PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 16, 2016, 04:34:07 AM
-
Obama has shown that the chief executive can change law at will through executive order as witnessed by his suspending certains parts of the ACA. He was never challenged on it. What would stop a President Trump or Cruz from suspending that part of tax law for collecting corporate tax?
-
Obama has shown that the chief executive can change law at will through executive order as witnessed by his suspending certains parts of the ACA. He was never challenged on it. What would stop a President Trump or Cruz from suspending that part of tax law for collecting corporate tax?
As much as I would like to see corporate taxes abolished or substantially reduced, I hope we've seen the end of rule by executive fiat. The destruction of the balance of powers is a real and serious threat to our republic. We don't want or need a dictator of any flavor.
-
Power vacuums get filled. If you want to prevent a dictatorship you might elect a Congress that passes a few laws, or maybe a budget or two.
-
Tell me about all the budgets passed by Reid and Pelosi.
-
Obama has shown that the chief executive can change law at will through executive order as witnessed by his suspending certains parts of the ACA. He was never challenged on it. What would stop a President Trump or Cruz from suspending that part of tax law for collecting corporate tax?
The Republicans are their own worst enemy.
-
Power vacuums get filled. If you want to prevent a dictatorship you might elect a Congress that passes a few laws, or maybe a budget or two.
So when Congress fails to pass the laws that you want, it is then okay to become a dictator? So you admit that what the President is doing moved closer to being a dictator rather than a president because Congress didn't pass the laws that he wanted and that this is acceptable?
-
I'm not saying any of it is OK. I'm simply saying that power vacuums get filled. Congress changed the balance of power through inaction. Personally, think it awful, and I hope that Congress will return to its role of US legislative body, rather than abolishing Obamacare over, and over, and over, and over and over over, and over, and over, and over and over over, and over, and over, and over and over over, and over, and over, and over and over again.
-
Executive Order is to give Cabinet level minions implementation guidance and marching orders. The President doesn't change law; the Office lacks Constitutional Authority.
I saw something awhile back showing the number of EOs that Obama has written and the number was less than that of preceding Presidents. I never took time to validate it, so I can't speak to the veracity of it, but I do find it funny how people continually complain about the government we have (pot meet kettle comments notwithstanding) yet sit on vertically mounted idle thumbs.
-
I'm not saying any of it is OK. I'm simply saying that power vacuums get filled. Congress changed the balance of power through inaction. Personally, think it awful, and I hope that Congress will return to its role of US legislative body, rather than abolishing Obamacare over, and over, and over, and over and over over, and over, and over, and over and over over, and over, and over, and over and over over, and over, and over, and over and over again.
The "balance of power" was not changed through "inaction". Show me in the Constitution where it says that Congress must pass laws, or rather, pass the exact laws that a president wants. Yes, there are Constitutional requirements of Congress but Congress is not required to pass the legislation that a president dictates. Further, Congress not passing the legislation a president wants does not mean that there's a power vacuum and the president has carte blanche to do what he wants. In fact, you contradict yourself in your last statement. The fact that Congress has repealed Obamacare numerous times shows that Congress is in fact passing legislation, just not the legislation that the President wants. Likewise, the President is not obligated to sign any bill into law, hence his veto power. You're attempting to justify the President's actions while saying that he shouldn't have to if Congress did their job (according to you). You can't have it both ways.
-
Executive Order is to give Cabinet level minions implementation guidance and marching orders. The President doesn't change law; the Office lacks Constitutional Authority.
I'm glad to see that you're opposed to the President's executive actions on numerous issues, to include making changes to Obamacare and illegal immigration.
I saw something awhile back showing the number of EOs that Obama has written and the number was less than that of preceding Presidents. I never took time to validate it, so I can't speak to the veracity of it, but I do find it funny how people continually complain about the government we have (pot meet kettle comments notwithstanding) yet sit on vertically mounted idle thumbs.
It's not a matter of how many executive orders are written and signed, it matters more what is contained within those executive orders.
-
I'm not saying any of it is OK. I'm simply saying that power vacuums get filled. Congress changed the balance of power through inaction. Personally, think it awful, and I hope that Congress will return to its role of US legislative body, rather than abolishing Obamacare over, and over, and over, and over and over over, and over, and over, and over and over over, and over, and over, and over and over over, and over, and over, and over and over again.
Congress cannot "change the balance of power through inaction." Nothing in the Constitution provides for such. Any grasp of power by the executive using your excuse is unlawful and unconstitutional.
-
Since what you're disparaging has been going on for quite a few years I find it difficult to believe (if not downright laughable) that it is in any way illegal. As for its constitutionality, that is the province of the court system, which is somewhat better versed in such than a collection of internet yahoos.
-
Since what you're disparaging has been going on for quite a few years I find it difficult to believe (if not downright laughable) that it is in any way illegal. As for its constitutionality, that is the province of the court system, which is somewhat better versed in such than a collection of internet yahoos.
If you're referring to executive orders, then nobody will argue that they exist and, depending on how they're written, can be legal. The problem comes in when you have a president who uses executive orders to create laws rather than what they were intended for. If you can cite for me in the Constitution where the president has the authority to create laws, I will back down.
-
Since every President since Washington as issued executive orders (quite a few more than the current office holder) I submit that they are indeed legal.
-
I think the balance of power has changed through inaction of congress. The unwillingness to control spending and, if necessary, let Obama have a temper tantrum and shut down government. Congress has the power to enact laws to shut down activist judges, it has the power to defund activist courts. Congress has the power to enact laws to undo activist judge rulings. Congress was given much power, more so than the executive. We have elected a bunch of pansy assed losers afraid to make a waves and it is a sad thing to watch.
-
Since every President since Washington as issued executive orders (quite a few more than the current office holder) I submit that they are indeed legal.
What is legal is the issuance of executive orders.
But I hope you aren't claiming that all executive orders are legal.
-
Since every President since Washington as issued executive orders (quite a few more than the current office holder) I submit that they are indeed legal.
Are you purposely dodging what I'm saying? I'm not disputing whether or not executive orders can be written or can be legal. I'm disputing the content of some executive orders. Executive orders are not meant to create laws and bypass Congress. The president just doesn't have that authority.
-
Executive Orders should be limited to the legal, limited functions of the Executive Branch, which is all the Office of the President owns (along with the military.) The power is not supposed to be a proxy for duly processed legislative actions.
-
Since what you're disparaging has been going on for quite a few years I find it difficult to believe (if not downright laughable) that it is in any way illegal. As for its constitutionality, that is the province of the court system, which is somewhat better versed in such than a collection of internet yahoos.
That the complicit opposition has not had the stones to do anything about it idea not make it legal. Further, the Constitution is a simple, beautiful, and elegant document setting forth the powers and responsibilities of each branch of government. It does not require lawyers and a court system to decide whether a power is included in the document or not.
The Constitution was written by non-lawyers.
-
That the complicit opposition has not had the stones to do anything about it idea not make it legal. Further, the Constitution is a simple, beautiful, and elegant document setting forth the powers and responsibilities of each branch of government. It does not require lawyers and a court system to decide whether a power is included in the document or not.
The Constitution was written by non-lawyers.
The lawyers often get it wrong, or purposely misinterpret the language for political reasons. Hence, John Roberts, the biggest disappointment on the court since Justice Souter.
-
The lawyers often get it wrong, or purposely misinterpret the language for political reasons. Hence, John Roberts, the biggest disappointment on the court since Justice Souter.
Yep. I'm just trying to dispel the good doctor of his leftist opinion that anything government does is legal and Constitutional unless the 9 Men in Black say otherwise.
-
Yep. I'm just trying to dispel the good doctor of his leftist opinion that anything government does is legal and Constitutional unless the 9 Men in Black say otherwise.
Except that's exactly how the government works. Its called checks and balances. The problem is when one of the branches (the legislative) stops functioning for all intensive purposes, it throws the system out of whack.
Keep in mind that the Constitution is just a piece of paper unless someone puts it into action. Were detentions of Japanese during WWII constitutional? I doubt it strongly. The Trail of Tears certainly wasn't, the SCOTUS said so yet it still happened. Personally I think he stuff you guys bitch about to no end is chickenshit compared to stuff like that.
-
Except that's exactly how the government works. Its called checks and balances. The problem is when one of the branches (the legislative) stops functioning for all intensive purposes, it throws the system out of whack.
Keep in mind that the Constitution is just a piece of paper unless someone puts it into action. Were detentions of Japanese during WWII constitutional? I doubt it strongly. The Trail of Tears certainly wasn't, the SCOTUS said so yet it still happened. Personally I think he stuff you guys bitch about to no end is chickenshit compared to stuff like that.
No sir. If a Congress passes a law making it illegal and subject to capital punishment to criticize a president Trump, or it a president Trump signs an executive order making it illegal to criticize a president Trump, such law would be unlawful and unenforceable and a violation of their oath of office, and it would not be necessary for the men in black to rule on it.
There is nothing nuanced about clearly unconstitutional laws.
I may be old, but I wasn't around for the trail of tears or the Japanese internment. But I have seen a diminution of the Constitution in my lifetime.
-
I see the same trouble with executive orders. If Obama passed an executive order prohibiting anyone from criticizing President Obama, that would also be an unlawful executive order. But that wouldn't stop him from doing it if he wanted to.
The second problem I see is that if Obama passes an executive order which requires employees of the government to violate the law then he has really put them in a tough spot. "I was only following orders" does nothing for the employee but not following the president's order could get them fired. With a vindictive president WOULD get them fired.
The last problem I see is that they're temporary. Every single one of Obama's orders will be cancelled when a republican president is in office.
-
Obama has shown that the chief executive can change law at will through executive order as witnessed by his suspending certains parts of the ACA. He was never challenged on it. What would stop a President Trump or Cruz from suspending that part of tax law for collecting corporate tax?
1. Respect for the law.
2. Democrats WOULD challenge him on it.
-
Except that's exactly how the government works. Its called checks and balances. The problem is when one of the branches (the legislative) stops functioning for all intensive purposes, it throws the system out of whack.
That's how it is SUPPOSED to work. It is planned gridlock, as laws are designed to be hard to pass. We don't need more laws, we have too many laws already. The Republicans know Obama will veto just about anything they put in front of him. He is being obstructionist.
-
I see the same trouble with executive orders. If Obama passed an executive order prohibiting anyone from criticizing President Obama, that would also be an unlawful executive order. But that wouldn't stop him from doing it if he wanted to.
The second problem I see is that if Obama passes an executive order which requires employees of the government to violate the law then he has really put them in a tough spot. "I was only following orders" does nothing for the employee but not following the president's order could get them fired. With a vindictive president WOULD get them fired.
The last problem I see is that they're temporary. Every single one of Obama's orders will be cancelled when a republican president is in office.
The President does not PASS executive orders. He signs them.
-
The President does not PASS executive orders. He signs them.
I'm sure glad we have that cleared up now. I couldn't figure out what he was talking about. ;)