• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congress urged to challenge Obama’s executive actions

j-mac said:
I agree that Obama is not the first, but as Turley points out, it is Obama that has put this power on steroids and rapidly rendering congress a moot point....
Click to expand...

He's only been able to do that with the help of Sen Reid. If Reid had a shred of integrity, he'd call Obama and end this **** today.
 
American said:
He's only been able to do that with the help of Sen Reid. If Reid had a shred of integrity, he'd call Obama and end this **** today.
Click to expand...

If it had been President Romney, he'd be all over it. Or course, we wouldn't be hearing the outrage from our RW posters or any Republicans in Congress.
 
I agree this president needs to be reigned in with his executive actions. The right often characterizes those actions as Executive Orders, when they instead are regulations which are issued by administrative agencies. There is a Congressional bill to challenge the Obama adminstration on his executive actions which is currently in committee.
"H.Res. 442: Directing the House of Representatives to bring a civil action for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge certain policies and actions taken by the executive branch. "
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hres442

The only Executive Order I'm aware of which is improper is as yet unnumbered and not available at archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/, but claims authority under 29 U.S.C. 214(c) to change federal contractors' minimum wage. I've read 29 U.S.C. 214(c), and don't find it gives Obama that authority. Boehner has noted that it will probably affect no one, and thus won't likely be challenged.
Executive Order -- Minimum Wage for Contractors | The White House
 
BMCM said:
Tell us which EOs you have a problem with and how they are changing the Country.
Click to expand...

I just listed a few of the problems I have with this president and what he is doing, I see no reason to limit it to EOs.

You do realize that an EO is not a law, presidents can not create or change laws.
Click to expand...

Oh, I realize it. The problem is that our president doesn't. And Congress is doing nothing to stop him.
 
j-mac said:
He's right...What should be done is a select joint committee, to gather for impeachment, but this congress will not do that...So, I guess the fundamental change Obama spoke of is taking place...Bid America goodbye.
Click to expand...

The sky is falling!!!!!!
 
upsideguy said:
There is nothing new about what Obama is doing... drone, drone, drone...
Click to expand...

I guess you are just not reading my post or choose to misunderstand. Keep the blinders on, that's the only way anyone can support what this guy & Congress are doing.
 
rocket88 said:
If it had been President Romney, he'd be all over it. Or course, we wouldn't be hearing the outrage from our RW posters or any Republicans in Congress.
Click to expand...

You're wrong, those that believe strictly in the Constitution would.
 
MaggieD said:
It's my understanding that Executive Orders are perfectly proper and meant to let the president tweak certain policies and procedures in order to allow proper enforcement/execution of Congressional legislation. If that's not what the President is doing? If Presidents are mis-using the power of these EO's? Then it's time Congress stepped up and challenged EOs as appropriate.

You'll notice I said "Presidents." Obama is not the first President to use EO's. He won't be the last. Time for Congress to take a stand.
Executive Orders Issued by President: Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index
Click to expand...

It's not about the use of EOs, it is about what is being done with EOs that is the problem. Not getting the Dream Act passed and then choosing to change enforcement of existing immigration law to mimic the Dream act is clearly outside the bounds of proper use of EO.

Be VERY wary of the power you wish to give the Executive branch when it is on your side because one day it won't be.
 
specklebang said:
In the last SOTU he specifically "threatened" to use the EO if Congress would not take action.

Subsequently, I'm aware that he delayed ACA implementation for medium businesses, which is hardly a threat to the fabric of society. I'm not aware of any dramatic EOs since January, so I asked a simple question. As usual, I didn't get a specific response. I then watched the video and read the article but nowhere did it say "Obama EO this or that". I'm sure he did EO something so I thought would ask here since everybody seems to have a high opinion of their profound political knowledge.

Oh well, costs nothing to ask.....

Did you have something to contribute and expand my knowledge base? I'll appreciate it.
Click to expand...

Redbeard said:
Quit being so snotty.

You asked a question, but failed to be specific, and not being a mind reader legitimately prompted my question.
Click to expand...

I was not "snotty" at all. Your question was reasonable and I answered it - rather politely I thought.

My original question remains unanswered. Now that I clarified, do you have an answer?
 
Grant said:
What is surprising is that there are many American who will not only defend this President's actions but insist that the president's personal history and his many scandal cover-ups not be fully investigated. These are a remarkably incurious people during an important historical time.
Click to expand...

