- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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: Obama's alleged Executive Order "dictatorship"
Posted on 2/16/14 at 8:44 am to MFn GIMP
Posted on 2/16/14 at 8:44 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
Does it happen? Sure but that doesn't make it ok
I didn't say it made it okay. I have, on multiple occasions, said that I have reservations about the EO system as ell as the growing power of the executive post 9/11.
The main issue I have is people singling out Obama as if this is all new with him because that couldn't be further from the truth.
quote:
Please explain to me how the President can decide that December 31, 2013 does not mean December 31, 2013 but instead December 31, 2015.
The law still says 12/31/13, but he's not going to enforce it until 12/31/15.
1
Posted on 2/16/14 at 8:45 am to Draconian Sanctions
Sherlock voice is winning the argument in my head.
Advantage Drac
Advantage Drac
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:05 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
The law still says 12/31/13, but he's not going to enforce it until 12/31/15.
Which is an unconstitutional use of executive power.
How would you feel if President Rand Paul decided to not enforce EPA laws or taxes that he disagreed with?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:18 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
Which is an unconstitutional use of executive power.
Even if that's what you believe, and I think there's a long and interesting discussion we could get into on this, it's still the point that Obama is neither the first nor (very likely) the last to engage in such tactics. Ultimately I think this falls under the "being an a-hole" category rather than the unconstitutional one. I know a lot of people on here love throwing that word around to vent their frustrations but Obama has been sued on this exact thing and thusfar the SCOTUS, with a conservative majority i might add, have not rebuked him on it. And I would especially say that you should find something else to bitch about if your best example is simply him giving a temporary waiver to certain businesses as an almost tacit acknowledgment that his own health care reform has been a massive failure.
The entire point of this thread is that Obama is not doing anything that many other presidents on both sides of the aisle have done. It's fine to criticize the system, and I would stand with you on that (as I stated in the OP and several other times in this thread). I just want people to be consistent and not focus only on the President whom they don't like the letter next to his name. This exact same thing went on under Bush with his infamous "signing statements", yet this board defended his right to do that consistently.
quote:
How would you feel if President Rand Paul decided to not enforce EPA laws or taxes that he disagreed with?
My position on executive power would not change. But how many on here would defend him if he did that though? A bet a whole lot.
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 9:22 am
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:20 am to L.A.
quote:
The point the article seems to miss is that much of the concern from the right stems from Obama's State of the Union speech and his declared intent to use executive orders MORE in the FUTURE, bypassing congress MORE often than he has in the PAST.
Your presumption that executive orders are always a COnstitutional bypass of Congress is false.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:31 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Link me to them and I'll explain to you why they're wrong.
Ok , so we are all wrong. Liberal Constitutional Professor Jonathan Turley is wrong. You can't get to his website from your computer apparently. How about Constitutional scholar Jonathan Adler:
LINK
quote:
Whatever the stated reason for the new delay, it is illegal. The text of the PPACA is quite clear. The text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides that the employer mandate provisions “shall apply” after December 31, 2013. The Treasury Department claims that it has broad authority to offer “transition relief” in implementing the law. That may often be true, but not here. The language of the statute is clear, and it is well established that when Congress enacts explicit deadlines into federal statutes, without also providing authority to waive or delay such deadlines, federal agencies are obligated to stay on schedule. So, for instance, federal courts routinely force the Environmental Protection Agency to act when it misses deadlines and environmentalist groups file suit.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:34 am to stuntman
quote:
Not all EOs are equal. Some toe the line of constitutionality more than others
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:36 am to Draconian Sanctions
keep clinging to the tu quoque fallacy. Its really all y'all have anymore.Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:38 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
dude we don't even really like Obama that much at this point. Haven't for quite some time really.
And yet you on the left are confused about us on the right who show disdain, or extreme dislike for the man?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:39 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I know a lot of people on here love throwing that word around to vent their frustrations but Obama has been sued on this exact thing and thusfar the SCOTUS, with a conservative majority i might add, have not rebuked him on it. And I would especially say that you should find something else to bitch about
Oh, thank you for your legal opinion. Tell me, were you this paternalistic as a law student or did they issue you a metric shite ton of smugness when you got to Austin?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:43 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Obama has been sued on this exact thing and thusfar the SCOTUS, with a conservative majority i might add, have not rebuked him on it
That is a corollary irony here. "Conservative" Scotus judges can not challenge his clear violation of Separation of Powers precisely because they are observing The Constitutional demand not to exceed their authority.
As you know Scotus just can't "rebuke him". That would be extra-Constitutional.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:46 am to Lsupimp
quote:
That is a corollary irony here. "Conservative" Scotus judges can not challenge his clear violation of Separation of Powers precisely because they are observing The Constitutional demand not to exceed their authority.
As you know Scotus just can't "rebuke him". That would be extra-Constitutional.
Holy shite, we actually got something in your own words rather than you just quoting someone else!
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:47 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
And yet you on the left are confused about us on the right who show disdain, or extreme dislike for the man?
the right should love Obama. He's a corporate lackey.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:49 am to Tiguar
quote:
keep clinging to the tu quoque fallacy. Its really all y'all have anymore.
i'm not clinging to anything. I'm pointing out the right's hypocrisy.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:50 am to Draconian Sanctions
If numbers are all that matter rather than extent, then a president could avoid all criticism by issuing a single Executive Order claiming imperial power. Who could possibly complain?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:50 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
the right should love Obama. He's a corporate lackey.
Only uses their money to increase his power, and advance his leftist philosophy.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:54 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
his leftist philosophy
he doesn't have one. it's all rhetoric. He sold us out a long time ago.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:54 am to Draconian Sanctions
And you still avoid all the arguments by Constitutional scholars as if your life depended on it. You are into Tuba territory now-asking for evidence and then just avoiding it when it is graciously presented to you. You aren't defending your position with any intellectual integrity. You are merely defending your Narrative. I thought you were better than that. Palace Guard much? 
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:55 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
i'm not clinging to anything. I'm pointing out the right's hypocrisy.
Your gotcha moment failed miserably. Own up to it and move on.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 9:56 am to Lsupimp
quote:
And you still avoid all the arguments by Constitutional scholars as if your life depended on it. You are into Tuba territory now-asking for evidence and then just avoiding it when it is graciously presented to you. You aren't defending your position with any intellectual integrity. You are merely defending your Narrative. I thought you were better than that. Palace Guard much?
It's because he thinks your opinions are beneath him.
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News