Regardless of the politics, is it legal for the POTUS to simply assume the ability to pass Legislation, rather than Veto / Enact it? Does our system of checks and balance of powers really grant the President the authority to do as he wishes and dare Congress to stop him?
For those of you who are tempted to vote "yes" because you A) agree with the policy and B) think that it's a situation that needs to be fixed in a timely manner, I want you to imagine President Scott Walker (or fill in any Republican, really) making the exact same argument, but instead of Immigration Reform, it's about Entitlement Reform.
"Our Entitlements are in danger. People are in danger. That's why I've decided through Executive Action to enact Paul Ryan's Medicare Reforms and privatize Social Security. Now, if the Congress can get me a bill that I can sign[ie: that I agree with], then obviously that bill will take precedence. But until then, we've got to act.
etc. Remember, everything this guy does is setting a precedent.
Regardless of the politics, is it legal for the POTUS to simply assume the ability to pass Legislation, rather than Veto / Enact it? Does our system of checks and balance of powers really grant the President the authority to do as he wishes and dare Congress to stop him?
For those of you who are tempted to vote "yes" because you A) agree with the policy and B) think that it's a situation that needs to be fixed in a timely manner, I want you to imagine President Scott Walker (or fill in any Republican, really) making the exact same argument, but instead of Immigration Reform, it's about Entitlement Reform.
"Our Entitlements are in danger. People are in danger. That's why I've decided through Executive Action to enact Paul Ryan's Medicare Reforms and privatize Social Security. Now, if the Congress can get me a bill that I can sign[ie: that I agree with], then obviously that bill will take precedence. But until then, we've got to act.
etc. Remember, everything this guy does is setting a precedent.
Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the question of whether executive orders are "legal" is absurd. Of course they are. Moreover, Obama is hardly unprecedented in his use of them, or even gratuitous in his use of them. In fact he has been fairly restrained in his use of them considering the financial crisis and deep recession he took office in the midst of. Point being the "president" was set long ago:
Thats not the argument though, its whether specific orders are legal. The method in which the President executes his executive power is not in question.
The point is he is not the "imperial president" he is made out to be. Hell I think he has been a impotent president for much of his presidency. Whether or not any executive orders he issues regarding immigration are legal or not is a question for the federal judiciary.
Read the OP its a general question and made the comparison between an executive order on immigration and a hypothetical one on entitlement reform. Then argued it was some kind of president. Its hardly a president when you are doing something at a lower rate than any other president since Grover Cleveland.
The question is: what do you think? Do you want the president enforcing all laws passed by congress or only those he wants to enforce?The point is he is not the "imperial president" he is made out to be. Hell I think he has been a impotent president for much of his presidency. Whether or not any executive orders he issues regarding immigration are legal or not is a question for the federal judiciary.
The question is: what do you think? Do you want the president enforcing all laws passed by congress or only those he wants to enforce?
As was pointed out earlier, it isn't the number that are issued, but the content. If the next president issues but one executive order in his term--the internment of all dissidents without trial--will that be OK since he only used the power once as opposed to the hundred of times it was used by his predecessors?I think its more nuanced. I think the executive should enforce the laws passed by congress. However, I also think that executive orders are a necessary component of a functioning government. I also think that being Obama has issued them at a lower rate than any other president in over a century, that all the complaining about his use of them is just partisan bitching.
Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the question of whether executive orders are "legal" is absurd.
Of course they are. Moreover, Obama is hardly unprecedented in his use of them, or even gratuitous in his use of them. In fact he has been fairly restrained in his use of them considering the financial crisis and deep recession he took office in the midst of. Point being the "president" was set long ago:
No one has suggested that they are not. But utilizing "executive orders" to create or alter legislation is illegal. What you have presented here is what is known as a "straw man argument".
The point is he is not the "imperial president" he is made out to be. Hell I think he has been a impotent president for much of his presidency. Whether or not any executive orders he issues regarding immigration are legal or not is a question for the federal judiciary.
Regardless of the politics, is it legal for the POTUS to simply assume the ability to pass Legislation, rather than Veto / Enact it? Does our system of checks and balance of powers really grant the President the authority to do as he wishes and dare Congress to stop him?
For those of you who are tempted to vote "yes" because you A) agree with the policy and B) think that it's a situation that needs to be fixed in a timely manner, I want you to imagine President Scott Walker (or fill in any Republican, really) making the exact same argument, but instead of Immigration Reform, it's about Entitlement Reform.
"Our Entitlements are in danger. People are in danger. That's why I've decided through Executive Action to enact Paul Ryan's Medicare Reforms and privatize Social Security. Now, if the Congress can get me a bill that I can sign[ie: that I agree with], then obviously that bill will take precedence. But until then, we've got to act.
etc. Remember, everything this guy does is setting a precedent.
And since only two EO's have been overturned because they created or altered legislation, what you have created with this thread is a red herring and probably also a leading question
I think its more nuanced. I think the executive should enforce the laws passed by congress. However, I also think that executive orders are a necessary component of a functioning government. I also think that being Obama has issued them at a lower rate than any other president in over a century, that all the complaining about his use of them is just partisan bitching.
yet you aren't willing to vote......
I don't vote in threads with dishonest OP's
The question is simply whether or not the President's planned actions would be legal. You aren't voting to protect yourself
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?