Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That has been stated over and over by various and sundry folks, but when challenged to produce from the Executive Order Disposition Tables maintained by the National Archives, not a single person has responded with an example! You want to try again to come up with an EO from the Disposition Tables that "legislates by fiat"?Not interesting at all, executive orders are intended to implement existing law in the executive branch, not legislate by fiat. That's where your dear leader f'ed up and is now regretting it, he's going to see how easy it will be for his efforts to be undone.
Everything he had done was underhanded, you can't mandate insurance on to people and expect them to approve of it. Dip shitI keep hearing fauxrage from the right, that Obama went overboard on executive orders...but what are the facts?
They're interesting
And you would be correct in how we are thinking. Only 5 Presidents in modern eras have tried to govern by EO because congress refused their ideas. Most of the rest of the Presidents used the EO for minor things. So who were the culprits?
1.Roosevelt.
2. Wilson
3. Hoover
4. Coolidge
5. Obama
2 Republicans, and 3 Democrats. Only 1 of the 5 had it work out well for America, and that was Coolidge. That is because our system is set up that congress has the most power, unless you are these 5 Presidents. Obama was NOT the 1st dictator in America, he was just the most recent!
That's very debatable - your claim is subjective. Our system was set up to have power between the 3 branches.
Bush issued more executive orders than Obama - that is a FACT. Obama is ranked 15, and issued far fewer than the top 5.
Hardly a dictator. Here's a list of his executive orders: Barack Obama Executive Orders Subjects
Report: Obama Sets Record for Presidential Memoranda
Obama has so far issued 195 executive orders. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders, USA Today reports.
You missed 198 of them by 12/17/14.
What "saveliberty" said, and then some. Your guy has done massive over reach, as proven by the Supreme Court almost constantly ruling against him. By the way, they did that to Roosevelt also, and his solution was to expand the Supreme Court and pack it! I believe his Vice President at the time refused, which kept Roosevelt somewhat in the box.
Anyway, Obama has been the worst in ultra modern times, Period! I mean seriously........THINK for a minute yourself------------>
WHY are the leftists crying that Trump is going to vacate Obama's EOs if he didn't do anything with them, lol. Are you suggesting that it is just a leftist talking point to cause controversy! Maybe you should see what goes away if Trump does that, and then you will know how much the messiah DID rule by executive fiat-)
From Day One of Obama's presidency the right decided pointedly to oppose everything he did. And now that they have control of both executive and congress, they are acting punitively and vindictively in trying to undo everything they can. The question to ask here is - why? Because there are many things Obama has done that enjoy broad public support. Even ACA has less than 30% supporting full repeal.
What specific EO's do you consider "massive presidential overreach" - how does that compare with, say Bush? How many did the courts throw out? How many did Congress relegislate?
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
Everything he had done was underhanded, you can't mandate insurance on to people and expect them to approve of it. Dip shit
Barry obviously did not have the intelligence and/or the wherewithall to convince others of his viewpoint. DumbassThe 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.
OK, if it's the content of a given group of Executive Orders (EO) that are your issue, pick one or more, from that group and present the number and what there is about it that gives you such heartburn. To make it easy for you, here is the link to the National Archives Executive Order Disposition Tables so you can easily find it in Obama's 250 EO's. ~~ Barack Obama Executive Orders Disposition Tables ~~It is not the number of EO it is what is in them..
Silly far left drone!
This is why you should not be a mod on this board anymore!
OK, if Obama issued a number of Executive Orders (EO) that contravene existing or created non-existing statutory law codified in the US Code, list one or more of those EO's from that group and present the number and what there is about it/them that you see as unlawful and the existing statutes or Article, Section and Clause of the US Constitution of which they are violative. To make it easy for you, here is the link to the National Archives Executive Order Disposition Tables so you can easily find it in Obama's 250 EO's. ~~ Barack Obama Executive Orders Disposition Tables ~~The president simply does not have constitutional authority to change laws passed by a previous Congress and signed into law by a previous president by executive order!
How are we supposed to keep in mind something that occurred in your mind? I'd love to see you try to support that one.Keep in mind - the Republicans vowed not to let a single bit of Obama legislation pass - regardless of the content
That has been stated over and over by various and sundry folks, but when challenged to produce from the Executive Order Disposition Tables maintained by the National Archives, not a single person has responded with an example! You want to try again to come up with an EO from the Disposition Tables that "legislates by fiat"?Not interesting at all, executive orders are intended to implement existing law in the executive branch, not legislate by fiat. That's where your dear leader f'ed up and is now regretting it, he's going to see how easy it will be for his efforts to be undone.
To make it as easy as possible for you, here is the addy to the Disposition Tables:
~~ Barack Obama Executive Orders Disposition Tables ~~
Are you joking? Where's the beef? None of that supports your allegations. Post the portion you think best makes your case.How are we supposed to keep in mind something that occurred in your mind? I'd love to see you try to support that one.Keep in mind - the Republicans vowed not to let a single bit of Obama legislation pass - regardless of the content
The Republicans' Plan for the New President
The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com
Article II of the US Constitution for starters. Then there's the 29 U.S. Code § 206(e) Employees of employers providing contract services to United States.That has been stated over and over by various and sundry folks, but when challenged to produce from the Executive Order Disposition Tables maintained by the National Archives, not a single person has responded with an example! You want to try again to come up with an EO from the Disposition Tables that "legislates by fiat"?Not interesting at all, executive orders are intended to implement existing law in the executive branch, not legislate by fiat. That's where your dear leader f'ed up and is now regretting it, he's going to see how easy it will be for his efforts to be undone.
