An honest question to those on the left.

reply to post by Mephisito


Same old song at Forbes. Numerical comparison of E.O.s. No comparisons regarding what those E.O.s were addressing.

Your about the fifth or sixth poster that have used that argument. My point is these O.E.s go directly against laws he orchestrated and signed into law.

I'm not even sure that other presidents haven't done the same. Surely not as blatantly as in the State of the Union address.

I can say that with the microscopic coverage gov't gets now, the sheer number of E.O.s and their consequences have never been covered/exposed as now.

Arrogance or honesty? Both?

reply to post by olaru12


I agree that he isn't a liberal. He's a socialist, apparently. As for why the "right" isn't dancing in the isles, different corporations?

pavil



I agree. Both sides are acting in a vaccum that they think their policies are 100% right. There is no room for accommodating the other side at all. Compromise is a dead term in Modern Politics in America.

Its as if modern politicians think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers. Our Founding Father had unlimited power, yet CHOSE to set in place things to limit that power. I seriously doubt either Modern Party would place curbs on their power. Current evidence proves me right.

*laughs* just like constitutional freedoms, people think that they know what the Founding Fathers intended or wanted. The people who bring it up the most, know the least about it/them.


George Washington was a Federalist. He supported a strong central government. He liked to hang out with rich guys.

Jefferson wanted it to be a country of small, independent farmers.

John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to criticize the government.

Franklin wanted a 3 person committee, instead of a singular president.

Wilson was strongly in favor of giving the government the power to tax.

Hamilton believed the government should be ruled intellectual aristocracy. A snob like washing. Not only that, he felt the President should have unlimited terms, much like the monarchy.

George Bush jr and his neocon friends Wolfy, Rummy , Dicky , Ricy and all friends from PNAC are the worst administration in history of US.Period.He ruined the real conservatives.People in America are so afraid from another Bush , they will vote Obama 10 terms, and he hardly deserved even one.

AlaskanDad

nwtrucker
reply to post by AlaskanDad

 

Total number of E.O.s is disingenuous. Period.

E.O.s that directly by-pass the congress, IN SESSION, that contravene his own legislation, that he signed into law IS the issue that is intended with this thread.

If you have any links to cite the number of EO's that fall into your specific niche:
E.O.s that directly by-pass the congress, IN SESSION, that contravene his own legislation, that he signed into law IS the issue that is intended with this thread.
if not I will take that as making your point about it moot.

nwtrucker
reply to post by AlaskanDad

 

Google it. It's far faster and there are plenty of links, if you are actually interested, that is.

While I do care and I did try to Google / search and that was how I came by the link to archives.gov.

nwtrucker since you proclaim knowledge of the specific differences in EO's I again ask you please cite links to to deny ignorance is what ABS is about and I welcome knowledge / facts, though I have little use for opinions.

Once again I will state I am not approving of either party and as for the office of president, I feel the presidency has become a scape goat for our congress that makes the laws and their lobbyists that write the laws. We tend to blame Bush or Obama for the signing of the bills that came from congress.

reply to post by nwtrucker


I don't think you'll get an honest answer.

The progressive ideology is for big government, nanny-state, no freedoms.

The US Constitution is a hinderance to them. An anathema.

Just my humble 2 cents

I voted, hopefully for the Hope and Changie guy back when it was that or Bomb, Bomb Iran McCain and his idiot arm candy sidekick.

When Obama didn't immediately order the arrest, encarceration and trial of both Bush the Lesser and ol' Heartless Cheney, I figured out that the scam was just continuing. When he started bombing people, I realized he was just a CIA plant, same new boss, just like the old boss.

It's all about the evil of two lessors...

It's way past time that We the People stopped being We the Sheeple, and ensconced an Instant Prosecutor and Holding Prison Cell Complex with International Criminal Court powers right next to the White House and Congress, with full blown military and police protection of our own, enabling instantaneous arrest of any government 'official' who orders bombings, murders, or otherwise circumvents the rule of law and the Constitution.

How did we ever get to the point where 'lawmakers' turned into 'lawbreakers' and from thence to mass murderers, and so-called patriotic idiots wrapped themselves in flags, carrying crosses, sent their children to die for the mass murderer's corporate puppet masters? And then somehow refused to see the truth of the matter even when their own flesh and blood came back as bloodless flesh?

And as a reward, the mass murderers instead of having their heads displayed on pikes, get lifetime achievement awards, and 'elder statesman' status, and cushy pensions for life including Secret Service protection?

How'd we end up paying taxes to protect THEM from US?

beezzer
reply to post by nwtrucker

 

I don't think you'll get an honest answer.

The progressive ideology is for big government, nanny-state, no freedoms.

The US Constitution is a hinderance to them. An anathema.

Just my humble 2 cents

Oh come on now. Are you seriously claiming the 'conservatives' havent and dont do the exact same things? Sheesh.

people cannot really be this ignorant...

reply to post by AlaskanDad


I'm not interested in some contest/debate.

I'm not well educated. High school only with a few technical courses that aren't germane. I am perhaps slightly better read than the average Joe, but that's it.

I do not like "links", other than forwarding new items such as videos of newly restored aircrafts that haven't flown for decades.(even then, I use my daughter to put the links up as I don't know how. (blush).

Most links are merely the forwarding of someone else's opinions as re-enforcement of a view.

