francoHFW
Diamond Member
- Sep 5, 2011
- 79,271
- 9,399
It's a canard. They are very limited and can be easily overturned. OTOH, they can show themselves to be good ideas (like Obama's) and expanded by congress.Good stuff. Yeah, as with everything else political, EO's have almost been overused over the years, and yeah, essentially as a replacement for earning the votes.Fair? Well, sure, he'll be the President.Well, let's look at the point of the term "mandate": In political terms, it essentially means "license to cram our entire agenda down your throat".I kinda agree with you Mac, but then ask you a question----------------> Since the electorate elected Trump, elected a Republican House, and a Republican Senate, would you not say that the REPUBLICANS as a whole, have a mandate?
The Democrats claimed a "mandate" in 2008 and immediately proceeded to overdo it. That should be a valuable lesson.
The country is fairly evenly divided, take your pick , 55/45 either way or somewhere in between. If both parties keep ignoring that and keep over-interpreting their "mandate", all we're going to see is a non-stop tug of war and little progress.
.
OK, then just for my own information, although everyone else will see the answer---------->is it FAIR for Trump to undo everything Obama did by EO?
That would be an example of my point, the tug of war, new EO's and laws and regulations being issued and then repealed, on and on, back and forth.
Politics aside, don't you think the American people would prefer some stability?
.
Yep, that is why Trump should NOT use EOs, he should pass laws, and if he can't, then it doesn't happen.
I am the person who harps on the left about not enforcing the law on illegal immigration, and if they want it the way they want it, pass a law. Same goes for Trump, no EOs.
I mean personally, maybe it would have been bad for the GOP, but what if Obama went to the people instead of putting in EOs like Reagan did and told them, "Hey folks, either change some people in congress, or I can't give this to you!" Well, either they would change people, if they didn't he had political cover for not giving them the policy, and.........maybe he would have learned Americans didn't want the policy!
All political historians who address this is issue say--------->the machinations of our government were PURPOSELY designed to move slowly. It was to insure all debates could be had, to make the people come out and vote in people who would deliver it if it was that important, and so NOTHING could change to quickly.
Obama set that on its head, but fortunately, a lot of it was EOs. And so, I say get rid of every one of his EOs, get rid of every regulation that was not law, get rid of everything possible, then put it to congress and the country at large.......you want this, put YOUR John Hancock on the dotted line for it. Put your political career where your ideology is! Only laws, signed by congress, and not vetoed by the President. No EOs! And if you are having trouble. Then go to the people, have them call Washington, write Washington, or change Washington if need be. That is stability, and that is what our founders wanted, everyone engaged as much as possible, and an exchange of ideas, not insults.
I think it would be a good idea to review the whole concept and insure that an EO, if they have to remain, must be very limited in scope. They go against the spirit of the vote, and they just exacerbate divisions.
And I sure as hell don't trust any given President to not go too far with them.
.