Obama: executive order

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
blue32 said:
Thanks for the examples to bring perspective. While it shows that this is nothing new, it still chaps my spurs a little bit that this is even possible.... (regardless of what problem its solving).
Click to expand...

It chaps your spurs that the President has been explicitly given oversight of running the administrative side of the federal government?
 
As far as laws are concerned, the President is charge with seeing they are faithful executed.

" he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States."

No where is he granted authority to create the law.

This President does not know what is job is and sure as hell doesn't do what should be done.
It makes no difference what another President has done, right or wrong.
 
MarAzul said:
As far as laws are concerned, the President is charge with seeing they are faithful executed.

" he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States."

No where is he granted authority to create the law.

This President does not know what is job is and sure as hell doesn't do what should be done.
It makes no difference what another President has done, right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Except that this is his job, managing how federal contracts are handed out, a power granted by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court.
 
Minstrel said:
Except that this is his job, managing how federal contracts are handed out, a power granted by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

truth be told, if he is micro managing how federal contracts are handed out, he is an inept leader
 
DaLincolnJones said:
truth be told, if he is micro managing how federal contracts are handed out, he is an inept leader
Click to expand...

Who said he's "micromanaging?" I said "managing," of which setting the high level policies, including qualifications like this, is a part. The low level workings are handled by functionaries in the various departments of the federal government.
 
I think all executive orders should have a sunset provision for the end of their term (meaning a max of four years). If they're re-elected, they can renew them. If it's someone else, they can choose to reaffirm them or let them expire.
 
Minstrel said:
Who said he's "micromanaging?" I said "managing," of which setting the high level policies, including qualifications like this, is a part. The low level workings are handled by functionaries in the various departments of the federal government.
Click to expand...

hmm dunno, could be its just me but seems like there are far more important things to worry about other than some political pander play...whipping up votes is the priority that is on display
 
maxiep said:
I think all executive orders should have a sunset provision for the end of their term (meaning a max of four years). If they're re-elected, they can renew them. If it's someone else, they can choose to reaffirm them or let them expire.
Click to expand...

That's almost how it works. The new president can write his own orders, undoing previous ones. The ones he leaves alone are reaffirmed.
 
Denny Crane said:
That's almost how it works. The new president can write his own orders, undoing previous ones. The ones he leaves alone are reaffirmed.
Click to expand...

I get it. I'm simply saying there is a difference between doing nothing and letting an executive order roll and actively having to reaffirm it. The latter makes you a policy participant.
 
maxiep said:
I get it. I'm simply saying there is a difference between doing nothing and letting an executive order roll and actively having to reaffirm it. The latter makes you a policy participant.
Click to expand...

You could end up throwing out so many good executive orders that the cost and time to analyze them all would be absurd. There are tens of thousands of them.

They'll end up reaffirming them all in one swoop. Omnibus style.
 
Denny Crane said:
You could end up throwing out so many good executive orders that the cost and time to analyze them all would be absurd. There are tens of thousands of them.

They'll end up reaffirming them all in one swoop. Omnibus style.
Click to expand...

Make them do it one by one.

If an executive order is so great, then it should be reaffirmed. If it should be dropped or change, then let it die.

Also, if an executive order is so wonderful, let Congress make a law of it.
 
maxiep said:
Make them do it one by one.

If an executive order is so great, then it should be reaffirmed. If it should be dropped or change, then let it die.

Also, if an executive order is so wonderful, let Congress make a law of it.
Click to expand...

Congress already made the laws. The executive orders are like the police chief ordering the cops to ticket more for drunk driving.
 
Denny Crane said:
Congress already made the laws. The executive orders are like the police chief ordering the cops to ticket more for drunk driving.
Click to expand...

Congress abdicated their power to an unelected bureaucracy, and now the Executive is doing its own legislation. In lieu of taking it back or taking the President to court, simply make the President to affirm each executive order or let them die.

In fact, I'm in favor of sunset provisions on all legislation. Make our representatives vote, rather than just letting us coast along on the same path.
 
maxiep said:
Congress abdicated their power to an unelected bureaucracy. In lieu of taking it back, simply make the President to affirm each executive order or let them die.
Click to expand...

They didn't abdicate anything. They made the law, the executive order commands the executive branch officers to carry out the law.
 
Denny Crane said:
They didn't abdicate anything. They made the law, the executive order commands the executive branch officers to carry out the law.
Click to expand...

They voted in 1974 to abdicate regulatory rules from Congress to the bureaucracy. Now executive orders are being used in a way not forseen. Frankly, I'd like to see the courts rule on this expansion, but putting a sunset provision on executive orders is the next best thing.

