Using an Executive Order to pass legislation! UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Originally posted by endisnighe
Let me say this slower..........subsidizing...........insurance.........that.........already.........
covers........abortion........will.........use.........federal..........funds...........
to............pay............for.........abortions.

IMO the federal government has no business paying for abortion, regardless of circumstances. In cases of proven rape, state funds can and should cover all the necessary costs if the patient/client cannot afford it.

Does'nt state welfare already cover this? Some states do and some don't? Not sure!

Originally posted by endisnighe
Hence the EO is just a political maneuver to cover Democrats from the fallout of federal funds to pay for abortions. It will NOT enforce the older law, unless you think that insurance in the FUTURE will not allow abortions.

Do you SEE this yet? Slow enough?
[edit on 3/22/2010 by endisnighe]

Yeah, a lot of monkey business is going on as we speak but the republicans are just as guilty as the democrats for stalling, lying, misinterpretating, etc.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I agree, both parties have to be destroyed and in a hurry.

Both of them are destroying this country for their own projects.

The Repubs for the Empire.

The Dems for their cronies.

Neither party ever rescinds the past legislation of the other party, they just add to it.

War, Patriot Act, Bankster Bailouts, Increasing the power of the Federal Reserve, etc etc etc.

We cannot maintain this empire any longer, their solution, destroy the US and move on. Just like damn locusts. Suck us dry.

I would LOVE to know the value of the Federal Reserve Bankster's assets.

What do you think, 100 Trillion, 300 Trillion, 4 Quadrillion?

If we ever found out, do you think these asshat's in power would say the EARNED IT?!

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by endisnighe

 

A few points that I must made.

1. The Supreme court never ruled that the income tax was unconstitutional after the 16th amendment. I know there are a lot of tax protesters out there that believe otherwise, but as a lawyer I would never attempt to make that argument in a real court because I would lose my license for making a frivolous argument. (Keep in mind, in America, the bar is set very high as to what kinds of arguments are so frivolous that a lawyer will be subject to sanction for making them.)

I disagree! According to many people the income tax was never properly ratified by all the states thus IT IS UNCONSTITUNIONAL regardless of what the SC thinks.

The fact that the SC has not challenged and corrected THIS MOST BASIC ISSUE tells me that the federal government does not care one iota about the constitution, american citizens and the country. Perhaps the judicial branch is THE MOST CORRUPT of the three SUPPOSSEDLY SEPERATED branches.

And you tell me the bar is set very high and that a lawyer would be sanctioned for arguing such "trivial cases"? Is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 also trivial? What exactly is important then???

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I agree, both parties have to be destroyed and in a hurry.

Both of them are destroying this country for their own projects.

The Repubs for the Empire.

The Dems for their cronies.

Neither party ever rescinds the past legislation of the other party, they just add to it.

It may come as A SUPRISE to some but there are MORE than two political parties running in local and federal elections. They never get the proper exposure from mainstream media and secondly they can't even register in many states.

Originally posted by endisnighe
We cannot maintain this empire any longer, their solution, destroy the US and move on. Just like damn locusts. Suck us dry.

Indeed that is true! They intially made USA what it is(or should I say was) today and now they plan to destroy america AND europe in favor of asia, primarily china.

They create the necessary conditions to influence economies AT WILL! If the american and european governments had ANY credibility left they would be raising their tariffs considerably, not encouraging "free" UNBALANCED TRADE!

How can local, non-multinational companies paying relatively high wages and benefits compete with the huge multinational firms paying dirt cheap wages in asia? Nevermind asian "knock-off" companies that primarily sell through the internet but get so much negative publicity they can't sell anything.

Originally posted by endisnighe
I would LOVE to know the value of the Federal Reserve Bankster's assets.

What do you think, 100 Trillion, 300 Trillion, 4 Quadrillion?

If we ever found out, do you think these asshat's in power would say the EARNED IT?!

The rothschilds who own most banks in europe and the republican party in america are said to be worth 50 trillion alone. The rockefellers who own the FED and the democratic party are said to be worth about 10 trillion.

