- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I think you left the part about nuking San Francisco out of your statementI think the first thing he should do is close down Gitmo and house the prisoners in some nice apartments in San Fransisco.
The constitutionality of executive orders is quite clear -- it depends entirely on the nature of the order.That is why we need a fight at the Supreme Court to make perfectly clear the functions of Congress and the President. Congress passes laws. The president takes an oath to enforce those laws. Any other argument or collecton of weasel words is clearly unconstitutional.
No reason to get violent with it. Left to its own devices it will rot off and slide into the Pacific.I think you left the part about nuking San Francisco out of your statement
:lol:
The constitutionality of executive orders is quite clear -- it depends entirely on the nature of the order.
All things being equal...
If an EO is pursuant to executing existing legislation, it is Constitutional
If an EO is pursuant to the Article II powers of the President, it is Constitutional
If an EO is pursuant to neither... it depends on the order itself.
That depends on a lot of things. The Executive has lattitude on how he enforces the law, which is often based on how he interprets the law.If it is pursuant to redefining existing legislation, it is unconstitutional.
I don't think I'll ever understand the hatred that Conservatives have for San Francisco. Yeah, it's a pretty liberal minded place and it was the hub of the 60's drug era. So what? Honestly, why is San Francisco so horrible?
The 49ers?
it will be a good thing reversing those executive orders which amounted to passing legislation,
or to come up with arguments about false definitions by Congress when it passed those laws.
However, let me go back to those executive orders which sought to make law instead of enforcing the law.
That is why we need a fight at the Supreme Court to make perfectly clear the functions of Congress and the President.
Congress passes laws. The president takes an oath to enforce those laws.
The GOP is clearly in the minority now, but as a minorty, they can have a huge impact on the lawmaking process by taking Obama to court if he tries the same crap that Bush got away with.
I agree with you 100% Dan. There is certainly time and place for executive order. Directing offices and agencies under the control of the Executive, executing law, etc. But it can also be abused and we have seen abuses for a long long time. It's at the point where we need to close loopholes. The EO can't be used to legislate.
We have a legislature for that, already taken care of. I hope the Republicans ould challenge it, but I'm not holding my breath. The Republicans know that if they wait, they'll be in charge again and they'll want to be able to use the EO as they see fit.
Uh, the authority to issue Executive Orders ain't some legislative loophole. What are you thinking?
Will one of you people carping about EO's being used to legislate cite just a single example of such an EO?
In 1974, Congress passed legislation placing the presidential records of Richard Nixon in federal custody to prevent their destruction. The legislative action was intended to reduce secrecy, while allowing historians to perform their responsibilities. In 1972, decades of official and unofficial Federal Bureau of Investigation records had been destroyed, upon the death of J. Edgar Hoover, by his longtime secretary. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 expanded such protection of historical records, by mandating that the records of former presidents would automatically become the property of the federal government upon his leaving the Oval Office, and then transferred to the archivist of the United States, thereafter to be made available to the public after no more than 12 years.
Thus, the presidential papers of Ronald Reagan were due to be made public when George W. Bush took office in January 2001. However, in a White House memo[1] dated March 23, 2001, the Counsel to the President conveyed the following to U.S Archivist John W. Carlin:
Section 2(b) of Executive Order 12667, issued by former President Ronald Reagan on January 16, 1989, requires the Archivist of the United States to delay release of Presidential records at the instruction of the current President. On behalf of the President, I instruct you to extend for 90 days (until June 21, 2001) the time in which President Bush may claim a constitutionally based privilege over the Presidential records that former President Reagan, acting under Section 2204(a) of Title 4, has protected from disclosure for the 12 years since the end of his Presidency. This directive applies as well to the Vice Presidential records of former Vice President George H.W. Bush.
This instruction was repeated[1] on June 6, 2001, before the 90 days had elapsed, giving a new deadline of August 31, 2001. On the day of this deadline, Alberto Gonzales instructed the Archivist to wait a few additional weeks[1]. On 1 November 2001, Bush issued Executive Order 13233, limiting the access to the records of former U.S. Presidents:
...reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President's advisers, and to do so in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), and other cases...
