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.
If congress passed a law tomorrow, and it was veto proof with 2/3rds of both houses saying "alcohol is now illegal to sale" the President decides how to execute that policy. He could, in fact, hire one guy in the whole country to do that job. He can limit that guy to hiring no fellow employees. He can limit that guy to staying in his office for all but 1 minute of the day. That is all within the Presidents power.
I want a yes or no answer from you on this. No qualifications of that answer or squirming to get out of answering it. Just answer yes or no.
If alcohol was outlawed at the federal level tomorrow, and the president assigned a single person to enforce that law which affects hundreds of millions of people, would you say that he is "faithfully executing" that law? Yes or no.
"The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."
Amnesty through executive order could certainly be argued as a violation of a public trust of a political nature that could be seen as an injury to society. It would not happen though.
I want a yes or no answer from you on this. No qualifications of that answer or squirming to get out of answering it. Just answer yes or no.
If alcohol was outlawed at the federal level tomorrow, and the president assigned a single person to enforce that law which affects hundreds of millions of people, would you say that he is "faithfully executing" that law? Yes or no.
If congress didn't act on something that needs to be done, then I expect the President to address the problem without the consent of congress. If Congress passes a law that is not executable, then I expect the President to not execute it. That is a checks and balances act.
All Presidents have used executive orders, including the very first one.
If congress didn't act on something that needs to be done, then I expect the President to address the problem without the consent of congress.
That's not the way it works. The President doesn't have the authority to detemine what needs to be done and then act if Congress doesn't follow his lead.
I want a yes or no answer from you on this. No qualifications of that answer or squirming to get out of answering it. Just answer yes or no.
If alcohol was outlawed at the federal level tomorrow, and the president assigned a single person to enforce that law which affects hundreds of millions of people, would you say that he is "faithfully executing" that law? Yes or no.
He doesn't have to enforce a law that he feels in Unconstitutional.
When it comes to outlawing alcohol, I think he could reasonably make an argument regarding the Constitutionality of the law.
I'm not so sure he can make such an argument regarding illegal immigrants and amnesty.
But unlike Memphis, I don't think it matters if he is pardoning an American citizen or a non-citizen. He is pardoning someone who is under American jurisdiction.
That's not the way it works. The President doesn't have the authority to detemine what needs to be done and then act if Congress doesn't follow his lead.
That is the way it works. Its the way its worked since Washington was President. Have you not researched the history of Executive order?
That's not the way it works. The President doesn't have the authority to detemine what needs to be done and then act if Congress doesn't follow his lead.
But he does have some discretion about disagreeing with Congress about what needs to be done.
That is the way it wway it works. Its the way its worked since Washington was President. Have you not researched the history of Executive order?
Executive order does not allow the President to act with impunity because he thinks something should happen. That violates the separation of powers by usurping legislative power by allowing the executive to simply say he thinks something should happen. Executive order can't contradict the laws passed through proper legislation. The President has the obligation "to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." He can propose new legislation and he can veto. He doesn't not have the authority to act in contradiction to the laws and he does not have the line item veto.
But he does have some discretion about disagreeing with Congress about what needs to be done.
Of course.
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.
