Reining In EOs

[Flanders]

The president dumped INTERPOL on the American people by rescinding one of RR’s executive orders. I covered that betrayal extensively in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/275117-recess-appointments-v-eos.html

Reining in executive orders

Now that Barack Taqiyya has demonstrated how EOs can be abused it is time for Congress to rein in presidential power by limiting the use of EOs. A report put out by the Congressional Research Service indicates a move in that direction is underway.

There is so much in a great article by Bob Unruh about EOs I can only cover a few items:

Congress simply adopted legislation that stated the executive order “shall not have any legal effect.”

The words “not necessarily law” in the title of Unruh’s piece captured my attention. That phrase implies that a president can make some laws. If so, “ . . . “shall not have any legal effect.” becomes debatable. Implementing EOs in the past shows that the president always wins that debate. Also, if some EO laws are permitted it follows that law enforcement officials will enforce those EO laws. I just can’t see how that is acceptable under the Constitution as I understand it. This seems pretty clear to me:

Citing the writing of Justice Robert H. Jackson in a historic Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case as a precedent, the evaluation from the CRS said there are problems with executive orders when they legislate, or write law, because the Constitution gives that authority to the Congress.

NOTE: Robert H. Jackson took a leave of absence from the High Court in order to act as prosecutor in the most famous of the Nuremberg Trials.

Congress also can halt an executive order by refusing to fund it.

When does Congress ever withhold funding?

Subsequent presidents also can modify or cancel orders from previous presidents, the research service said.

Question: Will a Republican president rescind Taqiyya’s EOs? Answer: He should if Congress and the Courts refuse to act.

Parenthetically, the Supreme Court thwarted FDR’s scheme to pack the High Court, yet presidential power has grown in leaps and bounds since then. Unchallenged executive orders will become another avenue to more presidential power unless it is closed off now. Ditto bureaucratic regulations that are rapidly acquiring the force of law.

The why of it

Barack Taqiyya is a natural lying sack of shit. The reason he lies so much about policy is identical to his reason for writing executive orders and issuing bureaucratic regulations. Just keep churning them out because nobody can stop their implementation, and there is no punishment involved even when they are unconstitutional.

Finally, the beauty of Taqiyya’s EOs is that he can’t blame them on Bush. Democrats back their liar all the way; so Republican candidates should hammer Democrats for the things their guy did by executive order —— along with nailing them for Taqiyya’s domestic and foreign policy disasters. In short: If you hang with it you smell like it.

Anyone interested in presidential abuse of EOs should read Unruh’s piece carefully:

Report: Obama's executive orders not necessarily law
Pronouncements at 'lowest ebb' when measures conflict with 'will of Congress'
Published: 12 hours ago
by Bob Unruh

Report: Obama?s executive orders not necessarily law

 

[Katzndogz]

Congress needs to start impeachment proceedings. That will do more to pull him back than anything else.

 

[Flanders]

Congress needs to start impeachment proceedings. That will do more to pull him back than anything else.

To Katzndogz: I cannot agree. I never wanted to remove him. I believe I was proved right. The damage he did to liberalism so far is the best thing he ever did. And it would be tragic for the country if Joe Biden became president.

Besides, reining in presidential power is the goal. I pounded on that theme when Bush was president.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Whats with the "Taqiyya" bullshit? Got a reasonable explanation for using that so often?

 

[JakeStarkey]

When a person uses "Barack Taqiyya", 99% of Americans stop listening.

 

[Katzndogz]

Congress needs to start impeachment proceedings. That will do more to pull him back than anything else.

To Katzndogz: I cannot agree. I never wanted to remove him. I believe I was proved right. The damage he did to liberalism so far is the best thing he ever did. And it would be tragic for the country if Joe Biden became president.

Besides, reining in presidential power is the goal. I pounded on that theme when Bush was president.

Unfortunately obama is using his authority to damage the country so badly he needs to be stopped. The way to stop him is with the impeachment process. It doesn't matter whether the process results in impeachment. The process itself will be a brake on his imperial powers.

