we have to take a hard look at Christianity.

And then if we used the argument that terrorism proves one brand of religion is evil, then we would have to use the same "logic" to reach the same conclusion for the other religion.

So you tried to put up a bogus frame job.

Didn't work.

 

[saveliberty]

What President Obama’s executive actions mean for President Trump

Best and most current source I could find.

Good article!

What would be nice is the following:

1. Remove all executive orders which extended beyond Constitutional boundaries. This means Trump stays within the confines as well.

2. Delete all politically motivated orders.

3. Review all others for benefits and effectiveness in meeting needs.

 

[Coyote]

What President Obama’s executive actions mean for President Trump

Best and most current source I could find.

Good article!

What would be nice is the following:

1. Remove all executive orders which extended beyond Constitutional boundaries. This means Trump stays within the confines as well.

2. Delete all politically motivated orders.

3. Review all others for benefits and effectiveness in meeting needs.

The problem with 1 or 2 is it ends up being subjective and the only way to determine that would be to run them all through the courts. Same with #3 really.

 

[Coyote]

The other thing is this: what is a president supposed to do if Congress sets out to block everything and anything he attempts? That's partisan gridlock at it's worst and the President is just as much elected by the people as Congress. He can't legislate, but he can create EO's and Memos and those are legally within his purvue if they don't get struck down by the courts. If you start interfering too much then aren't you interfering with Executive branch? The three branches are supposed to be co-equal.

 

[saveliberty]

The other thing is this: what is a president supposed to do if Congress sets out to block everything and anything he attempts? That's partisan gridlock at it's worst and the President is just as much elected by the people as Congress. He can't legislate, but he can create EO's and Memos and those are legally within his purvue if they don't get struck down by the courts. If you start interfering too much then aren't you interfering with Executive branch? The three branches are supposed to be co-equal.

He (or she), is suppose to use the office's considerable power to get public support and use that to move Congress. Basically everyone who had his job before him had to do it that way. Obama did not understand compromise nor diplomacy, he reverted to lawyering his way through.