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

[The Rabbi]

Please list them, and explain how they are unconstitutional. Then provide the court cases challenging those EOs.

Otherwise, you are speaking out of your ass, as usual.

They've been listed many many times. Go find another sand box to play in.

No, they have not. Jackasses like yourself just say Obama is doing something unconstitutional, and then demonstrate complete ignorance of the Constitution. Something is not unconstitutional just because you, who is about as unauthoritative as it gets, say it is.

Lil' Acorn's claim is an ipse dixit fallacy.

Does the Constitution give power to write laws to the executive or the legislative branch?
QED.

 

[Oldstyle]

Lol,

George w Bush 291
Clinton 364
George hw Bush 166
King Reagan 381!

George Washington 8
Thomas Jefferson 4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

You just hate Obama for the same reason the left hated Bush.

I don't hate Obama, I merely think that he continually violates the Constitution with his EO's that change the law illegally. If someone can show me an EO that Bush signed that did that, I would condemn him for it as well.

And, I don't know if Bush did, but I would like to see it.

And yet nobody is impeaching him for "violating the Constitution" with EOs. Why is that?

Why?...well, since you need a 2/3's vote for impeachment in the Senate and the Democrats have a majority there...it would be a complete waste of time? It's part of the reason impeachment has only been tried four times in the entire history of our nation.

What is appalling to me is that Barack Obama...a constitutional scholar...is playing fast and loose with the very document that has allowed the United States to weather countless political storms in the past. What he is doing is incredibly dangerous because subverting separation of power statutes allows your political opponents to do the same thing to you when THEY take power. It's shortsighted...and foolish.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Please post the list of EOs that Bush signed that negated black letter law, or refused to enforce duly enacted laws.
We won't hold our breath.

Check out the international treaties that the Bush admin backed out of on EOs in the first year and a half of his admin. They clearly indicate that military action overseas was imminent.

Like this one that went to the Federal District Court and Bush won.

On June 11, 2002, a group of thirty-two members of the House of
Representatives, led by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), took up Feingold’s lead and filed suit in the District Court of the District of Columbia against President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Kucinich cited that the president “failed to submit the question of treaty termination to either house, nor did he seek congressional consent for the withdrawal” (Kucinich, et al. v. Bush)

Kucinich, et al. v. Bush was decided on December 30, 2002, in favor of the President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. In the opinion offered by United States District Court Judge John D. Bates, based on a 1997 ruling, the court found that the thirty-two congressmen “have not alleged the requisite injury to establish standing to pursue their claim,” and according to the United States Supreme Court’s 1979 dismissal of Goldwater v. Carter, the court “concludes that the treaty termination is a nonjusticiable ‘political question’ that cannot be resolved by the courts” (Kucinich, et al. v. Bush)

http://www.cornellcollege.edu/politics/courses/allin/364/josh-schroeder.2003a.pdf

My point about legality of EOs.

We may not like what a president does but the fact remains an EO is legal unless court says otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh well, there goes Jake the Fake's argument. Another loser. I'd hate to tally how many times Jake has had his ass handed him to on these boards. I suspect masochism as an explanation for why he continues to post.

I suspect that you know then (look right above at #83) an EO is lawful until the court says no.

You are so easy to deal with because you can't see the trees for the forest.

Now show us where EOs are illegal.

 

[Oldstyle]

Forget "legalities" for a moment, Jake. Look at where this leads. Our system of government was designed to make it hard to pass controversial legislation. The Founding Fathers were afraid of two things...too much power being given to the person in charge...and majorities taking away the rights of others. They would be horrified by the current use of Executive Orders to get around Congress...simply because they put Congress in place to check the power of the Executive Branch. Having just overthrown a King they had no desire to "elect" the next one.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Whatever Obama the constItutional expert says, especially if GOP ADULTS don't sue duh.

 

[TooTall]

Check out the international treaties that the Bush admin backed out of on EOs in the first year and a half of his admin. They clearly indicate that military action overseas was imminent.

Like this one that went to the Federal District Court and Bush won.

On June 11, 2002, a group of thirty-two members of the House of
Representatives, led by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), took up Feingold’s lead and filed suit in the District Court of the District of Columbia against President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Kucinich cited that the president “failed to submit the question of treaty termination to either house, nor did he seek congressional consent for the withdrawal” (Kucinich, et al. v. Bush)

Kucinich, et al. v. Bush was decided on December 30, 2002, in favor of the President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. In the opinion offered by United States District Court Judge John D. Bates, based on a 1997 ruling, the court found that the thirty-two congressmen “have not alleged the requisite injury to establish standing to pursue their claim,” and according to the United States Supreme Court’s 1979 dismissal of Goldwater v. Carter, the court “concludes that the treaty termination is a nonjusticiable ‘political question’ that cannot be resolved by the courts” (Kucinich, et al. v. Bush)

http://www.cornellcollege.edu/politics/courses/allin/364/josh-schroeder.2003a.pdf

My point about legality of EOs.

