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.
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.
Go with the Republican Formula: When anyone named Obama does it its wrong.
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 presidents 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.
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?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.
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 presidents 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.
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 presidents 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.
Completely.
This is just what makes any argument regarding presidential powers that conservatives make a stinking pile of shit.
They love em when there guy is in..hate em when there guy is out.
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???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???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.
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.
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 presidents 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.
When your party does it, it's legit. When the other side does it, than it ain't legit.
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 presidents 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.
Especially when Dubya issued far more executive orders at this time in his
*cough* presidency.
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 presidents 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.
Especially when Dubya issued far more executive orders at this time in his
*cough* presidency.
"Presidents have issued signing statements since the early days of our country," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday. "President Bush's signing statements are consistent with prior administrations' signing statements. He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate way."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???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.
The Left is still infected with Bush-dementia, despite his being out of office over 5 years. And how soon they forget.
True to Form, Clinton Shifts Energies Back To U.S. Focus - NYTimes.com
I dont see any indication that Bush issued EOs that refused to enforce laws or changed black letter law. Fail."Presidents have issued signing statements since the early days of our country," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday. "President Bush's signing statements are consistent with prior administrations' signing statements. He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate way."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???
The Left is still infected with Bush-dementia, despite his being out of office over 5 years. And how soon they forget.
True to Form, Clinton Shifts Energies Back To U.S. Focus - NYTimes.com
Bush has vetoed only one bill since taking office, a bill approved by Congress last week relaxing his limits on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. But he has on many occasions signed bills, then issued statements reserving the right not to enforce or execute parts of the new laws, on the grounds that they infringe on presidential authority or violate other constitutional provisions.
Perhaps the most prominent example was legislation last year banning cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners at U.S. detention centers. Bush signed the bill into law after a struggle with Congress, then followed it with an official statement indicating that he might waive the ban under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, if necessary to prevent a terrorist attack.
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 presidents 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.
Especially when Dubya issued far more executive orders at this time in his
*cough* presidency.
The oft repeated claim by Obama's supporters that he's "just doing what everyone else did!" misses the point. It's not the number of executive orders that a President issues...it's whether those executive orders undermine the separation of powers concept that was built into our system of government. When Barack Obama threatens to make something the law without having it passed by Congress then he is treading on perilous constitutional ground because of the precedent that is being set.
It's time Barry put his big boy pants on and learned how to do the JOB of being President. He's the leader of the country and as such he's responsible for making things run. In his first two years he had the luxury of Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate...a situation that allowed him NOT to have to craft alliances across the aisle in order to pass legislation. Because of that we didn't grasp how bad he was at that part of politics. To make matters worse he had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid...two far left leaders in the House and Senate who were ALSO terrible at crafting bi-partisan support. You want to know why little has been done over the past five years? The people we have running things are simply not suited for the jobs they hold.
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.
Source?
An executive order of the President must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the President specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the President.
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.