I agree so much!

Liberty dies to thunderous applause.
 
DVSentinel said:
I don't think they are right. Why would the GOP waste time on trying to control Obama when the Dems will steadfastly stand against it? The house could do all the impeachment proceedings it likes, but the Dems in the Senate won't do a damned thing.
Click to expand...
I don't give the House a pass, they can stop all spending bills in their tracks until a legitimate hearing is accepted by the Senate, if the Senate/Executive try to play games, the House can further slow or gut spending bills.
 
specklebang said:
I was not "snotty" at all. Your question was reasonable and I answered it - rather politely I thought.

My original question remains unanswered. Now that I clarified, do you have an answer?
Click to expand...

It's not limited to specific EOs, but they are a part of it.
 
j-mac said:
It's not limited to specific EOs, but they are a part of it.
Click to expand...

I questioned the sanity of Obama's declaration of the use of EO during the SOTU. I was hoping that there was an egregious EO issued after that statement (to make a point) but I couldn't find one. Google doesn't always answer my questions so I asked here in hopes that someone had discovered anything like this. Or was he just bluffing?

I Think that my question has been misunderstood and I'm prepared to give up on the subject. I asked out of curiosity, not to either defend or attack Obama.
 
specklebang said:
I questioned the sanity of Obama's declaration of the use of EO during the SOTU. I was hoping that there was an egregious EO issued after that statement (to make a point) but I couldn't find one. Google doesn't always answer my questions so I asked here in hopes that someone had discovered anything like this. Or was he just bluffing?

I Think that my question has been misunderstood and I'm prepared to give up on the subject. I asked out of curiosity, not to either defend or attack Obama.
Click to expand...

I understand but I don't think it is any specific one, rather the methods he is using and the way he just changes parts of laws he doesn't like.
 
specklebang said:
I was not "snotty" at all. Your question was reasonable and I answered it - rather politely I thought.

My original question remains unanswered. Now that I clarified, do you have an answer?
Click to expand...

Apologies for the delay in answering, and thanks for the clarification. No answer needed for your "original" question. So, in answer to your clarified question would be "not at this time", but (always a but, eh) just under 11 months until the next SOTU.

The reply about snotty had nothing to do with the question asked and was in regards to [Did you have something to contribute and expand my knowledge base?]. Granted, speaking face to face and reading the same in text form could have different interpretations.
 
Redbeard said:
Apologies for the delay in answering, and thanks for the clarification. No answer needed for your "original" question. So, in answer to your clarified question would be "not at this time", but (always a but, eh) just under 11 months until the next SOTU.

The reply about snotty had nothing to do with the question asked and was in regards to [Did you have something to contribute and expand my knowledge base?]. Granted, speaking face to face and reading the same in text form could have different interpretations.
Click to expand...

I suppose I thought the "I'll appreciate it" would show my sincerity and allow for language creativity. It's not the first time my penchant for drama has been misunderstood. So :peace.

I was dismayed at the threat made in the last SOTU specifically. Making threats in that forum seemed totally out of line. That is my opinion©. So I see a lot of attention given to EOs and I did not see anything that triggered it. I could have googled myself into confusion because it's easy to find things that have happened. But at some point, screw research, I figure I'll ask at a political forum where somebody better read than I am, would reveal their up to date knowledge.

So, I got it. Not yet.

Thanks.

(OK. Just so you understand. I said "I was dismayed at the threat made..." That's pure dramatic bull****. I didn't actually break into tears or snarl "this country is going to the dogs, dad-blame it" Deep in my heart, at the very core of my existence, I actually don't give a rat's ass. So although what I say is true (or an opinion©) I do have a tendency to overstate my case in an effort to have fun. I'm harmless, really.)
 
upsideguy said:
Impeaching Obama would be kissing America good bye. It would be a total failure of our system to do such. You want total social unrest and race riots, try impeaching the first black president, especially over pettiness.... which, if you understand anything about president power and executive orders, you know this is (Obama has issued the fewest executive orders of any president since 1900). Though I do believe the Cons are stupid enough to try such a thing, they not so stupid as even hint at it before the election.

The Cons should get busy with their job of governing.. Unfortunately, they have no vision, they have no plan, they have no leadership, they have no clue. All they know how to do is play petty politics.
Click to expand...

Impeachemnt does not have to be the end product. An EO Congress feels exceeds his powers can be challenged in court and overturned without the President having to be impeached.

Impeachment proceding would require some infraction committed by the President to move forward...Congress hasn't even come up with that as of yet.
 
1750Texan said:
Impeachemnt does not have to be the end product. An EO Congress feels exceeds his powers can be challenged in court and overturned without the President having to be impeached.

Impeachment proceding would require some infraction committed by the President to move forward...Congress hasn't even come up with that as of yet.
Click to expand...

The courts are as corrupt as the other 2 branches.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I don't give the House a pass, they can stop all spending bills in their tracks until a legitimate hearing is accepted by the Senate, if the Senate/Executive try to play games, the House can further slow or gut spending bills.
Click to expand...

You mean like they tried to do last year and the polls showed almost no backing for it?
 
DVSentinel said:
You mean like they tried to do last year and the polls showed almost no backing for it?
Click to expand...
Well, if they don't have enough spine to do what is needed unless polls support it then they are useless anyway.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Well, if they don't have enough spine to do what is needed unless polls support it then they are useless anyway.
Click to expand...

I see your point. But for me, even a spineless do nothing is better than a Dem being in those spots and spending money as if it grew on ever blooming trees.
 
MaggieD said:
It's my understanding that Executive Orders are perfectly proper and meant to let the president tweak certain policies and procedures in order to allow proper enforcement/execution of Congressional legislation. If that's not what the President is doing? If Presidents are mis-using the power of these EO's? Then it's time Congress stepped up and challenged EOs as appropriate.

You'll notice I said "Presidents." Obama is not the first President to use EO's. He won't be the last. Time for Congress to take a stand.
Executive Orders Issued by President: Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index
Click to expand...

I just watched an interesting series on the history of the office of Pres of the US and according to this series the President and Congress have a long history of battling for power and many Presidents have been accused of "stretching" or even changing the boundaries of power that had been established by their predecessors. So, no it's nothing new.

The accusation as I understand it is that Obama is using them in a way they have not been used but that accusation is nothing new either. So basically it seems he is discovering new loopholes like many many Presidents before him. Everyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong (ha ha as if I even needed to add that) Is terms of frequency of use this chart will show you how often they have been used by past Presidents ( Executive Orders)

Frankly I think everyone is acting out the same hysteria they always have, whether it be from the right or the left.
 
j-mac said:
I agree that Obama is not the first, but as Turley points out, it is Obama that has put this power on steroids and rapidly rendering congress a moot point....
Click to expand...

Did the depth of Turley's criticisms of BUSH escape you? He's right on Obama and he was right on Bush, but partisanship allows this **** to perpetuate and intensify.
 
Anthony60 said:
I guess you are just not reading my post or choose to misunderstand. Keep the blinders on, that's the only way anyone can support what this guy & Congress are doing.
Click to expand...

You're funny! I support my position; even when challenged, you do (can) not. I have the blinders on? I think not. You failed to prove your assertion.

I read your post. You offered one example of an EO you thought was egregious. You did not, however, show how this EO was any more egregious than the thousands that preceded it authored by previous presidents. Again, to make the statement that Obama is somehow out of control, you have to show us that either he has issued more EO's than most to all other presidents (and we know that is not true) OR show us that the nature or character of these EO's is somehow different, on that front, you have failed.

Frankly, you have no case. I am sorry to challenge your distorted perception of the issue, but that is what it is. You are in a delusion that you chose not to emerge from.

Next time you make an assertion, kindly support it with substance.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
You're funny! I support my position; even when challenged, you do (can) not. I have the blinders on? I think not. You failed to prove your assertion.

I read your post. You offered one example of an EO you thought was egregious. You did not, however, show how this EO was any more egregious than the thousands that preceded it authored by previous presidents. Again, to make the statement that Obama is somehow out of control, you have to show us that either he has issued more EO's than most to all other presidents (and we know that is not true) OR show us that the nature or character of these EO's is somehow different, on that front, you have failed.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess there is no getting through to you on this. Why the predilection with EO's? You claim to have read my post, where I said I don't care if what he does is on EO or not, yet you go on with them. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a President can only be impeached if his wrongdoing is through EO's, yet you behave as if that is the case. Obviously, your tactic, as is the standard for liberals, is to try and stay away from what he has done, and focus on some insignificant point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom