Everything Obama is doing was done before, by bush. I was speaking out against bush because on the principles that the country is meant to be about is being destroyed.
Everyone that was wanting bush gone is now apologizing, and all the bush people are now opposing Obama... And it's a lot less about race than is implied...it's that people only care about the party and the party is owned by corporate interests not human interest.
The reality is that Obama is acting as a tyrant, each time he changed HIS OWN MASTERPIECE of a law, without congress, he was acting illegally.
Now, bush did a lot of criminal stuff in his reign, BUT he did it all within the confines that resembled a legal process... Obama is doing the same types of things, but he's circumventing the process.
If he can change the laws at will, "with a pen and a phone call", what would prevent him from changing term limit laws? Property laws (like those impacting your home)? Will he, maybe or maybe not, will the next guy left or right that inherits this new power?
The thing is, if this doesn't stop the new powers will be abused.
It especially is not about race, and I'd appreciate you quit trying to race bait the conversation, it's a despicable tactic that's not even logically sound.
I suggest y'all read a bit of history before y'all start making broad-brush accusations based on not much more than what you've been fed by the right-wing echo chamber.
“To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn
"...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump
A president can only do with his pen or with executive orders what congress lets him do. A president can choose to ignore certain laws, choose to enforce some and not others and change laws to suit his whims if congress lets him. A president can do just about anything he wants if congress lets him. Congress as a co-equal branch of government can reign in any president in if they are willing to do so and make him abide by the powers stated in the Constitution if they want to.
Congress can make any president walk a tight rope or they can let him do anything he wants. The problem today is members of a president’s party in congress have become more a member of the president’s administration than a member of congress. Those members of the president’s party are not interested in keeping the powers stated in the constitution in congress. They are more than willing to cede those powers to the administration only because the president is of the same political party. They take no pride or responsibility of being congressmen and or a member of that august body and upholding that once proud institution’s status as a co-equal branch of government. Hence the imperial presidency who will use his pen and executive orders to bypass congress.
Since the congress of 1975-77 which reigned in the powers of the presidency, every president since that has added more powers to the presidency and congress has less and less. But it is congresses fault for letting each succeeding president add to the powers of the presidency.
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
I am just concerned with individual EO's that are beyond the President's power as allowed in the Constitution. Specifically, those that do things that only Congress is allowed to do.
"We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
"I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker
I thought I made myself clear that both sides can be hypocrites where claims of "power grabs" and "executive over-reach" are made (re: "how folks with idealogical bents stay mum when it's their guy in office abusing power yet claiming 'national security' to justify his actions (Republicans) but when it's the other guy in office (Democrat)...". Granted, I used an example of such an abuse of power from the perspective of the Democrats complaining when a Republican is in office, but I inferred that both sides can be hypocrites when it's their guy in office. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but frankly, I was agreeing with BmanMcfly when he touched on the matter. But just to clarify my position: BOTH SIDES DO IT when it's their guy in the WH and they have the majority, but the moment the inverse happens, they're the first to start crying "foul".
What I find funny about this entire situation is folks are upset over an act that hasn't even happened yet as far as the President's latest threat to use his executive authority to move the economy forward if Congress fails to act. They act as if this is the first time a sitting President has done such a thing. Still, I like the example you gave in post #112 reminding folks that "the Devil is in the details". To that, folks do have a legit concern about executive over-reach, but to complain about it not only before it happens but without knowing the specifics of what such an EO contains is folly.
"A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground