- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lets have an open and rhetoric free discussion about Executive Power
Posted on 2/19/14 at 6:13 am to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 2/19/14 at 6:13 am to Draconian Sanctions
I think people are more concerned about the way Obama has even circumvented the Executive Order process. The changes he made to Obamacare were not done through Executive Orders. He's the Executive and he ordered changes but they were not formal EOs.
Take a look at this list of Obama's EOs. Talking about Obama's use of unconstitutional methods to change laws is not the same as a discussion of EOs. Don't fall for the liberal misdirection and talk about EOs. EOs are not the problem.
Take a look at this list of Obama's EOs. Talking about Obama's use of unconstitutional methods to change laws is not the same as a discussion of EOs. Don't fall for the liberal misdirection and talk about EOs. EOs are not the problem.
2
Posted on 2/19/14 at 6:35 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
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. If it doesn't, the Supreme Court has the authority to invalidate an EO and has done so in the past. That, to me, is a properly function checks and balance system on all 3 branches.
Pretty much spot on. What concerns me about what has happened this century is that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court seems to want to do its job as a check and balance. That tells me that they're pretty much OK with what's going on in the Executive, which will lead to further abuses.
Unfortunately, in today's politically-correct climate, no one has the political will to challenge our sitting President and at least try to curb the use of EOs.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 6:54 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I wonder how much of an issue this will be in either primary leading up to 2016?
if it's an issue, it'll probably be a fake one that won't truly be fixed by a president.
unless the supreme court suddenly decides to start comprehensively reviewing the actions of pres-administrations and their agency/departments, executive reach will continue to try to expand, with success
This post was edited on 2/19/14 at 6:56 am
Posted on 2/19/14 at 7:09 am to CherryGarciaMan
quote:
Do you even Hamilton, bro?
Were Hamilton's views on governance ultimately rejected or accepted ? In other words, did the President become King?
If the answer is "No", then, perhaps you should consider that Alexander Hamilton is not the most important "idea man" amongst our early thinkers on governance.
As for John Adams's idea about the hereditary Executive Branch, it's clear that this idea was also soundly rejected.
ON a more important note: I would like to give praise to this thread. It's important for us to analyze and understand this topic.
This post was edited on 2/19/14 at 7:15 am
Posted on 2/19/14 at 7:10 am to Draconian Sanctions
Draconian Sanctions;dr
Posted on 2/19/14 at 7:12 am to BobABooey
quote:
Don't fall for the liberal misdirection and talk about EOs. EOs are not the problem.
Thank you very much for making this important point.
I now wonder whether this erudite discussion on the utilization of EO throughout history is indeed simply some "liberal misdirection" designed to obscure the true nature of Obama's governance methodology.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 7:14 am to Draconian Sanctions
i have asked this twice already and gotten no response, to what degree would those who approve of President Obama's unilateral changes to Obamamcare, to what degree would you also be ok with a Republican president changing Obamacare at his or her whim?
Posted on 2/19/14 at 7:58 am to Draconian Sanctions
It is my understanding that EO's can only be directed towards federal employees and not be used to create law. Obama is changing the minimum wage for federal workers and those who contract with the federal government. He cannot change the law nationally.
How many times have we heard "Obamacare is the law of the land'? By changing Obamacare 26+ times he is circumventing the law which affects more than just federal workers.
How many times have we heard "Obamacare is the law of the land'? By changing Obamacare 26+ times he is circumventing the law which affects more than just federal workers.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 7:59 am to dante
quote:
It is my understanding that EO's can only be directed towards federal employees and not be used to create law
well that's just not true
Posted on 2/19/14 at 8:02 am to BobABooey
quote:
I think people are more concerned about the way Obama has even circumvented the Executive Order process. The changes he made to Obamacare were not done through Executive Orders. He's the Executive and he ordered changes but they were not formal EOs.
Take a look at this list of Obama's EOs. Talking about Obama's use of unconstitutional methods to change laws is not the same as a discussion of EOs. Don't fall for the liberal misdirection and talk about EOs. EOs are not the problem.
did you even read my OP?
Posted on 2/19/14 at 8:09 am to Draconian Sanctions
The president can not make laws and cannot act in direct contradiction to laws passed by congress. This is where we should be very concerned.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 8:20 am to C
Indeed.
Also, a very legitimate concern about this entire thread -- I do applaud an informed conversation about the EO utilization throughout history.