I am old school and prefer conversation.

Having said that, my limited understanding of the Constitution suggests that ANY president that issues E.O.s, especially when congress is in session, that contravenes extant law, without getting congressional approval is a violation of the Constitution.

Unless otherwise corrected by those better educated than myself, I see no need of providing "links" to what's apparently obvious.

I know of no other president, at least in recent times, that has repeatedly done what Obama has and that's only the A.C.A.,never mind all the rest of the accused scandals.

Once again, do you see any downside to this action?

As a side note,I'm no longer an owner-operator, but the A.C.A. will/does just about kill the o/o portion of the trucking industry-much to the delight of the big carriers...

I'm having a hard time getting anyone to even acknowledging downside, never mind saying yes there's downside BUT...

What is your take on this, I ask again...

reply to post by nwtrucker


It would seem the majority of response's are people that have gotten away from both sides (Dem and Republican), this is a good thing I think.

It shows that people are getting smart to the " divide and conquer " tactic of the people tearing this country down.

You get a majority of people that agree to live let live and keep politics out of it you will have an unstoppable force.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I didn't say left or right.

Progressives have infected both political parties and are basically indistinguishable from one another. Regardless of the letter after their name.

beezzer
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I didn't say left or right.

Progressives have infected both political parties and are basically indistinguishable from one another. Regardless of the letter after their name.

Can you provide a quick, one or two sentence, definition of what you mean by "progressive"?

Gryphon66

beezzer
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I didn't say left or right.

Progressives have infected both political parties and are basically indistinguishable from one another. Regardless of the letter after their name.

Can you provide a quick, one or two sentence, definition of what you mean by "progressive"?

Nanny-state.
Big government.
Disregarding the Constitution.

reply to post by nwtrucker


The answer will come when (if) a Republican gains the Presidency and does the exact same thing. As a conservative I don't support executive orders (or creating laws from the judge's bench) for anyone. If history repeats itself most liberals will only disagree with something when it's done from the other said of the aisle.

reply to post by Battleline


I see it a bit differently.

Virtually no direct answer to the question. One who professes independence from the two parties are more likely to comment definitively, one would think.

One can say all day that both parties are corrupt/bad with at least some truth.

I see a direct, openly stated intent to bypass congress and therefore the Constitution- no matter who the President is- as very, very bad.

Perhaps far worse than two "bad" parties, that at least gave lip-service to the Constitution, is the mechanism itself is coming down.

I kept the question as euphemistic as I could with "downside". I didn't say "disaster" or the end of days...just downside.

It was addressed to the left as an honest question and based on the responses so far, I believe I have my answer.

My conclusions are a wee bit different than yours...

reply to post by nwtrucker

Dear nwtrucker,

I'm a little surprised by this thread. I think I understand the question, and it appears to have no particular bias. As always, it's the responses that are confusing me.

There are those who believe that the number of executive orders is the key issue. It seems they would believe the fewer the better. You could appoint me president, and I would need to issue only one executive order. "A state of emergency exists, martial law is declared, and the president or his staff will be issuing all laws for the foreseeable future. There will be no elections until further notice." See, I'm very restrained, I only issued one executive order.

I'm also surprised by those who say it's necessary to have the president do end runs around Congress because they are deadlocked. That is simply saying that the President is not getting his wishes granted by Congress, so he can basically ignore them. That's not how we were set up. (Or should be operating.) And will Obama supporters feel the same way when a Republican is in the White House?

I'd like to take a shot at answering your question if I may.

I believe the unusual use of executive orders will have the following negative effects:

1.) The checks and balance system which has worked so well will be seriously weakened by shifting weight from the Congress to the President.

2.) Policies established will have less input from Congress which will result in less meaningful representation of the people.

3.) With the judiciary as the only remaining check, we will see orders being issued, then litigated for three or four years. During that time the order will be in effect, changing the situation and the country.

4.) As the above effects are noticed by the people, they will lose interest in politics, as the only meaningful race will be for the presidency.

5.) By reducing the power of the states and their representatives, the people will resign themselves to a centralized, national government.

Unfortunately, I can't see any benefits to concentrating power in the White House, whether it is occupied by a Republican, or Democrat. But I would be glad to hear of them.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by beezzer


LOLOLOLOLOL.......

reply to post by charles1952


Sir, well said. Thank you!

Do you this was an intended goal or merely the consequence of unthinking/self motivated individuals?

A little of both?

reply to post by nwtrucker


You are applying yourself "euphemistically" as you say and I am a realist, this may be where we differ but I think we both agree on and comprehend the "downside" of a POTUS bypassing congress. The outcome can only be negative.

Thank you for your response, it was very interesting.

reply to post by jjkenobi


Your post gave me another thought on all this. While I haven't seen this blatant disregard by a sitting President in my lifetime, it's pretty usual for a new administration, especially with assumed/temporary control, to go a bit far and lose that control because of it.

It is the job of the "minority" to insure that the party in power doesn't get too carried away.

What worries me as much or even more than the E.O.s is the lack of "pushback" by the Republicans in congress-I won't even bring up the "Republicans" in the senate.

They are flat out not doing their job. That precedent suggests to me that the future is going to be very different from what we have known in the past.

Frankly, without a significant number of honorable democrats speaking out, as well, I don't see this as fixable.

Judging by the responses, they are not only not speaking out, they seem to be in support of it....