Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Jan 15, 2014.
Can you point to where in the order he does that? thanks
Considering that Bill's OP was criticizing the "pages and pages" of executive orders, sort of dodging and moving the argument, aren't we?
So, even assuming this is that "overreaching" EO that you indicate, what other ones from the "pages and pages" are? The first page that bill linked to "pages and pages" of EOs were on the following topics:
Adjustments in Certain Rates of Pay
Presidential Emergency Board
Preparing the United States for the Impact of Climate Change
Continuance of Certain Federal Advisory Committees
Prohibiting the Import of Certain Burmese Jadite and Rubies
Improving Chemical Facility Security and Safety
HIV Care Continuum Initiative
Combatting Wildlife Trafficking
Establishing a White House Counsel on Native American Affairs
Establishing the President's Advisory Council on Financial Cabability of Young Americans
These are hardly things that are not within the Executive Office's expected responsibilties.
It seems like you are criticizing the President for doing his job at he Chief Executive Officer (by issuing too many executive orders), but will be more than happy to criticize him for not doing his job if you think he's not doing enough. Perhaps picking a theory and sticking with it would better help your position.
Clearly the numbers aren't anything that back up the claim, although, I do think it's strange when Obama makes these weird threats about having a pen and using them(EOs) as some kind of weapon against Congress.
He only needs 3 more to (4 added the other day) to surpass Ford. Regardless, do the conservatives complain about the number of them, or are they complaining about the way he is using them?
This goes back to Obama's vacations. He may have went on less vaca's than Bush (up to this point), but the amount of money he spends for one is ridiculous. Bush stayed at a family ranch.... not at some 5 star luxury resort that cost a crap load.
Ohh yeah you now care about facts.... Fred you crack me up man.
I never mentioned numbers as being important and specifically said the numbers didn't matter so not sure where that is coming from when directed at me.
The continual overreach of the executive authority because he doesn't like the limits of the office power is the issue to me. Something about ignoring the fundamental law of separation of powers outlined in the constitution just strikes me as annoying. Maybe I should just put my head in the sand like so many others and not worry about what the next person might do with the ever reaching authority being usurped by this administration.
Be it recess appointments, declaration of CO2 as a pollutant due to global warming hoax, or enforcing laws or waiving them as he sees fit (ie 0care waivers/rulings and immigration issues to name a couple) it is all wrong. The executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws made by the legislative branch, not make new ones or pick and choose ones that he wants to enforce. When congress or the American people cede the right to pick and choose which laws to enforce or give the executive branch the right to effectively legislate by executive order then we have given up our rights and are one step closer to a dictatorship under whichever party happens to be in office at the time
You forgot to point out where in the order he makes the CO2 declaration. Thanks.
It was an administrative decision by the EPA that was driven by 0's EO on climate change. Parsing words again. The big picture is abuse of executive authority to enact an agenda that the American people did not authorize their congress to enact. That whole checks and balances thingy
It's not parsing words. You posted an executive order with the very specific claim that it " arbitrarily declare CO2 a gas that EPA can regulate." I was wondering where in the order it did that, given that it doesn't mention CO2 at all.
My comment was probably more directed to Bill, but I will address this point from your response.
This is not correct. Because law enforcement is not an unlimited budget endeavor, enforcement necessarily involves choosing priorities, which means some laws get enforced more than others. And some don't get enforced at all. And that is an Executive prorogative.
And if you think this Administration is the first to refuse to enforce a law, you are quite wrong. If you need an off-the-top-of-my-head example, I recommend you take a look at 18 U.S.C. s. 3501. To give you a bit of history, when the Warren Court (yep...that's how long we're going to show a federal law not being enforced) issued Miranda, Congress almost immediately overruled it. How can Congress overrule Miranda you ask? Well, if you read the opinion in Miranda, you will see that it doesn't actually say that Miranda's warnings are required by the Constitution. Rather, it sets out "prophylactic" warnings that will dissemenate the coercive environment of a custodial interrogation. Well, if the warnings weren't required by the Constitution, then Congress can overrule them. Which is exactly what 18 U.S.C. s. 3501 did. You can read it here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3501
Yet, despite that this was enacted in 1968 (!!!!) not one, NOT ONE, President sought to enforce it. It was only in 2000 that an intervenor, NOT the United States, raised the issue that Congress could overrule the prophylactic warnings imposed by Miranda and did through 18 U.S.C. s. 3501. After the Fourth Circuit agreed, the Supreme Court took the case and held that Miranda was constitutionally required (for the first time), and found that 18 U.S.C. s. 3501 was unconstiutional (strangely, basing much of its reasoning on the length of time that the warnings had permeated society, meaning that it may have been a different question if the United States had tried to enforce 18 U.S.C. 3501 earlier). Oh, and by the way, the United States would not defend the law in the Supreme Court either.
So for over 30 years and varying administrations, the United States simply ignored a law created by Congress. And, even though there was a good faith basis to pursue its application as overriding the prophylactic warnings created by Miranda, no Administration pursued it.
In sum, I don't see you complaining about every President since 1968 based on your rationale, so spare me the argument that all laws must be enforced. It may make a nice bumper sticker but its neither practical nor legally correct in any way.
True. Counting EOs is like counting presidential "vacation" days - not a particularly meaningful stat.
Was it by executive order or executive fiat that Obama declared that the law mandating ObamaCare need not be followed by certain groups? What provision of the Constitution gives a president the authority to decree that a law passed by the legislative branch does not apply to groups that the president chooses?
By what authority can a president decide to act on his own if he considers Congress to be disfunctional and not doing what he wants?