Howey
Gold Member
- Mar 4, 2013
- 5,481
- 761
- 200
If the Republicans keep the House and take the Senate they can block everything Obama does, including Executive Orders.
No, they can't keep a president from issuing Executive Orders.
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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
If the Republicans keep the House and take the Senate they can block everything Obama does, including Executive Orders.
![]()
Obama seems to think he can do anything he wants. He refuses to enforce laws that he doesn't like, including immigration, and the ACA itself. What can we do to stop him? Simple, take back Congress.
Executive Orders aren't even in the Constitution.
So why did George Washington issue them too? And every president since? Including, youknowwhodubya who issued far more executive orders than that niggrah you hate.
Obama never learned to follow the rules, so the reelection wasn't exactly as illustrative as one would think.
Obama seems to think he can do anything he wants.
Obama seems to think he can do anything he wants.
It might seem that way to you in the context of your partisan delusion, but it in fact not the case.
Nor is the one-year delay of the employer mandate an affront to the Constitution, as Professor Michael McConnell and Congressional Republicans insist. The relevant*text*requires that the President "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Scholars on both*left*and*right*concur that this broadly-worded phrasing indicates that the President is to exercise judgment, and handle his enforcement duties with fidelity to all laws, including, indeed, the Constitution. As McConnell himself notes, both Republican and Democratic Justice Departments have consistently opined that the clause authorizes a president even to decline enforcement of a statute altogether, if in good faith he determines it to be in violation of the Constitution. But, McConnell contends, a president cannot "refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons." While surely correct, that contention is beside the point.
The Administration has not postponed the employer mandate out of policy opposition to the ACA, nor to the specific provision itself. Thus, it's misleading to characterize the action as a "refusal to enforce." Rather, the President has authorized a minor temporary course correction regarding individual ACA provisions, necessary in his Administration's judgment to faithfully execute the overall statute, other related laws, and the purposes of the ACA's framers. As a legal as well as a practical matter, that's well within his job description.
What an arrogant race-baiting piece of crap you are. It isn't the number or the fact they can be issued...but whether they CONFLICT with the Constitution, and the damage such orders do to the Liberty of the people that the Constitution is designed to protect.![]()
Obama seems to think he can do anything he wants. He refuses to enforce laws that he doesn't like, including immigration, and the ACA itself. What can we do to stop him? Simple, take back Congress.
Executive Orders aren't even in the Constitution.
So why did George Washington issue them too? And every president since? Including, youknowwhodubya who issued far more executive orders than that niggrah you hate.