That leaves another 11 unaccountable families flying under the radar. Google *satanic bloodlines of the illuminati* to see who they are and what they do. It is mindboggling, but believable!

[edit on 23-3-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Yeah, the whole problem with the bloodlines and such, the picture is hidden behind MOUNTAINS of lawyers and accountants. Charities, trust funds, foundations, etc etc etc.

To hide the truth is their machinations. To hide their power, is their strength.

All one has to do is see where all money flows, right to the banks that control it all.

I have some monopoly money, want to give me the world?

reply to post by endisnighe


I have no problems with commercial banks lending money for a profit. I do have a problem with semi-private CENTRAL banks ISSUING money to everyone for profit and control. Since the bank issues money via the treasury department that simply prints it, that means government has been usurped at the highest possible level.

That also means it matters ZILT who we vote in office because the shareholders of that "semi"-private bank will approach our representatives and make sure via THEIR MONEY that we the people get screwed in favor of THEIR HIGHNESS'S wishes.

In other words its not the monopoly money that is the problem, its WHO ISSUES IT THAT MATTERS! They very cleverly got the US Treasury Department involved to confuse everyone into thinking its government money when its not. Since 1913 the FED has never been audited once and if people mention it they threaten economic armageddon as witnessd by ron paul's request.

The same is true in europe with its so called "socialism" and people paying 45% of their income to support the central bank "mafia". If government really issued money no one would be required to pay more than 10% of their income and all governments would have a surplus rather than a defecit.

Common sense but mainstream propaganda has been working overtime for decades to confuse people and make them submissive to this perverted system.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Exactly, I actually got into an argument with my MacroEconomics professor about this very issue back in 88.

He said the government could not be trusted to control the money. My response was, why would we as a Nation, give a Private Firm the power to create wealth by interest and inflation instead of reaping the benefits of that wealth ourselves.

His response was that I did not understand the intricasies of monetary policy. These idiots are just that in the colleges, idiots. They have no idea, or they are complicit, that we could clear our debt in about a decade if we took over the federal reserve.

One SIMPLE solution. Will it ever be done? I think we see what is happening now is the realization that they are implementing the next parameter.

reply to post by Solasis


Wow, EXACTLY as I said, an EO CANNOT override a LAW.

LET ME SEE, WHAT WAS IT I SAID AGAIN IN THE OP-



[edit on 3/23/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


Oh for...

My anger now is justified, I feel. I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS GOING TO OVERRIDE THE LAW, YOU IDIOT.

reply to post by Solasis


C'mon now, no reason to get mad at me, just because I was right and you were wrong.

If you get some judge to back your argument, you probably may be right. I am just stating that I have legislative people backing my argument.

I am sure you will have courts backing your argument.

No need to get all TESTE.

reply to post by endisnighe


What? I'm getting mad because you're completely mischaracterizing what I said. IN fact, you're claiming that I said the exact opposite of what I said! I don't care about the facts of what's happenign anymore, I care about the facts of how you argue, which is an awful, inconsistent method of disregarding everything that is said to you, except when it is convenient to rearrange it into the opposite.

Go to hell. I'm done here.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Exactly, I actually got into an argument with my MacroEconomics professor about this very issue back in 88.

He said the government could not be trusted to control the money. My response was, why would we as a Nation, give a Private Firm the power to create wealth by interest and inflation instead of reaping the benefits of that wealth ourselves.

They simply parrot what they learned in college themselves as they believe everything without really questioning anything. Its all about getting good grades and making lots of money with your toilet paper degree.

Originally posted by endisnighe
His response was that I did not understand the intricasies of monetary policy. These idiots are just that in the colleges, idiots. They have no idea, or they are complicit, that we could clear our debt in about a decade if we took over the federal reserve.

One SIMPLE solution. Will it ever be done? I think we see what is happening now is the realization that they are implementing the next parameter.

Indeed the same people that think america is becoming socialistic and that democrats are socialists and/or communists. (sarcasm) I never knew bailing out PRIVATE companies was considered "socialism" as in the past it was used to describe the government(an extension of the people) bailing out government held operations, such as was the case in europe 2-3 decades ago before privatisation. (/sarcasm)

[edit on 24-3-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Well, not talking about Executive Orders only.