 

[Flanders]

Whats with the "Taqiyya" bullshit? Got a reasonable explanation for using that so often?

To LoneLaugher: Are you objecting to my using it? or using it so often? Either way it is reasonable to me as I explained in this thread’s OP:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-party/298288-name-change.html

When a person uses "Barack Taqiyya", 99% of Americans stop listening.

To JakeStarkey: You respond to so many of my threads I have to conclude you are among the 1%.

Unfortunately obama is using his authority to damage the country so badly he needs to be stopped. The way to stop him is with the impeachment process. It doesn't matter whether the process results in impeachment. The process itself will be a brake on his imperial powers.

To Katzndogz: That is a sound strategy on the face of it. Alas, liberals excel at reaping undeserved sympathy. In the hands of his media pals I’m certain impeaching him will backfire.

Also, a bill of impeachment could result in his resignation leaving the country with Biden. All in all, leaving him without any power until he leaves office is the way to go. And let’s not giveaway the advantage of linking him to Democrats in 2016. That link will be doubly effective if conservatives take the Senate in November.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Whats with the "Taqiyya" bullshit? Got a reasonable explanation for using that so often?

To LoneLaugher: Are you objecting to my using it? or using it so often? Either way it is reasonable to me as I explained in this thread’s OP:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-party/298288-name-change.html

When a person uses "Barack Taqiyya", 99% of Americans stop listening.

To JakeStarkey: You respond to so many of my threads I have to conclude you are among the 1%.

Unfortunately obama is using his authority to damage the country so badly he needs to be stopped. The way to stop him is with the impeachment process. It doesn't matter whether the process results in impeachment. The process itself will be a brake on his imperial powers.

To Katzndogz: That is a sound strategy on the face of it. Alas, liberals excel at reaping undeserved sympathy. In the hands of his media pals I’m certain impeaching him will backfire.

Also, a bill of impeachment could result in his resignation leaving the country with Biden. All in all, leaving him without any power until he leaves office is the way to go. And let’s not giveaway the advantage of linking him to Democrats in 2016. That link will be doubly effective if conservatives take the Senate in November.

You misunderstand. I object to you. You suck. Why not explain it here in your own words....I am not interested in looking at another of your fucked up threads. Lay it out for me. Why are you calling your president "Taqiyya"?

Try to make some sense.

 

[HenryBHough]

Why bother with impeachment?

Were The Big Zero impeached and found guilty He'd just issue an Executive Order overturning the verdict and possibly dissolving Congress.

Unconstitutional?

WHAT constitution?

Remember, He now has a military commanded exclusively by officers who survived the cut by attaching their loyalty to His personality cult rather than to any obsolete document nobody can find anymore.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why bother with impeachment?

Were The Big Zero impeached and found guilty He'd just issue an Executive Order overturning the verdict and possibly dissolving Congress.

Unconstitutional?

WHAT constitution?

Remember, He now has a military commanded exclusively by officers who survived the cut by attaching their loyalty to His personality cult rather than to any obsolete document nobody can find anymore.

Weeeeeeeee! High level thinking is going on here! Look out!

 

[Flanders]

You misunderstand. I object to you. You suck. Why not explain it here in your own words....I am not interested in looking at another of your fucked up threads. Lay it out for me. Why are you calling your president "Taqiyya"?

To LoneLaugher: I understand your kind only too well. You are not the first scum bag that defended a pathological liar by attacking me over the name Taqiyya. You all get the same answer. Read the thread I linked if you really want to know. Better still, don’t read my messages and it won’t bother you so much.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You misunderstand. I object to you. You suck. Why not explain it here in your own words....I am not interested in looking at another of your fucked up threads. Lay it out for me. Why are you calling your president "Taqiyya"?

To LoneLaugher: I understand your kind only too well. You are not the first scum bag that defended a pathological liar by attacking me over the name Taqiyya. You all get the same answer. Read the thread I linked if you really want to know. Better still, don’t read my messages and it won’t bother you so much.

