Using an Executive Order to pass legislation! UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


See, that is the thing, none of these people put the country above themselves.

Yes, everyone could tell me that I myself would not stand by my attitude that I state here. That is where they would be wrong.

The enslavement of my countrymen and the people of the world our my family. They are what make me who I am.

The Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund is the NWO. They control everything by OUR labor. They use our debt to fund their control.

We HAVE to realize who the enemy is. They are the few, not the many!

We will sooner or later realize this and do the right thing.

Usury fees in the way they are used to control the ENTIRE world will sooner or later become apparent.

Hopefully, sooner than later! Before millions more of us have to be ensnared in their destructive control!

reply to post by endisnighe

Here is the situation. The Senate bill has language in it that does not address representatives like Stupak. They want language to make sure that abortions are not funded by federal funds.

Here is the solution that the Dems have come up with.

They have been told that by Obama instituting an Executive Order to disallow the federal funding.

He is not issuing an Executive Order to disallow the federal funding like this is something new.

He is issuing an Executive Order that will say that CURRENT LAW that prohibits federal funding of abortion shall still be the law of the land regardless of language in the Health Care bill.

So he is ENFORCING CURRENT LAW...which is what the EXECUTIVE branch is supposed to do.

This isn't even a complicated subject...summed up here very nice and short.

Link to Source


I'm not sure what the controversy is here...all he is doing is ENFORCING CURRENT LAW.

HOW in any way do you think this is unconstitutional????

Originally posted by Maxmars


But exactly how does the phrase "Bush did it too." make it more or less constitutional?

Because if Bush could do it without reproach then the practice was indeed constitutional. If one is allowed then the other should be as well.

This whole health care debate has been an exercise in "Dualism" and I daresay most of you screaming about that fact are about as deep into the practice as those you decry.

Originally posted by endisnighe
The Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund is the NWO. They control everything by OUR labor. They use our debt to fund their control.

Well not exactly, but your close. They USE the FED, IMF, UN, World Bank and other financial institutions to control the world.

The illuminati, some say is satanic, is compromised of at least thirteen families of which most people are familiar with. Very big names indeed!

Mayer Amschel Rothschild quote: Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Okay, I am going to reiterate my question one more time for you.

Using an EO for the purpose of getting a legislative action through congress, this is an interference of the legislative branch by the executive branch.

Now, you can do whatever you want by linking to a DAMN newspaper article. BUT, I could care less what a reporter thinks.

This has NOTHING to do with opinion. This has to do with Constitutional precedent.

NEVER has the executive branch interfered in the legislative branch in this type of legislation.

So, what were you saying again?

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

NEVER has the executive branch interfered in the legislative branch in this type of legislation.

Um yes, it's happened before. Clinton did it and so did the last joker. Power accumulated is not given away at transition.

reply to post by endisnighe


And he isn't interfering in the legislative process. The EO won't be executed until AFTER the legislative process.

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about this. It is in fact his JOB. If there is ANY question on if this new bill could use federal funds to fund abortion...it is OBAMA'S JOB to issue an EO to ENFORCE the CURRENT LAW. That is all it does...it doesn't create new law, it doesn't interfere with anything...it REITERATES that CURRENT LAW will be ENFORCED.


If you don't understand this simple concept...then I can't help you. There is nothing complicated or ambiguous about this.


Exactly what problem do you have with enforcing current law?

Originally posted by antonia

Because if Bush could do it without reproach then the practice was indeed constitutional. If one is allowed then the other should be as well.

This whole health care debate has been an exercise in "Dualism" and I daresay most of you screaming about that fact are about as deep into the practice as those you decry.

I apologize if my post leads you to believe so.

In my experience, there were those who questioned Bush (and multiple prior EO users.) There was, however, a lack of popularity in defending the practice as it has been of late. And there are many to this day who cannot truthfully state they know much about executive orders and constitutionality.

The executive must have power to react despite institutional lag or bureaucratic inertia. EO's are part of that power, they do not equate to unaccountability.

Republican and Democrat ideology (whatever THEY are) are not the 'progenitors' of the vehicle. Like any tool, what demand attentiveness is HOW it is used... not what club the user belongs to.

