- 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
Lets have an open and rhetoric free discussion about Executive Power
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:28 pm
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:28 pm
This is something that is concerning a lot of people these days, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Ultimately I think a lot of people are hazy on exactly what it is the President of the United States can or can't do. There's a good reason for that because the framers obviously could not foresee so couldn't possibly answer all the questions that have arisen over the years. I'd like to try to talk about it without getting into a blame game or a flame war. I realize that's a tough challenge but I'm going to give it a shot. To do that I'm going to write about the recent history to illustrate how we got where we are today.
The points in history that have seen this issue bubble up the most have been when one party controls Congress and the other controls the White House. The Republican-controlled Congresses of the 1920s objected to the 1,203 executive orders issued by Calvin Coolidge, nor did the Democratic Congresses of the 1930s complain about Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 3,522 executive orders. The Executive Order at that time was at least partially used as a tool to bypass the need for a vote so a congressmen could avoid having to take responsibility for something he supported for whatever reason but his constituents did not.
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.
LINK
Between President Ford and Clinton, the Presidency went into a bit of a wane in terms of the powers exercised, but this changed dramatically after 9/11:
LINK
and has continued with this President and shows no signs of slowing until the end of his term. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in either primary leading up to 2016? How much of a national priority, in your opinion, should this be?
The points in history that have seen this issue bubble up the most have been when one party controls Congress and the other controls the White House. The Republican-controlled Congresses of the 1920s objected to the 1,203 executive orders issued by Calvin Coolidge, nor did the Democratic Congresses of the 1930s complain about Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 3,522 executive orders. The Executive Order at that time was at least partially used as a tool to bypass the need for a vote so a congressmen could avoid having to take responsibility for something he supported for whatever reason but his constituents did not.
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.
LINK
Between President Ford and Clinton, the Presidency went into a bit of a wane in terms of the powers exercised, but this changed dramatically after 9/11:
LINK
and has continued with this President and shows no signs of slowing until the end of his term. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in either primary leading up to 2016? How much of a national priority, in your opinion, should this be?
This post was edited on 2/18/14 at 9:36 pm
19
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:33 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
There's a good reason for that because the framers obviously could not foresee so couldn't possibly answer all the questions that have arisen over the years.
One thing I know about our framers with complete certainty, and all rhetoric aside...
They did not want a king. Or one who looked, talked, walked, or acted like he was one.
This post was edited on 2/18/14 at 9:35 pm
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:35 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I wonder how much of an issue this will be in either primary leading up to 2016? How much of a national priority, in your opinion, should this be?
This should be an issue of paramount importance, in my opinion. However, I don't see it being pressed unless the media chooses to do so. I wish I could have more confidence in that happening but i am afeared it won't be so.
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:40 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Executive orders should be the exception, not the rule.
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:42 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
The Executive Order at that time was at least partially used as a tool to bypass the need for a vote so a congressmen could avoid having to take responsibility for something he supported for whatever reason but his constituents did not.
This is wrong, regardless of what party does it. Our officials are there to represent the people's wishes, not enact their own agenda and weasel around being held accountable for supporting any unpopular agenda.
Executive orders are exclusively for the President to use in order to enforce a law. They are not a law themselves, and they are not there to alter a law to a President's liking.
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:43 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
How much of a national priority, in your opinion, should this be?
I think it should be of utmost importance. Growth and over-reach of the executive branch disturbs me more than the debt or economy.
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:50 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I wonder how much of an issue this will be in either primary leading up to 2016?
It will probably be used as a big hot button issue in the Republican primaries, but as usual, politicians (especially the Republicans for this cycle, like Dems did during W's term) will talk about the dangers of the concentration of power in the executive branch....then do absolutely nothing about it. In fact, if they get into the WH, chances are they will somehow increase the power of the Executive branch.
quote:
How much of a national priority, in your opinion, should this be?
The growth of government power in general should be the biggest concern, period. The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. Now, I know that doesn't directly address the EO angle you're taking, but EOs are a part of the "bigger government" problem we have.
Posted on 2/18/14 at 9:54 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
rhetoric free
Posted on 2/18/14 at 10:08 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
and has continued with this President and shows no signs of slowing until the end of his term. I wonder how much of an issue this will be in either primary leading up to 2016? How much of a national priority, in your opinion, should this be?
No political issue, because BOTH parties want to use it. Like lobbying. Neither party intend on regulating lobbying. They both hope for future jobs by listening to them one on one. Not against it, but lobbying ought to be before Congress. No meals, trips, hiring relatives. Any office holder should be kicked out immediately if found doing so. Companies or organizations should have the RIGHT to lobbying, but nothing behind the scenes.
Posted on 2/18/14 at 11:15 pm to Draconian Sanctions
I'll play.
EO's as a tool have been implemented by every President to varying degrees.
Having a President just come out and say he doesn't need Congress and can do whatever he wants and plans to via EO's is some chilling shite.
I know you are OK with it because he is the Chosen One but don't ask questions when you already know the answer.
EO's as a tool have been implemented by every President to varying degrees.
Having a President just come out and say he doesn't need Congress and can do whatever he wants and plans to via EO's is some chilling shite.
I know you are OK with it because he is the Chosen One but don't ask questions when you already know the answer.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 5:38 am to Draconian Sanctions
EOs are tricky. I can see the need where a law is silent or ambiguous on a particular related to it.
I think EOs should only be used as an ancillary to existing laws, not to create new ones out of thin air where none exist.
This isn't much help because we have so many laws and regulations on every subject that it is easy to find something to graft an EO to in order to call it ancillary.
In the end it comes down to the philosophy of the president. Is he centered around big government activism/paternalism or does he believe in the autonomy/freedom of the individual?
I think EOs should only be used as an ancillary to existing laws, not to create new ones out of thin air where none exist.
This isn't much help because we have so many laws and regulations on every subject that it is easy to find something to graft an EO to in order to call it ancillary.
In the end it comes down to the philosophy of the president. Is he centered around big government activism/paternalism or does he believe in the autonomy/freedom of the individual?
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.
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 7:10 am to Draconian Sanctions
Draconian Sanctions;dr
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 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 8:40 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 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 3:10 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
rhetoric free discussion
'rhetoric' means 'speech.' Therefore, you want to have a discussion without anyone speaking.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News