I am talking about the President using an Executive Order to sidestep language in legislation in Congress.

The House Reps had a problem with the Senate version, so instead of it going back to the Senate, Obama promises that he will execute an EO.

Yes, everything in regards to EO's I find abhorrent.

ALL OF THEM WW! Not just Obama's everyone of them in perpetuity. ALL OF THEM.

The system of our government was the 3 branches. Sorry, I find our country to be going down the road of a dictatorship. The power is getting funneled to the Executive Branch. There is no longer the separation required.

Welcome to the new US of A.

This is the smartest post I have read yet in relation to all the health care bill threads

reply to post by Verbal_Hologram


Thanks for the compliment.

Originally posted by endisnighe
Alright everyone, I want to know the Constitutionality of using an Executive Order to pass legislation in the Congress.
They have been told that by Obama instituting an Executive Order to disallow the federal funding.
Here is the question, is there NOT a separation of the Three Branches of Government?

So by the very use of an EXECUTIVE ORDER to pass legislation in the Congress, does this not become unConstitutional?

Yes, there is, or rather was a separation of powers, this is in the language of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitutions of several States, and the Constitution.

Executive Orders are Law by Edict.

edict

A decree or law of major import promulgated by a king, queen, or other sovereign of a government.

An edict can be distinguished from a public proclamation in that an edict puts a new statute into effect whereas a public proclamation is no more than a declaration of a law prior to its actual enactment.

Under Roman Law, an edict had different meanings. It was usually a mandate published under the authority of a ruler that commanded the observance of various rules or injunctions. Sometimes, however, an edict was a citation to appear before a judge.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

source

Abraham Lincoln's Program of Black Resettlement

In the aftermath of the Confederate seizure of Fort Sumter in mid-April, Lincoln called upon the states to provide 75,000 soldiers to put down the rebellion. Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina responded by leaving the Union and joining the newly-formed "Confederate States of America." This increased the size of the Confederacy by a third, and almost doubled its population and economic resources. Remaining with the Union, though, were four slave-holding border states -- Delaware, Missouri, Maryland and Kentucky -- and, predictably, the slave-holding District of Columbia.

source

Arguably, President Lincoln issued the first Executive Order which by passed the Congress, for at the time there was no Congress, some of the Congressmen and Senators had walked out in protest. All must be present and accounted for for Congress to be complete. Since that time there has been a few more of these Executive Orders, George Bush was famous for them. You could call the Patriot Act a law by edict, for is was presented for vote before anyone could read it, and even then it took researchers a few months to digest it all, and learned what it really means. The language of the Bill is confusing. On purpose. This cannot be allowed. Only the Congress can declare war on a Nation, and the President, for all of his glow and personality, is basically powerless if the Constitution is followed to the letter of the law. A County Sheriff has more power than the president, in that he/she can declare a Common Law Court be established.

Using an Executive Order to pass legislation! UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Google "Executive Orders" and see what has been done.

Seriously this is what happens when you have one party controlling two branches of government, it is called a 'soft tyranny' which is swiftly turning into a hard tyranny.

Get a grip. Executive Orders are unconstitutional to begin with. Start there.

I was going to start a thread about why it is unconstitutional for Obama to use Executive orders to make gun law.

If you read about the first time an Executive Order was found unconstitutional under Truman.

Until 1952, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution.

Here Obama would be making law .... The question is that will Congress pass the bill to make the Executive order legal? The Executive Order can not make law according to a Supreme Court decision unless Congress follows up with legislation making the law official.

Here is an explanation as to where the executive order power is found in the Constitution.

U.S. presidents have issued executive orders since 1785. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[2] the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[3]

I found this information at en.wikipedia.org...

I do not think Obama can act unilaterally to limit guns without being followed up by a law passed by Congress. Clearly this is basis of the Truman decision...... so case law is against Obama!

reply to post by autowrench


actually, you are wrong .... in 1952 that changed ..... by a Supreme Court decision ....

Until 1952, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.

by Obama making specific guns banned is making law not making or adjusting policy ....