This is not about adversarial confrontation. It is about whether the tool is being used as an adjunct to the constitution, or simply as a shortcut around due process (or worse).

This doesn't even touch upon the notion of "secret" executive orders.

reply to post by antonia


So is this good or bad what you state here?

Do you think we should have a dictatorship?

It certainly seems like people think that if it was done before, it excuses it.

I guess when the next president wants to round up dissidents, that will go over fine with you, by your position so far.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by antonia

 

So is this good or bad what you state here?

Do you think we should have a dictatorship?

It certainly seems like people think that if it was done before, it excuses it.

I guess when the next president wants to round up dissidents, that will go over fine with you, by your position so far.

Note, I did not say if I found it good or bad. Generally, I find pretty much everyone in these sort of debates to be hypocrites. It's ok when one party does it and anathema when the other does it. I look at the practice as a whole. I say it's permissible by the general fact people put up with it when their man is in office. The Judiciary allows it, they are the ones in a position to do something about it. Congress doesn't fuss about it unless it's a hot button issue.

There should be some universal rule but, that will only get support when the vast majority don't like the guy in office.

Different User:

This is not about adversarial confrontation. It is about whether the tool is being used as an adjunct to the constitution, or simply as a shortcut around due process (or worse).

I have no adversary. I do however see patterns of behavior among those arguing. This is an old practice and it seems to only draw attention when one doesn't like who is in office. This is by no means fair. Obama isn't doing anything new. As to if this is constitutional, the question hasn't been answered. The only branch that can truly answer it is the Judiciary. They haven't moved so, I have to assume it's either legal or they don't care if it is.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by antonia]

Admit it, all of you whining about this are right wingers?

And you still buy into the two party system ?

And I'll bet you think Obama is responsible for the bail out ?

Wouldn't creating an EO to override a portion of a bill that you signed into law be the same as having a line-item veto? Except in this case, it is being used to pass a law that Congress does not have to go through the motion of gaining a 2/3 vote in both houses to pass the bill into law?

If I ever become president, I am passing an EO that allows me to be Executioner In Chief and give out a shout of "Run you little Congress Critters!" when I do.

Originally posted by endisnighe
NEVER has the executive branch interfered in the legislative branch in this type of legislation.

So, what were you saying again?

Never? Really?

Wasn't it the arizona GOP candidate running for president that advised ex-president bush to bypass congress and give the bailouts to "too big to fail" companies by executive order?

Am I the only one seeing the hypocrisy here? Granted obama continued the bailout game by adding another trillion to the deficit but republicans have a bad habit of passing more EOs than democrats and worst of all they are more secret.

Republicans and NWO have the same agenda, while democrats are forced to abide to stay alive. At least that is the picture being painted so far!

Wow, I am shocked that it took 'til page 3 for someone to point out what was ACTUALLY happening. My family and I were just talking about this, and then I stumbled on a news article about it too. Here's what's really happening:

1) There is a congressman who was going to vote against the health care bill because it doesn't address abortion in any way. So I guess he thought that it would allow federal funding for abortion, or something, since it didn't specifically prohibit it.

2) There is already a ban on federal funding for abortion.

3) Obama has promised to issue an Executive Order maintaining that very law in order to get this congressman to get over his objection.

The only interference is dialogue. There's no need for this EO, it's just there to reassure a guy who would vote for the Healthcare Bill if it included something which maintained a law that was already in effect.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Am I the only one seeing the hypocrisy here? Granted obama continued the bailout game by adding another trillion to the deficit but republicans have a bad habit of passing more EOs than democrats and worst of all they are more secret.

Republicans and NWO have the same agenda, while democrats are forced to abide to stay alive. At least that is the picture being painted so far!

No you are not the only one. Frankly, I'll be glad when health care flops or passes either way. Perhaps all the rhetoric will die down. I doubt it though.....I'm burnt out and sick of people screeching it's the end of the planet, your baby is satan or whatever else pro or con for the issue.

I've assumed it's legal since the practice is common and has been uncontested by both Congress and the Courts.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Wouldn't creating an EO to override a portion of a bill that you signed into law be the same as having a line-item veto? Except in this case, it is being used to pass a law that Congress does not have to go through the motion of gaining a 2/3 vote in both houses to pass the bill into law?