On the other hand, I would like the the OP to, at some point, address this concern:
How do you respond to those who accuse Democrats of shameful hypocrisy with regard to this EO issue? During the Bush years, Democrats were apoplectic about the "Imperial Presidency" and EO usage. Now, in these latter days of a Democrat POTUS, Democrats quietly applaud Obama's innovative and decisive methods of governance and EO usage.
How does the OP respond to this accusation? Do such accusations bother you? Or are you simply dismissive of such blather?
Also, a very legitimate concern about this entire thread -- I do applaud an informed conversation about the EO utilization throughout history.
On the other hand, I would like the the OP to, at some point, address this concern:
How do you respond to those who accuse Democrats of shameful hypocrisy with regard to this EO issue? During the Bush years, Democrats were apoplectic about the "Imperial Presidency" and EO usage. Now, in these latter days of a Democrat POTUS, Democrats quietly applaud Obama's innovative and decisive methods of governance and EO usage.
How does the OP respond to this accusation? Do such accusations bother you? Or are you simply dismissive of such blather?
Posted on 2/19/14 at 8:40 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Presidential power ramped up through this period, reaching it's climax with Richard Nixon, who actually used the Executive Order to freeze all wages, rents and prices across the country.
Your premise behind this is grossly incorrect.
Congress gave the President authority through Treasury Department policy (which is definitely under the executive umbrella) to "stabilize prices, rents, wages, salaries, interest rates, dividends and similar transfers."
Economic Stabilization Act of 1970
Nixon's executive orders, in this case, were not a bold-faced unilateral power grab (Congress was in cahoots). Try again.
This post was edited on 2/19/14 at 8:43 am
Posted on 2/19/14 at 9:43 am to Draconian Sanctions
You should read Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. vs. Sawyer.
It will answer a lot of your "questions".
You are stumping for vast expansion of a President's power. Pretty shortsighted. Read the case, then read up on some of the recent EOs and you should be able to realize what the difference is with the recent EOs and the ones from previous administrations.
My guess is you already know this....but are just being disingenuous.
It will answer a lot of your "questions".
You are stumping for vast expansion of a President's power. Pretty shortsighted. Read the case, then read up on some of the recent EOs and you should be able to realize what the difference is with the recent EOs and the ones from previous administrations.
My guess is you already know this....but are just being disingenuous.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 9:53 am to TROLA
quote:
I believe Bush made some serious long term errors in ratcheting up the use of EO's and I fear in today's hyper partisan state, the true damage is clouded.
Cheney has plainly stated that he lamented the weakening of the executive power following Watergate and one of his goals during the GWB presidency was to bring the power back. Fan-fricking-tastic. Do these guys ever see beyond their 4-8 years? Do they think their party will rule forever?
And the fault for a lot of this falls on the ineffectual, derelict congress.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 10:03 am to Draconian Sanctions
why 8 down votes? This was a very thoughtful post in my opinion.
For my part, I think some of this is overreach by the federal government in general. Reduce that power and the power of the executive branch relative to the congress becomes less of an issue.
For my part, I think some of this is overreach by the federal government in general. Reduce that power and the power of the executive branch relative to the congress becomes less of an issue.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 10:08 am to BigJim
quote:
why 8 down votes? This was a very thoughtful post in my opinion
Probably because this is about the 8th thread he has started on this subject...and probably the first where he didn't accuse the board of being mouth breathing fox news right wing whacko idiots.
His talking point has been thoroughly discussed and he has been provided ample evidence to rebut his assertions...yet here he is again....
I didn't down vote fwiw
Posted on 2/19/14 at 11:03 am to Champagne
quote:
How do you respond to those who accuse Democrats of shameful hypocrisy with regard to this EO issue? During the Bush years, Democrats were apoplectic about the "Imperial Presidency" and EO usage. Now, in these latter days of a Democrat POTUS, Democrats quietly applaud Obama's innovative and decisive methods of governance and EO usage.
How does the OP respond to this accusation? Do such accusations bother you?
I mean yeah it bothers me. Politicians gonna politician though.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 11:09 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
well that's just not true
Yes it is. Technically speaking, anyway. That's why many many executive orders include a provision like this:
"This order is intended to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. "
Posted on 2/19/14 at 11:09 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Lets have an open and rhetoric free discussion about Executive Power
quote:So why the thread?
I mean yeah it bothers me. Politicians gonna politician though.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News