Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Jan 1, 2012.
Naomi Wolf on How Congress Has Signed It's Own Arrest Warrants.
Lol. I was thinking the same a month ago, I would LMAO if it happens, but again what's next....
Obama Will Govern Without Congress
Who needs checks and balances...
Oh, Obama wants Checks....just no balances.
Interesting.....when bhos is not longer potus , he too would be subject to this new law.
Correct me if I'm wrong (because I'm not), but Executive Orders and Signing Statements have been used by presidents of both parties, have they not? Why should Obama not employ them as well?
Because he wants to use it exclusively!!! That's the difference. He wants to be king!
That's why every president does it.
Where did i say that they were not used by past presidents?
You didn't. But why shouldn't he if it is now a "time honored tradition". Legal minds have determined it to be constitutional, so I figure every president will continue to use them and let the arm chair scholars scour Wikipaedia to tell them they can't do what they, with the Supreme Court' tacit approval, have already done.
Time honored is a sketchy description at best, really doubt any Executive Orders and Signing Statements have been honored by all. As are laws, exec orders should be subject to constitutionality.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Consider the political climate of the day. Suppose republicans get not only the presidency but also the senate in 2012. Do you think for a moment that democrats in the senate won't use the threat of a fillibuster to stop every piece of legislation they don't like? We've seen the power of the minority in the flexed by the Tea Party crowd in the House. Senate minority leaders hold even more power. It doesn't make it right, but do you expect one side to unilaterally disarm?
It wouldn't surprise me one bit for that to happen, in fact it has happened before with the Dems all disappearing for a week or so to stop a vote. Not much different in my books.
Both sides are guilty of refusing to compromise, negotiate or even let a good bill pass. Both sides are also guilty of adding little "pieces of gold" to a bill that they full well know will keep it from being passed just so they can play the "obstruction" or " the party of NO" cards against the others.
Ok. Then why would the executive branch be held differently? Aren't Executive Orders and Signing Statements simply the same kind of "end around" moves?
Yes and just as despicable, that was my point. I was not defending either one, but criticizing both. You only seemed to be concerned with the right.
Not really concerned at all. I'm just surprised at those on the right who criticize Obama for using Executive Orders. They seem to act like this is a brand new maneuver Obama and some lawyers came up with. This is the state of politics in America. Ugly as it is, I don't see much changing one way or another
The "right" , like the C9ers are the only ones trying to make exec orders an issue. As BB said, they try to treat it like its something new, but look at the actual record of exec orders by presidents.
List of United States federal executive orders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
George Bush had a ton of them!
That's not the point.....Buck wants to do it totally that way.....so fire the congress and find a crown!!
His words, not mine........
"We can't wait for Congress to do its job. So where they won't act, I will," Obama told students at the University of Colorado-Denver. "We're going to look every single day to figure out what we can do without Congress."
Separate names with a comma.