I will read your shit.....when I haven't had my daily fill of stupidity yet. You don't seem to have a decent answer to the question. I don't want a dissertation. You must have a reason for displaying such stupidity. I suppose it is complicated.

I suggest that you learn what a lie is. You seem to have that term confused with "campaign promise" or "political spin". Simple mistakes for simple people.

 

[Flanders]

I don't want a dissertation.

To LoneLaugher: I don’t give a shit what you want. When you ask questions you’ll take what I give you if anything.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't want a dissertation.

To LoneLaugher: I don’t give a shit what you want. When you ask questions you’ll take what I give you if anything.

Of course. You are unable. I get it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Reining In EOs

Telling how you and other conservatives have no interest in ‘reining in’ Executive Orders when a republican occupies the WH.

Otherwise:

It is no surprise, and it is not at all unusual historically, for a president to come to the conclusion that he does not always have to get “the consent of Congress.” Take, for example, the power of the president to issue a formal “Executive Order,” which has all the force of enacted law. George Washington issued eight of those, setting an initial precedent for “unilateral” executive action; Franklin Roosevelt still holds the record – 3,522. Barack Obama has issued 168.

One of the most famous Executive Orders of modern times was issued by President Harry Truman in 1952. That was during the Korean war, and Truman acted to keep the steel mills operating in the face of a labor union strike.

But presidents can take such bold measures only at the risk that the Constitution might override what they have done. Truman’s steel mill seizure, indeed, was struck down by the Supreme Court in perhaps the strongest constitutional rebuff of any presidential action.

President George W. Bush, who in his time heard a lot of criticism of his defense of the power of what was called the “unitary executive,” also was faced down by the Supreme Court in 2006 when it overturned his Executive Order to create a system of military courts to try suspected war criminals after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.

So far, in the short time since President Obama spoke of his plan to go it alone, he has done nothing as bold as Truman or the second Bush did in those particular orders. He has imposed a $10.10 minimum wage guarantee on private businesses that obtain new government contracts, has taken steps to create a new kind of retirement account for people with only modest incomes, and has moved to set up some jobs-generating business initiatives.

Obama may yet face a veto-of-sorts from the Supreme Court on one of his initiatives to try to get around legislative gridlock: his appointments to government boards during a time when the Senate was in recess, after refusing to vote on those nominees. That case still awaits a decision from the Justices.

The Constitution Outside the Courts: President Obama

Consequently, criticism by those on the right with regard to the president’s use of Executive Orders is solely partisan and unfounded. Until such time as the Supreme Court rules any of the president’s actions un-Constitutional, as we saw when GWB’s Executive Order to create a system of military courts was invalidated by the High Court, the president’s use of Executive Orders is perfectly appropriate and Constitutional, where it’s the responsibility of the courts to do any ‘reining in.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Congress needs to start impeachment proceedings. That will do more to pull him back than anything else.

Telling how you and others on the partisan right had no interest in ‘impeachment’ when GWB was issuing Executive Orders determined in fact to be un-Constitutional.

 

[Katzndogz]

Impeachment is taken up through Congress not the courts.

 

[HenryBHough]

Congress needs to start impeachment proceedings. That will do more to pull him back than anything else.

Telling how you and others on the partisan right had no interest in ‘impeachment’ when GWB was issuing Executive Orders determined in fact to be un-Constitutional.

Ah!

On Planet Liberal since one president did something "wrong" then the next president gets a free pass! So much for the constitution.

 

[Katzndogz]

What were the EOs by Bush? Did they totally usurp the legislative process? That's what obama has done. He is using the executive privilege to override Congress. If we now have an executive that replaces the legislative process we don't have a president, we have a King.

 

[Flanders]

What were the EOs by Bush? Did they totally usurp the legislative process? That's what obama has done. He is using the executive privilege to override Congress. If we now have an executive that replaces the legislative process we don't have a president, we have a King.

To Katzndogz: Exactly so. Content counts.