I might be misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you're misunderstanding the legislative process.

To actually pass the bill, all that is needed is a simple majority in both the house and senate, as well as the President's approval. If there is a veto, then if they want to get it passed they need to get a 2/3rds vote.

Originally posted by Solasis
Wow, I am shocked that it took 'til page 3 for someone to point out what was ACTUALLY happening.

I'm not shocked. I was just reading the thread, shaking my head and giggling until I came across Outcast's post that set the record straight and said what I was going to say if no one else had. I can always count on Outcast to bring some sense ot an otherwise "sky is falling" thread.

I think it's pretty hilarious that people are so frantic about this bill passing today that they are grasping at every last straw to prevent it from happening. I saw Michelle Bachmann on TV saying, "An executive order isn't law..." etc,. trying to scare the people into doing something about it. And now here, I read what amounts to: "I don't know anything about the Constitution, but I'm sure this is against it"!

endisnigh, why don't you look things up before you post another "sky is falling" thread? Why don't you get some facts? Ah, right. If you had the facts, you couldn't claim unconstitutionality. I get it.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Hey, just asking questions right?!

Since everyone thinks that what GW did was FINE AND DANDY, I guess just another EO is FINE AND DANDY.

Just wondering, RIGHT?

People think I am hypocritical? That in and of itself is hypocritical. Please tell me one time that I have EVER said what GW or any other president using EO's to bypass the legislative branch, was fine by me.

Sorry, not going to find one. I am all about removing the power of the federal government.

If this was a state component, I would say go for it!

But it seems this is going to become another federal MANDATE that the states are NOT going to be able to afford without increasing TAXES again.

Please refute this! Cannot? Oh yeah, this is all we need, more federal mandated crap that no one can afford.

EXCELLENT! Freedom is gone. Liberty is gone. Free Choice is gone.

Might just as well leave.

reply to post by Solasis


Exactly. And a line item veto power (which the president does not have) is the same as full veto except that he will pass the legislation if the Congress will.

What I am saying is that by using a EO, the president is signing a bill into law and then giving a veto over a provision of the bill (just like a line item veto) only Congress doesn't have to do anything.

Often in unpopular bills, a rider is thrown in to prevent passage in the House or by the President such as "No French wine can be imported into the US." by using an EO the President could sign a bill into law and then EO out the rider or everything but the rider for that matter.

The EO in this case, is being used to circumvent the legislative process and is being used in a fashion that upsets the Checks and Balances that are in place to prevent abuses of power.

In the case of Obama and the HCR provision of no federal funding of abortions, it is being used as a clarifier of current law. (which is ignored by the way of groups such as Planned Parenthood funding the cost which also receive grants for sex education and birth control measures). However, his EO in this case would be superseded by the HCR if it does provide for the funding of abortions or groups that fund them once he signs it into law. In this case, it really does depend if the EO is officially declared before or after the signing as to if it was symbolic or has meaning.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by endisnighe

 

And he isn't interfering in the legislative process. The EO won't be executed until AFTER the legislative process.

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about this. It is in fact his JOB. If there is ANY question on if this new bill could use federal funds to fund abortion...it is OBAMA'S JOB to issue an EO to ENFORCE the CURRENT LAW. That is all it does...it doesn't create new law, it doesn't interfere with anything...it REITERATES that CURRENT LAW will be ENFORCED.


If you don't understand this simple concept...then I can't help you. There is nothing complicated or ambiguous about this.


Exactly what problem do you have with enforcing current law?

Actually, this doesn't sound like an enforcement action as much as an INTERPRETATION action. Reiterating, up front how the new law should be interpreted. Interpretation actions should be left to the 3rd branch, the judicial branch.

Your words here:

If there is ANY question on if this new bill could use federal funds to fund abortion...it is OBAMA'S JOB to issue an EO to ENFORCE the CURRENT LAW.

My words here:

If there is ANY question on if this new bill could use federal funds to fund abortion... either the legislature should clarify this point within the new legislation OR it is THE JUDICIAL BRANCH'S JOB to interpret the new law in light of the existing law.