- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive orders | WashingtonExaminer.com
This should be pretty fundamental stuff for a Constitutional scholar and his Attorney General. All this should be documented prior to drafting and signing an EO. :doh
Do you think we'd be talking about signing statements if Obama hadn't said he was going to use them to pass his agenda in the State of the Union? I don't.
Of course! Republicans have been accusing President Obama of using Executive Orders to bypass Congress or disregard provisions of standing laws as far back as the Arizona Immigration law. And since then it was his Executive Memo (Order) not to deport illegal aliens w/o criminal records. And since then it was giving insurance companies permission to reinstate insurance policies purchased on the individual market that were terminated as a provision of the ACA. What Republicans are trying to do now is say, "See! He's is a brazen President! He was even bold enough to actually say to the nation he'd go around Congress and exert his Executive Power as he sees fit." This tactic falls right in line with the phrase, "If you say it often enough, it becomes the truth." Only Republicans have forgotten a couple of things:
1) They expect people to forget how they lack the ability to govern. They can sure work against something they don't like, but to govern...no.
2) Congress' approval ratings are in the tank; moreso due to actions by the Republican Party than Democrats, but down none the less. So, this "tyrannical, empirical, dictatorial" President mantra acts as good deflection.
3) Claiming that the President will usurp his authority as President goes counter to the argument that "he lacks leadership". (And mind you a leader either convinces you to follow him or he drags your stubborn ass along kickin' and screaming if he has to. Seems to me President Obama has tried to do the former and has decided to do the latter.)
You are missing the point and you didn't answer the question. We aren't talking about this because of Bush or the Republicans. Obama brought it up at the SOTU. You can bitch about politics, I don't care what you think. The reason it's a topic on the message board is Obama brought it up. If he had brought up puppy dogs, we'd be talking about them.
Why is there such a freakout over Obama's executive orders when he has issued far less than most presidents:
View attachment 67161218
Really, when you consider the financial crisis he took office in the middle of, the fact he issued so few executive orders is remarkable. Presidents have historically issued far more executive orders, especially in a time of economic crisis. Why the selective outrage now?
I get the point fully. It's a trending topic now because he said TWICE recently that "he had a phone and a pen" and he'd "issue an Executive Order" to act where Congress would not. But you're acting as if this is a hot button issue that resonates with everyone the same way. I'm not as uptight about the issue as others (on the Right) appear to be except when they try to make it seem as if one side of the political divide is so terribly wrong and conducting himself illegally/unconstitutionally. Yet they didn't say a word when the last guy in office did the exact same thing only he made it clear that HE would not adhere to certain provisions of law, whereas all President Obama has done for the most part is say how his Administration can use the law to help move the country forward.
The reason I've chimed in isn't because I agree or disagree with the President of the United States using his Power as Chief Executive to direct his Administration how to go about doing the country's business. It's to try and counter the notion that "the President is overstepping his bounds", towit, I say if that truly were the case, why hasn't he been impeached at worse or the laws the Republican leadership claims he's disregarding strengthened or executive authority he's taking too broadly reigned in?
Answer(s):
1) Because he's not; and,
2) They want to ensure that once one of their own returns to the WH, he exercises the same broad powers to forester their political power and control.
Do you think we'd be talking about signing statements if Obama hadn't said he was going to use them to pass his agenda in the State of the Union? I don't.
not that I am disagreeing that criticism is misplaced (it's not an issue I am overly concerned with), but wouldn't a better measure be the issues those executive orders concerned and how legally and socially controversial they were?
So you would rather he was like other presidents and just be secretive about them??
As a Dreamer, I see waterpipe-lines and Keystone/Erie Canals, moving water as it is needed, both to get rid of it from floods,There is an old saying that goes, "What you don't know won't hurt you."
Now I don't really believe that, but one thing is for sure, If I don't know anything about something, I sure won't be worrying about it.
So you would rather he was like other presidents and just be secretive about them??
Executive orders, Nuclear Options, Legislative filibusters, Supreme Court decisons.
The actions of our Government have now been added to my economic wheel of issues/subissues.
One of "my" specialty spokes of the economic wheel will be Infrastructure.
Nothing short of an all-encompassing Marshall Plan will save our economic predicament.
As a Dreamer, I see waterpipe-lines and Keystone/Erie Canals, moving water as it is needed, both to get rid of it from floods,
and to resupply drought areas .
Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive orders | WashingtonExaminer.com
This should be pretty fundamental stuff for a Constitutional scholar and his Attorney General. All this should be documented prior to drafting and signing an EO. :doh
Anyone who has any real proof that the President of the USA has broken the law should be doing something about it. Like impeaching him.
Until that happens, I'll just put this down to sore loser syndrome..
If you have any proof of anything, bring it on.
Standing by, waiting for something to happen . . . . the clock is ticking . . . .
I've been hearing this bull**** for a long time and nothing has happened yet
That tells me that no one has a solid case and they're just running their mouths.
where do you get the idea that AGs are supposed to be or have bee constitutional scholars. The only one who comes close to that definition in recent memory was acting AG Peter Keisler who was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Meese was a law professor . He qualified as well
I'm not acting like it's a hot button issue and I'm not pontificating. I'm glad you got the point. It shouldn't have been this difficult.
The existence of proof doesn't mean that the required political will in Congress exists. Call is sore loser syndrome if you want. It should have been quite easy for Holder to explain the support for executive orders when asked, given it's his job to provide that to the President.
Holder is the worst AG in my lifetime. He should have been impeached by the press long ago and I believe that the House should go after him as well. He's racially biased and too willing to at minimum council the President when he steps over the constitutional line. Instead I believe that he assures the President that he can legislate from the Oval Office with no consequence.I will be as glad to see him go as I will to be rid of the President.
Do you think that they ask surprise questions, or do you think Holder gets a heads up for testifying? It's not like he couldn't order the paperwork brought over.
When President Obama leaves the White House he will almost certainly be replaced by a Democrat who you will dislike just as much as you dislike Obama.
Get ready to deal with it.
I think many were just as certain that Peyton Manning would be hoisting the SuperBowl trophy
/B].
Peyton Manning may get another chance.
I doubt that whoever loses in 2016 will get another chance.
I hope you're right - I'm tired of Hillary, and I'm Canadian
You have my sympathy, starting January 2017 you'll likely have 4, maybe 8 years to get even more tired of her!
Enjoy.
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?