I concur.
I’m sorry, isn’t the POTUS granted executive orders/actions just like the Congress is granted its powers? Who are you to decide what’s executive overreach and what isn’t?
Even if congress passed more laws, do you think the current administration would enforce them? All sorts of laws in regard to immigration and drug use/trafficking are not being enforced. Law in regard to the affordable care act is not being enforced. Lack of action is a form of overreach as well. Executive orders are to be used to enforce the law. If thousands are needed so be it. How they are used is what makes them constitutional or not. The numbers don’t mean anything and are just talking points used by low information voters.
The supreme court is supposed to decide what is and what is not constitutional. There are many cases pending. The problem is they can take years and the executive carries on. There currently is a stay in regard to Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” implementation for example. Any other questions on how the system is supposed to work?
Interesting interpretation of my post. It is correct that Turd was wrong about his comment on President Obama’s use of Executive Orders. I did not, however, invent the category Executive Actions and they are not simply anything the president does in their function as the executive (those would be actions by the executive, which do include, but are not exclusively, Executive Actions). For those not familiar with the difference between Executive Orders and Excecutive Actions, which is most people, Executive Orders have the weight of laws and can be challenged by congress, with the Supreme Court as the arbiter. Executive Actions, which have no legal standing and therefore have no basis upon which to be legally challenged, are basically proposals/position papers prepared by the administration. President Obama has been quite masterful in his use of Executive Actions, as the pagentry around their announcements has given people the impression that he actually implemented new procedures or regulations to solve a problem, when in fact all he did is ask (not direct, that would be an Executive Order) others to implement new procedures or regulations to solve a problem. The POTUS asking you to do something obviously carries a lot of weight, but you are not obligated to comply. If you look closely at the administration’s Executive Actions on gun control, you will see that the administration asked states to do X, asked the FBI to do Y, asked ATF to Z, etc. When people see the ceremony and see the president sitting down signing something, it generally gives them the impression that he’s actually affecting change, but in reality he’s doing nothing other than presenting a wish list. As I said earlier, President Obama has displayed a mastery of this, but it’s a double-edged sword. By giving the appearance of implementing new procedures and regulations, he gets the adulation of his supporters who will tout the accomplishment, albeit a false accomplishment, but also invites the criticism of ruling by fiat, also a false crticism.
Here’s an example of an executive order that is now being challenged for those that have no idea how much power the president yields. The dollar ramifications of this are in the trillions, supposedly. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/02/Pros-and-Cons-Obama-s-New-Carbon-Rule
What’s wrong with using executive orders or actions? If O doesn’t do anything h’s not showing leadership, when he does, he’s going too far. Can’t win them all.
^ I already tried asking the direct question and was met with a nonsense response. Don’t waste your time.
Also, the conservatives didn’t mind so much when GOTUS was amassing power in the Bush years.
^actually, true conservatives really did mind. that’s the thing, none of you realize that dems and repubs are the same. true social liberals/fiscal conservatives think you all are evil jerkoffs.
I have a hard time seeing the carbon rule costing trillions. Is this about BTU?
In general terms, nothing. There are certainly situations in every president’s time in office where it is necessary to act more quickly than congress is able to act, so an Executive Order is perfectly reasonable. Where Executive Orders become troublesome, IMO, is when a president uses them to circumvent congress because he believes congress won’t act the way he wants. Executive Actions are nothing but political PR, so absolutely nothing wrong with them unless they purposely dishonest.
i think the hysteria surrounding trump is less about what he can actually do, due to the obvious senate and house roadblocks, but how he treats others. i don’t think blatant misogyny and racism are positive traits for a president. if you’re saying he can’t get anything done internally, his only capabilities will be that of a diplomat, negotiatiing with foreign powers. i couldn’t think of a worse candidate for this position.
this is why clinton would be more effective. her strength is foreign relations and she is good with people. at the very least, you can trust that clinton isn’t going to punch putin in the face, even if he sleeps with bill.
aren’t most of you arguing for trump either republicans or libertarians who want social spending to go down? wouldn’t building a giant useless wall that his minimially effective and/or requires massive sustaining capital be your worst nightmare? when trump talks about spending money on useless $hit, how does this not make you more mad than spending money on savings people’s lives and better education? so you’d literally rather flush money down the toilet than let your money go towards helping people? do i have to bring up the tariffs (i.e. taxes)?
this why trump’s appeal makes no sense. people have to give up some of their core beliefs to vote for him. he’s a big spending, racist, misogynist, protectionist, elitist a$$hole. he’s only the bad parts of both parties. this is why the rest of the world has their jaw on the table. how can you sell your soul, and for what?
because Ron Paul proved that the country is not ready for true liberty. it has to get worse before it can get better. so yes I am voting trump in hopes that it produces such dark times that average people finally realise that you can’t legislate prosperity or morality. the sooner the house of cards comes down, the better off future generations will be.
Sigh.
I don’t know how else to slow this down for you. I’m not advocating Trump. I’m saying the hysteria is overdone. Having a president that puts his foot in his mouth or acts like an idiot is no need to run around screaming about the death of democracy, Hitler Pt.2 or other useless nonsense. We go through this every election. I think my opening sentence in this thread spelled that out pretty clearly.
for once i’m not going after you specifically bs. it was more a generalization that definitely included ghibli and itera.
so you would prefer a nuclear winter over the current situation?
No, now you’re downhill skiing trying to avoid the reality that the Right loved Bush’s concentration of power while the criticism came from the Left. Conservatism is not libertarianism.
yes i’d pay a short period of really bad times for myself if it ensured long term wisdom, peace & prosperity for future generations.