The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Thoughts on Executive Orders?

  1. #1
    Senior Member suepuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South Central Virginia
    Posts
    712

    Default Thoughts on Executive Orders?

    I'm having a hard time with this one.....Seems like the way to a monarchy. And the way it was stated, multiple times lately, by POTUS was somewhat disturbing. My democratic relative then sent me to this link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

    And I saw how many EO's have been signed and by whom. Regardless as to which side issues them, it still doesn't seem right to circumvent the system.

    Anyone have more knowledge of how this works and how it 'shouldn't' be seen as a move towards fifedom? Or maybe it's fine....

    The pen comment has really been bothering me. Maybe he's justfied because Congress can't get their acts together?

    Sue Puff
    Sue Puffenbarger
    Wirtz, VA
    www.boynelabradors.com

  2. #2
    Senior Member HuntClub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Washington County, Mn
    Posts
    154

    Default

    I would be careful about using the numbers of EO penned per President only, whether it's Obama, Bush or whoever......I think the analysis should take a close look at WHAT those EO were and what they did/attempted to do.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,089

    Default

    The key issue, I think, on executive orders is whether the order goes beyond the Constitutional authority given to the President.

    Extending min. wage to all Fed govt contractors is likely quite legit. As the CEO of the govt, the POTUS has the right to set policies for their contracts. OTOH, giving automatic amnesty to "Dreamers" is outside that authority, as immigration law makes no provision for such an exception, and Congress refused to pass "The Dream Act", thereby iterating its opposition to such an exception.

    Mark Levin made a cogent statement last night (before the SOTU), that the complaint that Congress is "obstructing" the POTUS may be valid ... but ... that is the whole point of checks and balances. It is the job of Congress to act on behalf of the citizens in their interests, so that no one man of ANY party could simply do whatever they wanted to do.

    While the use of the EPA to make overly-restrictive regulations is not well received, that, too, is within the confines of the authority given to the EPA through legislation. OTOH, when the EPA makes regulations for coal plants that require technology that is not yet commercially available, one can question the reach of such an agency's regulation power. (Read recently that there is one plant equipped with the technology required for new coal plants. That plant was built by the Fed govt. Only problem is that this one plant, according to the article, is not actually operational, so it is unknown whether the technology works as intended. Sorry, no links as I passed over this article as interesting, but maybe someone else can track down the details.)

    This led up to Levin's "proposal" that the House pass a "resolution" that if the POTUS puts forth executive orders that are beyond the reach of his (her) Constitutional authority, no Fed employee or agency may use taxpayer funds to implement those un-Constitutional orders, and would be held personally responsible for doing so. That would be within the "power of the purse" authority of the House.

    Enforcement would be nil as long as Obama is POTUS, obviously. Levin points out Obama will not be POTUS forever, and fines can be attached to the employees who would execute those un-Constitutional orders.

    Pie in the sky? Levin knows more about the Constitution than I do.

    I do think it's a bad sign that Obama invites illegal immigrants to the SOTU, but ICE still insists that the POTUS refuses to meet with representatives of ICE. It sounds reasonable that ICE knows the reality of the consequences of the POTUS' immigration policies. Of course, if something should "blow up" due to those policies, then the POTUS can "honestly" say that he didn't know about it until he read about it in the newspapers. However, the reason for that would be because he purposely refused to allow himself to hear about it from ICE directly. POTUS cannot say that he didn't know that ICE was opposed to what's been going on as ICE has been very vocal about it publicly, holding press conferences, etc.

    So, it doesn't matter how many executive orders are signed. What is cogent is the content of those orders based on the Constitutional authority of the POTUS. Some of those orders may be innocuous. Others not.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #4
    Senior Member suepuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South Central Virginia
    Posts
    712

    Default

    Thanks guys! Interesting Gerry...
    Sue Puffenbarger
    Wirtz, VA
    www.boynelabradors.com

  5. #5
    Senior Member achiro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Enid, OK
    Posts
    2,074

    Default

    This prez, the dims, and their whole, "we won" crap pisses me off. What they continue to ignore is that half the country did not vote for them, they voted the other way. This country is suppose to be set up so that those folks are still represented. This also goes to the "pubs are the party of no" argument, the whole idea that they can't get anything done is kind of the point. Compromise, work together and you could, but you won't and so I want my representatives to do everything they can do to block. A true leader brings people together to work together to solve the tough issues. This prez isn't a leader, not even close, so he has decided that this is the only chance to get his way.
    "The thing I admire about the rat tail is that it takes commitment. It's not like one day you just decide you want one, you have to grow out that bad boy and you have to repeatedly convince the hairdresser to trust you because it's a great idea."