Just remember, one day a Republican will be President, and then suddenly we'll hear about "executive overreach". Better to begin each term with a clean slate.
 
Minstrel said:
Except that this is his job, managing how federal contracts are handed out, a power granted by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

No, the Congress can not abrogate the powers vested in Congress by the Constitution with out making an amendment to that effect.

The President has no authority to make law, only the Congress.
He can say what ever the fuck he wishes but it will not be law.

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." This is assigned to Congress not the Executive.
 
maxiep said:
They voted in 1974 to abdicate regulatory rules from Congress to the bureaucracy. Now executive orders are being used in a way not forseen. Frankly, I'd like to see the courts rule on this expansion, but putting a sunset provision on executive orders is the next best thing.

Just remember, one day a Republican will be President, and then suddenly we'll hear about "executive overreach". Better to begin each term with a clean slate.
Click to expand...

I don't see it. Promulgation of the law is traditional. George Washington issued the first eight executive orders. It is nothing new.
 
Denny Crane said:
I don't see it. Promulgation of the law is traditional. George Washington issued the first eight executive orders. It is nothing new.
Click to expand...

You and I disagree. I think laws and executive orders should be affirmed from time-to-time. You don't.
 
I think the executive branch could not function without executive orders.

I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. Having the IRS unable to send out refund checks until a new president figures out which of the thousands of orders are needed to authorize it is not a good idea.
 
Denny Crane said:
I think the executive branch could not function without executive orders.

I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. Having the IRS unable to send out refund checks until a new president figures out which of the thousands of orders are needed to authorize it is not a good idea.
Click to expand...

That's a strawman. I never said that there shouldn't be executive orders. I said they should sunset at the end of every term, meaning an executive order must be reaffirmed at the longest every four years.

Try again.
 
maxiep said:
That's a strawman. I never said that there shouldn't be executive orders. I said they should sunset at the end of every term, meaning an executive order must be reaffirmed at the longest every four years.

Try again.
Click to expand...

Re-read what I wrote.

The IRS wouldn't be able to operate until the related orders are reaffirmed. Meanwhile, the national parks couldn't operate. Not the TSA or traffic controllers. And a whole lot of other big government we take for granted.

Like I said, they'd just omnibus all of them so the government wouldn't shut down.

If congress wants to sunset laws, they can. Like they did with the Bush tax cuts.
 
Denny Crane said:
Re-read what I wrote.

The IRS wouldn't be able to operate until the related orders are reaffirmed. Meanwhile, the national parks couldn't operate. Not the TSA or traffic controllers. And a whole lot of other big government we take for granted.

Like I said, they'd just omnibus all of them so the government wouldn't shut down.

If congress wants to sunset laws, they can. Like they did with the Bush tax cuts.
Click to expand...

Boy, it sure seems to me that there are too many executive orders. Perhaps we've become overreliant on them to the point where Congress should step up and pass laws for these things?

Read Philip K. Howard's "The Death of Common Sense" and educate yourself.

However, like I said, we disagree.
 
maxiep said:
Boy, it sure seems to me that there are too many executive orders. Perhaps we've become overreliant on them to the point where Congress should step up and pass laws for these things?

Read Philip K. Howard's "The Death of Common Sense" and educate yourself.

However, like I said, we disagree.
Click to expand...

We have too many laws.

The tax code is hundreds of thousands if pages. Executive orders maybe 10,000.

Common sense says that if you take away the CEOs ability to hire without a board vote in each, the company will struggle to grow. Or fail. Imagine if they had to vote to pay the electric bill.

The executive cannot rely on congress to vote to clarify every ambiguous rule in every bill passed.

If congress doesn't like the executive order, it can vote to amend the law so it isn't ambiguous.
 
From the amazon book review of Howard's book:

"Charging that American law has become "the world's thickest instruction manual," New York City attorney Howard blasts excessively detailed, rigid government regulations that leave no room for judgment or discretion. "


That's what an EO is - room for judgment or discretion.
 
MarAzul said:
No, the Congress can not abrogate the powers vested in Congress by the Constitution with out making an amendment to that effect.

The President has no authority to make law, only the Congress.
He can say what ever the fuck he wishes but it will not be law.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and he isn't making law. So sounds like we're on the same page that this executive order is fine.
 
Denny Crane said:
From the amazon book review of Howard's book:

"Charging that American law has become "the world's thickest instruction manual," New York City attorney Howard blasts excessively detailed, rigid government regulations that leave no room for judgment or discretion. "


That's what an EO is - room for judgment or discretion.
Click to expand...

Read the book, read the blurb; same thing. smh

So sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top