That depends on a lot of things. The Executive has lattitude on how he enforces the law, which is often based on how he interprets the law.
I'm thinking you have somehow damaged your long term memory. We've done this exact song and dance before. Also, I think reading comprehension may be bad.
I didn't say the authority to issue EO's is a legislative loophole. In fact, I said there is a time and place for the EO, there is a proper function for it. But that it has been abused, and has been used to circumvent the legislative process. I said those loopholes need to be closed. Not the whole of the EO, just constraints so that it can't be as easily abused.
I think a good example is EO 13233. It's an odd executive order
So legislation was passed in order to make available the records of Presidents. Bush writes an EO which basically over turns that. Now I think this particular EO was later partially overturned through legislation. But legislation is needed to overturn previous legislation (or court ruling), Bush used the EO to legislate himself and close off access to documents and papers from previous Presidents. This is but one example. With so many EO's issued, it's not hard to imagine that there is a non-zero percentage of them which basically come down to acts of legislation.
Also in that thread were these doozies
12919
The Roosevelt Gold Confiscation Order Of April 3 1933.
Which are pretty bad abuses of EO
Let's not forget that Clinton misused the EO so badly that one was actually overturned, which rarely happens. The EO has been abused for sometime. It's time to put an end to it.
Interpreting the law is the function of the courts. I say let the courts decide, by suing the Obama administration if it attempts to do his own interpretation.
Not in its entirety. Numerous federal agencies have the power to create regulations pursuant to federal law, with the specifics of those regulatuions left to the interpretation of those agencies. The President has the same power of interpretation when executing the laws of the nation, and when exercising his Article II powers.Interpreting the law is the function of the courts.
"Interpretation" is a broad word.1st edit: By the way, the courts cannot and do not sue anyone.
2nd edit: Are you under the impression that the Congress does not also interpret the Constitution?
Hmmm, if we've done this song and dance before then it was reltively recently, hence, long term memory is irrelevant. Can't you get your personal attacks to make sense if nothing else?
I know that you didn't explicitly state it. But it's the obvious implication of your prior comments and again here. What loopholes need to be closed that would then prevent the so-called abuse of EO's?
So, Bush was legislating when he issued this EO? What legislation was he creating and enacting? Of course, no legislation was created. Any plain reading of the EO itself reveals that the President was acting in accordance with the firmly established Supreme Court precedent of a President's constitutional authority that applies to presdential records (See the Nixon cases - US v Nixon and Nixon v Administrator of General Services).
Bush was defending against an encroachment of the constitutional basis of the President's privileges for confidential communications (military, diplomatic, or national security secrets (the state secrets privilege); communications of the President or his advisors (the presidential communications privilege); legal advice or legal work (the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges); and the deliberative processes of the President or his advisors (the deliberative process privilege)).
He was not legislating.
You have not cited any constitutional abuses of it. Just those that someone else thinks is an abuse. You have cited those which you think are "pretty bad." Color me underwhelmed.
"Interpretation" is a broad word.
All three branches, by necessity, "interpret" the Constitution and the law.
And while the court has a "final say", both the Legislature and the Executive have ways to remove the finality of that say.
Yes, well, good luck overturning Marbury.The Court has a final say? That's a judicial invention. Nothing in the Constitution nor in the debates of the Framers says or intended the Court to be the final expositor of Constitutional meaning. I can concede judicial review being implied, but not judicial supremacy. Judicial supremacy completely upsets the constitutional concepts of co-equal branches and checks and balances.
I don't think I'll ever understand the hatred that Conservatives have for San Francisco. Yeah, it's a pretty liberal minded place and it was the hub of the 60's drug era. So what? Honestly, why is San Francisco so horrible?
The Court has a final say? That's a judicial invention. Nothing in the Constitution nor in the debates of the Framers says or intended the Court to be the final expositor of Constitutional meaning. I can concede judicial review being implied, but not judicial supremacy. Judicial supremacy completely upsets the constitutional concepts of co-equal branches and checks and balances.
After living there, I can tell you the hatred for San Francisco comes from the smell. Some weird amalgam of homelessness, meth, chocolate, and butt grease.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?