We may not like what a president does but the fact remains an EO is legal unless court says otherwise.

The law suit is being prepared with about 100 members of the House signing on to sue the President. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Seawytch]

Like this one that went to the Federal District Court and Bush won.

On June 11, 2002, a group of thirty-two members of the House of
Representatives, led by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), took up Feingold’s lead and filed suit in the District Court of the District of Columbia against President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Kucinich cited that the president “failed to submit the question of treaty termination to either house, nor did he seek congressional consent for the withdrawal” (Kucinich, et al. v. Bush)

Kucinich, et al. v. Bush was decided on December 30, 2002, in favor of the President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. In the opinion offered by United States District Court Judge John D. Bates, based on a 1997 ruling, the court found that the thirty-two congressmen “have not alleged the requisite injury to establish standing to pursue their claim,” and according to the United States Supreme Court’s 1979 dismissal of Goldwater v. Carter, the court “concludes that the treaty termination is a nonjusticiable ‘political question’ that cannot be resolved by the courts” (Kucinich, et al. v. Bush)

http://www.cornellcollege.edu/politics/courses/allin/364/josh-schroeder.2003a.pdf

My point about legality of EOs.

We may not like what a president does but the fact remains an EO is legal unless court says otherwise.

The law suit is being prepared with about 100 members of the House signing on to sue the President. Be careful what you wish for.

Which house members? Do you have a link to this 100? Is it House Members like Michelle Bachman and Louie Gomert?

 

[The Rabbi]

My point about legality of EOs.

We may not like what a president does but the fact remains an EO is legal unless court says otherwise.

The law suit is being prepared with about 100 members of the House signing on to sue the President. Be careful what you wish for.

Which house members? Do you have a link to this 100? Is it House Members like Michelle Bachman and Louie Gomert?

Because the two of them together constitute 100?
You look dumber with every post. Just saying.

 

[Seawytch]

The law suit is being prepared with about 100 members of the House signing on to sue the President. Be careful what you wish for.

Which house members? Do you have a link to this 100? Is it House Members like Michelle Bachman and Louie Gomert?

Because the two of them together constitute 100?
You look dumber with every post. Just saying.

So you don't have a list of this magic 100 either? I could find 30 and Bachman was among them. I'm sure the President is scared.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which house members? Do you have a link to this 100? Is it House Members like Michelle Bachman and Louie Gomert?

Because the two of them together constitute 100?
You look dumber with every post. Just saying.

So you don't have a list of this magic 100 either? I could find 30 and Bachman was among them. I'm sure the President is scared.

Elections are in November. When the GOP picks up almost every seat he'll moan again about a "shellacking."

 

[Wildman]

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.

here is what the muslime mulatto presidunce wants to do to finish his next 3 years

Obama Vows to Bypass Congress and Rule by Decree

 

[TooTall]

Which house members? Do you have a link to this 100? Is it House Members like Michelle Bachman and Louie Gomert?

Because the two of them together constitute 100?
You look dumber with every post. Just saying.

So you don't have a list of this magic 100 either? I could find 30 and Bachman was among them. I'm sure the President is scared.

The Judge will look at the law not the motives of the plaintiffs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rabbi has no link for House members suing Obama.

Rabbi says the GOP is going to pick up almost every seat this year.

Rabbi sounds just like he did in 2013: stupid.

The GOP will continue as the party of stupid as long as we allow the Rabbis to speak for the GOP.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi has no link for House members suing Obama.

Rabbi says the GOP is going to pick up almost every seat this year.

Rabbi sounds just like he did in 2013: stupid.

The GOP will continue as the party of stupid as long as we allow the Rabbis to speak for the GOP.

Jake Fact Free Starkey speaks again. Hey, Jake. Where did I say all those things?

 

[BDBoop]

 

[The Rabbi]

What?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/u...enate-all-nighter-on-climate-change.html?_r=0

 

[Oldstyle]

Too bad reality doesn't agree with your "comics", Boop! The GOP led House sent a whole bunch of bills over to the Senate only to have Harry Reid table them and prevent their even coming to the Senate floor for discussion. So who's REALLY been the obstructionists since the 2010 mid-terms? Obviously it's been the Democrats who went from "elections have consequences...I won!" to "we know better than the voters".

 

[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.

Or, if he issues an Executive Order for the purpose of cancelling deportation of a few million illegal aliens, in the face of laws passed by Congress saying they will all be deported, that's the equivalent of tearing the buildings down after Congress ordered them painted brown. And it is flatly illegal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Then the proper course of action is for someone with standing to challenge the EO in court, and get it ruled unconstitutional,

and enough with all the other hysterics.