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,468

    Default

    All the executive orders issued by President Obama are on the white house website - http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-r...ecutive-orders.

    Can you believe the secretive nature of this President!

    Can someone point out any where he goes "beyond the Constitutional authority given to the President".

    The list is shorter than any other recent President so a review should not take too long. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

  7. #7
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,089

    Default

    Henry, I would say that the use of the term "executive order" is not always used with precision. When Obama changed dates for various things within the ACA law, he didn't do an "executive order" ... he just sorta said, "Make it so." Still beyond his Constitutional authority to change a law's details without legislative action.

    Based on Obama's record of transparency, one might not be surprised that he didn't want some of his actions officially recorded as Executive Orders.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,089

    Default

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...itutional.html
    Just found this on American Thinker ... I didn't think that there was anything on the website list of executive orders pertaining to O'care (could have missed them?) ... yet this article does refer to the mandate delays as "executive orders".

    Either those actions were not "officially" executive orders, or they were inadvertently not included in the list on the govt website.

    Sen. Lee asked AG Holder to explain the legal basis for the POTUS taking these actions:
    "I'll be honest with you, I have not seen -- I don't remember looking at or having seen the analysis in some time, so I'm not sure where along the spectrum that would come," Holder replied when Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, asked him to explain the nature of Obama's constitutional power to delay the mandate. Lee had based his question on a standard legal test, first described by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who said the president's authority to issue executive orders is strongest when he does so with the backing of Congress (category one), more dubious when he issues an order pertaining to a topic on which Congress has not passed a law (category two), and weakest when the executive order is "incompatible with a congressional command" (category three), to use Lee's paraphrase.
    Holder assured Lee that Obama's team accounts for Jackson's three-part analysis, but said he couldn't use that test to explain in any detail what kind of authority the president wielded when he delayed the employer mandate.
    There is video of the exchange between Lee and Holder, if you would rather watch that.


    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    This led up to Levin's "proposal" that the House pass a "resolution" that if the POTUS puts forth executive orders that are beyond the reach of his (her) Constitutional authority, no Fed employee or agency may use taxpayer funds to implement those un-Constitutional orders, and would be held personally responsible for doing so. That would be within the "power of the purse" authority of the House.

    Enforcement would be nil as long as Obama is POTUS, obviously. Levin points out Obama will not be POTUS forever, and fines can be attached to the employees who would execute those un-Constitutional orders.
    A resolution does not have the force of law. A joint resolution might, but would also have to pass the house and senate and be signed by the president. Even if that happened and I don't know why a president would want that to happen, but if it did, in the signing statement for the law the president could declare that it would be the executive branch that determines whether the president is acting outside of his authority. If charges pended after that then a presidential pardon would settle the matter up.
    During break time at obedience school, two dogs were talking.
    One said to the other..."The thing I hate about obedience school is you learn ALL this stuff you will never use in the real world."

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,468

    Default

    So, Gerry, even though this is a thread called executive orders, this is not about executive orders I guess.

    There must be some legal recourse for people and legislators who believe that they have a case for some unconstitutional actions. There have been lawsuits on the ACA, why not on this issue?

    At the same time, right-wing non-profit organizations are spending millions in ads about the ACA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ke-in-one-map/). Perhaps, rather than serving the american people by filing a lawsuit for such egregious behavior, they are just setting up straw dogs for political gain.

    I suspect that, like ever law passed by any legislature which is approved by a Governor or President, there is great deference given by the courts to the agency responsible to implement the law within the framework established by the law. In this case, DHHS likely has quite a bit of latitude in exactly how the law is implemented over time under their legally established rules.
    Last edited by Henry V; 02-01-2014 at 07:06 AM. Reason: improper grammar

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •