Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is nothing intrinically unconstitutional about an Executive Order. But if an EO is used for the wrong thing, then it CAN be unconstitutional.... as many of Obama's are.
Executive Orders are what a President is supposed to use to carry out something passed by Congress (and signed into law by the Prez, of course).
Classic example is, Congress passes something saying that a group of Federal buildings on a corner in DC will be painted brown. Obama signs it into law. Obama then issues an Exec Order to solicit three companies for bids on the painting work, issues another order to check the bidding companies' qualifications etc. Obama is issuing Exec Orders pursuant to something Congress passed into law.
If he's issuing Exec Orders to delay implementation of part of Obamacare for a year, that's the equivalent of issuing an EO to paint the buildings red instead of brown. It does NOT carry out what Congress passed. In fact, it's the act of a dictator with no Congressional oversight or adherence to procedures required by the Constitution, at all.
There is nothing intrinically unconstitutional about an Executive Order. But if an EO is used for the wrong thing, then it CAN be unconstitutional.... as many of Obama's are.
Executive Orders are what a President is supposed to use to carry out something passed by Congress (and signed into law by the Prez, of course).
Classic example is, Congress passes something saying that a group of Federal buildings on a corner in DC will be painted brown. Obama signs it into law. Obama then issues an Exec Order to solicit three companies for bids on the painting work, issues another order to check the bidding companies' qualifications etc. Obama is issuing Exec Orders pursuant to something Congress passed into law.
If he's issuing Exec Orders to delay implementation of part of Obamacare for a year, that's the equivalent of issuing an EO to paint the buildings red instead of brown. It does NOT carry out what Congress passed. In fact, it's the act of a dictator with no Congressional oversight or adherence to procedures required by the Constitution, at all.
There are many that take this view. However, supposedly there is a process and balance of branches. EOs and signing statements seem to me to usurp all of that after the process has supposedly occurred.
There is nothing intrinically unconstitutional about an Executive Order. But if an EO is used for the wrong thing, then it CAN be unconstitutional.... as many of Obama's are.
Executive Orders are what a President is supposed to use to carry out something passed by Congress (and signed into law by the Prez, of course).
Classic example is, Congress passes something saying that a group of Federal buildings on a corner in DC will be painted brown. Obama signs it into law. Obama then issues an Exec Order to solicit three companies for bids on the painting work, issues another order to check the bidding companies' qualifications etc. Obama is issuing Exec Orders pursuant to something Congress passed into law.
If he's issuing Exec Orders to delay implementation of part of Obamacare for a year, that's the equivalent of issuing an EO to paint the buildings red instead of brown. It does NOT carry out what Congress passed. In fact, it's the act of a dictator with no Congressional oversight or adherence to procedures required by the Constitution, at all.
You heard these liberal freaks. They are all chomping at the bit for a dictatorship. They are eager to be controlled and told how to live their lives by an Affirmative Action Community Organizer with no leadership skills.
Democrats got it all wrong, as usual. They are not "liberals" or "progressives." The are fascists. They want one person to dictate everything, with no checks or balances. In short, Democrats are not Americans, but rather the true enemy of all Americans.
There are many that take this view. However, supposedly there is a process and balance of branches. EOs and signing statements seem to me to usurp all of that after the process has supposedly occurred.
Executive Orders are precisely that, orders from the Chief Executive to the rest of the Executive Branch. Executive Orders have absolutely no authority beyond the Executive Branch, even though Democrat Presidents like to think they do.
I will continue to purchase my firearms without a background check, and without government knowing anything about the transaction. The Dictator-In-Chief can bite me.
Executive Orders are precisely that, orders from the Chief Executive to the rest of the Executive Branch. Executive Orders have absolutely no authority beyond the Executive Branch, even though Democrat Presidents like to think they do.
I will continue to purchase my firearms without a background check, and without government knowing anything about the transaction. The Dictator-In-Chief can bite me.
I will do the same, but he can't bite me... I might catch something I don't want..
well if thats the way you feel, don't be shocked when he signs executive orders.
Fine , then you and the rest of his zombie eyed followers can all move to a desert island someplace where you can proclaim him King ******* and kneel before him awaiting his next asinine, knee jerk proclamation.
There is nothing intrinically unconstitutional about an Executive Order. But if an EO is used for the wrong thing, then it CAN be unconstitutional.... as many of Obama's are.
Executive Orders are what a President is supposed to use to carry out something passed by Congress (and signed into law by the Prez, of course).
Classic example is, Congress passes something saying that a group of Federal buildings on a corner in DC will be painted brown. Obama signs it into law. Obama then issues an Exec Order to solicit three companies for bids on the painting work, issues another order to check the bidding companies' qualifications etc. Obama is issuing Exec Orders pursuant to something Congress passed into law.
If he's issuing Exec Orders to delay implementation of part of Obamacare for a year, that's the equivalent of issuing an EO to paint the buildings red instead of brown. It does NOT carry out what Congress passed. In fact, it's the act of a dictator with no Congressional oversight or adherence to procedures required by the Constitution, at all.
I don't think you know how Executive Orders function, and which EOs that Obama has issued been ruled unconstitutional?
Two terrible EOs that should be ruled unconstitutional. The president does not have the power to make law, which is what these two orders are doing. Executive orders are for carrying out the law, not legislating from the oval office.
The right to own what they do, shall not be infringed.
Okay....a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
