What is the **legitimate** usage of Executive Orders?

[Little-Acorn]

There is nothing intrinsically unconstitutional about an Executive Order. But if an EO is used for the wrong thing, then it CAN be unconstitutional.... as many of Obama's are.

Executive Orders are what a President is supposed to use to carry out something passed by Congress (and signed into law by the Prez, of course).

Classic example is, Congress passes something saying that a group of Federal buildings on a corner in DC will be painted brown. Obama signs it into law. Obama then issues an Exec Order to solicit three companies for bids on the painting work, issues another order to check the bidding companies' qualifications etc. Obama is issuing Exec Orders pursuant to something Congress passed into law.

If he's issuing Exec Orders to delay implementation of part of Obamacare for a year, that's the equivalent of issuing an EO to paint the buildings red instead of brown. It does NOT carry out what Congress passed. In fact, it's the act of a dictator with no Congressional oversight or adherence to procedures required by the Constitution, at all.

 

[Moonglow]

Ask George Washington, he started it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

These.

Executive Orders | The White House

 

[ClosedCaption]

Go with the Republican Formula: When anyone named Obama does it its wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They're only legitimate when issued by Republican presidents.

 

[BlindBoo]

With the Republicans it's damned if he do and damned it he don't.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkqAEjZfVv8]Alan Parsons Project - Damned If I Do - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ClosedCaption]

Go with the Republican Formula: When anyone named Obama does it its wrong.

It's especially humorous when a liberal trying desperately to change the subject, puts a quote in his avatar saying that "Strong minds discuss ideas... weak minds discuss people"... and then goes on to discuss people instead of the idea in the thread.

Back to the subject:
When the President issues an Executive Order that specifically contradicts a law passed by Congress... for the express purpose of contradicting and overruling that law... is he actually weakening the fabric of the country? Or merely violating his oath of office?

The Idea that an Executive Order is only NOW after 200 plus years is destroying our country has something to do with either Executive Orders as a whole (which you dont object to) or the person doing it.

So tell me you are against all Executive Orders and forgot to mention it until 2009. Go ahead.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Go with the Republican Formula: When anyone named Obama does it its wrong.

It's especially humorous when a liberal trying desperately to change the subject, puts a quote in his avatar saying that "Strong minds discuss ideas... weak minds discuss people"... and then goes on to discuss people instead of the idea in the thread.

Back to the subject:
When the President issues an Executive Order that specifically contradicts part of a law passed by Congress... for the express purpose of contradicting and overruling that part of the law... is he actually weakening the fabric of the country? Or merely violating his oath of office?

 

[Katzndogz]

The Executive Order was designed to eliminate the red tape associated with ministerial functions. It was never supposed to be a substitute for legislation. If it were, we wouldn't elect a president but a King that rules by decree for four years. We have separation of powers for a reason. We have three coequal branches of government for a reason. The reason is so that the president would not assume a throne.

 

[idb]

Which Obama EOs were unconstitutional?
Links to the SCOTUS judgements would be instructive.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Which Obama EOs were unconstitutional?
Links to the SCOTUS judgements would be instructive.

The humor continues as the liberals try to pretend that things that violate clear Constitutional dictates, are actually not unconstitutional, because the courts have not tuled on it.

Also known as the "Bart Simpson Defense": "i didn't do it nobody saw me do it you can't prove anything....."

 

[edthecynic]

There is nothing intrinsically unconstitutional about an Executive Order. But if an EO is used for the wrong thing, then it CAN be unconstitutional.... as many of Obama's are.

Executive Orders are what a President is supposed to use to carry out something passed by Congress (and signed into law by the Prez, of course).

Classic example is, Congress passes something saying that a group of Federal buildings on a corner in DC will be painted brown. Obama signs it into law. Obama then issues an Exec Order to solicit three companies for bids on the painting work, issues another order to check the bidding companies' qualifications etc. Obama is issuing Exec Orders pursuant to something Congress passed into law.

If he's issuing Exec Orders to delay implementation of part of Obamacare for a year, that's the equivalent of issuing an EO to paint the buildings red instead of brown. It does NOT carry out what Congress passed. In fact, it's the act of a dictator with no Congressional oversight or adherence to procedures required by the Constitution, at all.

And how exactly is that any different from Bush's "signing statements" that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Which Obama EOs were unconstitutional?
Links to the SCOTUS judgements would be instructive.

The humor continues as the liberals try to pretend that things that violate clear Constitutional dictates, are actually not unconstitutional, because the courts have not tuled on it.

Also known as the "Bart Simpson Defense": "i didn't do it nobody saw me do it you can't prove anything....."

While Little Acorn uses the "Its a secret" defense when asked for info

 

[idb]

Which Obama EOs were unconstitutional?
Links to the SCOTUS judgements would be instructive.

The humor continues as the liberals try to pretend that things that violate clear Constitutional dictates, are actually not unconstitutional, because the courts have not tuled on it.

Also known as the "Bart Simpson Defense": "i didn't do it nobody saw me do it you can't prove anything....."

Whereas your argument is "I believe it so it must be".
Sorry, I can't relate that to any cartoon characters.

 

[Oldstyle]

The ones that stand out recently are Obama's orders to not enforce immigration laws in force and the orders to delay major portions of the ACA that were designated in the legislation to take place on a certain date. Neither of which has been taken to the Supreme Court.

What liberals don't seem to grasp is that what Obama is doing when he threatens to simply ignore Congress is dangerous to things they hold dear because it sets a precedent for a conservative who becomes President and wants to ignore things like Roe vs Wade. Our system of government is constructed as it is for a reason...something that a "constitutional scholar" like Barack Obama should understand. What he's doing is fool hearty and short sighted.

 

[Londoner]

When your party does it, it's legit. When the other side does it, than it ain't legit.

 

[rightwinger]

I find the most effective Executive Orders are those that piss Republicans off the most

 

[edthecynic]

The ones that stand out recently are Obama's orders to not enforce immigration laws in force and the orders to delay major portions of the ACA that were designated in the legislation to take place on a certain date. Neither of which has been taken to the Supreme Court.

What liberals don't seem to grasp is that what Obama is doing when he threatens to simply ignore Congress is dangerous to things they hold dear because it sets a precedent for a conservative who becomes President and wants to ignore things like Roe vs Wade. Our system of government is constructed as it is for a reason...something that a "constitutional scholar" like Barack Obama should understand. What he's doing is fool hearty and short sighted.

Wait just a minute there Slick! Didn't Bush set that precedent with his signing statements, and why didn't the Right call for HIS impeachment back then???

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Executive Order was designed to eliminate the red tape associated with ministerial functions. It was never supposed to be a substitute for legislation. If it were, we wouldn't elect a president but a King that rules by decree for four years. We have separation of powers for a reason. We have three coequal branches of government for a reason. The reason is so that the president would not assume a throne.

Did anyone from FDR on order a throne?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Which Obama EOs were unconstitutional?
Links to the SCOTUS judgements would be instructive.

The humor continues as the liberals try to pretend that things that violate clear Constitutional dictates, are actually not unconstitutional, because the courts have not tuled on it.

Also known as the "Bart Simpson Defense": "i didn't do it nobody saw me do it you can't prove anything....."

Executive orders are ‘legitimate’ and Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952).

To be consistent in your criticism of the current president’s use of EOs, you would need to be equally critical of EOs issued by GWB and other republican presidents, which you and others on the right have failed to do.