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.
The only reason is because our President is the commander and chief of the standing army(that we're never suppose to have) As Commander, he has the pen to send them into harms way at a moments notice when the nation is in threat from a foreign invasion.
Other then that, all EO's are the rule of a dictator.
So you think the Emancipation Proclamation was tyranny?
How about EO 13402: Strengthening Federal Efforts To Protect Against Identity Theft?
It is not an all or none. The President is charged by the constitution to enforce the laws of the United States. An executive order can help in that endeavor.
So you think the Emancipation Proclamation was tyranny?
How about EO 13402: Strengthening Federal Efforts To Protect Against Identity Theft?
It is not an all or none. The President is charged by the constitution to enforce the laws of the United States. An executive order can help in that endeavor.
Tyranny? It only applied where it was popular.
It only applied to the northern States.
Unconstitutional Reconstitution, stacking the southern state legislatures with appointed representatives, before the slaves were "legally" freed throughout the US, by Congress.
Not trying to argue, but what was the hurry on immigration and why no attempt to educate the public as to the necessity of such action in a unilateral manner? It appears to be political rather than trying to resolve an admitted problem.
And not arguing. Dealer's choice. I believe the administration would claim that they have been holding fire for a year or more to give the Congress a chance to sort it out but nothing was happening.
Note I am not testifying that is true...merely that it would be the administration position. And of course EO are at least part political.
So you think the Emancipation Proclamation was tyranny?
How about EO 13402: Strengthening Federal Efforts To Protect Against Identity Theft?
It is not an all or none. The President is charged by the constitution to enforce the laws of the United States. An executive order can help in that endeavor.
But he cannot discard one set of laws by his own discretion and enact new laws on his own.
And not arguing. Dealer's choice. I believe the administration would claim that they have been holding fire for a year or more to give the Congress a chance to sort it out but nothing was happening.
Note I am not testifying that is true...merely that it would be the administration position. And of course EO are at least part political.
A real possibility. But on this subject, has the president tried to educate or convince the people that his is the correct position? After all, he gave congress until the end of the year to come up with something and signed his EO within a week. Some disconnect there.
But he cannot discard one set of laws by his own discretion and enact new laws on his own.
Well probably not. But again he can use discretion in how and what he enforces. Most Presidents including this one would likely avoid getting too extreme. For instance I believe Obama has said in both the new immigration thing and the DREAM EO that he cannot grant amnesty...only delay deportation and provide work permits.
Well probably not. But again he can use discretion in how and what he enforces. Most Presidents including this one would likely avoid getting too extreme. For instance I believe Obama has said in both the new immigration thing and the DREAM EO that he cannot grant amnesty...only delay deportation and provide work permits.
And many consider this to be de facto amnesty by playing with words.
And many consider this to be de facto amnesty by playing with words.
There has to be a better way.
Yup...but the Pres wins all such arguments.
I don't think there is a better way. The legislature always has this unstuck between the intent, the words and the money. I see nothing better than Executive authority to deal with that.
The legislature can of course always fix the President's wagon if two thirds agree. Just pass legislation that says he cannot do thus and so.
Even that can fail though if the directive is contrary to the Constitution or simply not possible. A directive to the President to deport all illegals by December 31, 2014 would be in that class.
Executive orders are just that, the POTUS in his capacity as head of the federal administrative government issuing an order to various departments and or even creating one.
All this is legal long as it remains just that. With this latest immigration nonsense Obama is using the power over the Department of Homeland Security/INS or whatever to use "discretion" as to who is deported and when. He is also using the power of humanity parole to craft various other parts of his scheme including high tech visas.
Congress of course can override any EO by simply passing a law (and over riding any veto) that contradicts or outlaws.
It's how you get impeached one step at a time.....
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.