To make it as easy as possible for you, here is the addy to the Disposition Tables:
~~ Barack Obama Executive Orders Disposition Tables ~~
One is all you get.
Executive Order 13658—Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors
Show me the law that gives the dear leader to establish a minimum wage for federal contractors that exceeds the congressionally mandated minimum wage? Note: subjective personal opinions of your dear leader aren't laws.He did this solely because congress wouldn't raise the federal minimum wage to his satisfaction, that doesn't cerate authority either.
Article II of the US Constitution for starters. Then there's the 29 U.S. Code § 206(e) Employees of employers providing contract services to United States.That has been stated over and over by various and sundry folks, but when challenged to produce from the Executive Order Disposition Tables maintained by the National Archives, not a single person has responded with an example! You want to try again to come up with an EO from the Disposition Tables that "legislates by fiat"?Not interesting at all, executive orders are intended to implement existing law in the executive branch, not legislate by fiat. That's where your dear leader f'ed up and is now regretting it, he's going to see how easy it will be for his efforts to be undone.
To make it as easy as possible for you, here is the addy to the Disposition Tables:
~~ Barack Obama Executive Orders Disposition Tables ~~
One is all you get.
Executive Order 13658—Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors
Show me the law that gives the dear leader to establish a minimum wage for federal contractors that exceeds the congressionally mandated minimum wage? Note: subjective personal opinions of your dear leader aren't laws.He did this solely because congress wouldn't raise the federal minimum wage to his satisfaction, that doesn't cerate authority either.
Now do YOU have a statute you'd like to share that contradicts that section of the minimum wage law or the US Constitution??
I mean seriously........THINK for a minute yourself------------>
There is no requirement to cite statutory authority within the body of an Executive Order. You are still wrong about the result of Obama's intent and action via this EO! You simply didn't read the bloody section of the statute I directed you toward!Funny, it wasn't cited as the authority in the EO. And the law you cited sets the minimum wage at $7.25, there is nothing that says the president can unilaterally change it for federal contractors.
There is no requirement to cite statutory authority within the body of an Executive Order. You are still wrong about the result of Obama's intent and action via this EO! You simply didn't read the bloody section of the statute I directed you toward!Funny, it wasn't cited as the authority in the EO. And the law you cited sets the minimum wage at $7.25, there is nothing that says the president can unilaterally change it for federal contractors.
Read the bloody EO slowly and carefully! Then do the same to 29 USC § 206(e)! That section does not limit or restrict the President as you falsely claim! 29 USC § 206(a) would have, but 29 USC § 206(e) bypasses that limiting factor. Read the title of § 206(e) slowly; "Employees of employers providing contract services to United States". Then read (1) & (2) below it, again slowly. Don't be so damn lazy and look up the statute in the US Code. [I purposely withheld the link just to see what you would do, and I guessed correctly.]
Then get someone to 'splain it to you!!!! The full construction of the minimum wage statute does not limit the authority of the President, as the de facto employer of the employers of "Employees of employers providing contract services to United States"! The President is the CEO of the National Government! Get some crayons from Santa and connect the dots. You're wrong twice over now so bloody live with it!
Pay attention smack! This was your initial reply;I read the damn law, like you dear leader did with 40 usc 101 your, pulling shit out of your ass. You don't arbitrarily increase the costs to the taxpayers to promote the "economy" of federal contracting. You fucking regressives are truly gullible.
And you continued with this in that post;Show me the law that gives the dear leader to establish a minimum wage for federal contractors that exceeds the congressionally mandated minimum wage?
I did show that and in fucking spades twice over! Your follow on bullshit line just dug the hole deeper for you regarding the minimum wage bullshit you tried to pass off. Now you swap the narrative from a minimum wage argument to providing "...the Federal Government with an economical and efficient system for the following activities:" the purpose of 40 U.S. Code § 101. You jumped from Title 29 dealing with Labor to Title 40 dealing with Public Buildings, Property, and Works!! Did you actually believe you could get that flaming turd off the ground and flying?He did this solely because congress wouldn't raise the federal minimum wage to his satisfaction, that doesn't cerate authority either.
Pay attention smack! This was your initial reply;I read the damn law, like you dear leader did with 40 usc 101 your, pulling shit out of your ass. You don't arbitrarily increase the costs to the taxpayers to promote the "economy" of federal contracting. You fucking regressives are truly gullible.
And you continued with this in that post;Show me the law that gives the dear leader to establish a minimum wage for federal contractors that exceeds the congressionally mandated minimum wage?
I did show that and in fucking spades twice over! Your follow on bullshit line just dug the hole deeper for you regarding the minimum wage bullshit you tried to pass off. Now you swap the narrative from a minimum wage argument to providing "...the Federal Government with an economical and efficient system for the following activities:" the purpose of 40 U.S. Code § 101. You jumped from Title 29 dealing with Labor to Title 40 dealing with Public Buildings, Property, and Works!! Did you actually believe you could get that flaming turd off the ground and flying?He did this solely because congress wouldn't raise the federal minimum wage to his satisfaction, that doesn't cerate authority either.
You didn't read jack shit and you're the one pulling shit out of your ass because providing "...the Federal Government with an economical and efficient system for the following activities:" has absolutely nothing to do with your post directly above dealing STRICTLY with your bullshit claim implying that EO violated established statutory law regarding the minimum wage!
Bottom line is you can't support your claim and you've failed three times over now. You are living up to your know-nothing, bullshitting status...all fucking smoke and no bloody fire, Tex!
I keep hearing fauxrage from the right, that Obama went overboard on executive orders...but what are the facts?
They're interesting
