• 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!

Executive actions ready to go as Trump prepares to take office

ludin said:
which I disagree with. 9 people in black robes should not be able to systematically change the constitution.
there is only 1 way to actually change or modify the constitution and it isn't through the SCOTUS.

something that they fail to realize sometimes more often than not.
Click to expand...

Or rulings like the ACA mandate.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Shocked, I tell ya!
:lol:
Thank you for coming along and providing an example proving my position.
Click to expand...

So far you don't have a position.
By rolling back previous EO's trump is not creating or changing law.
I honestly don't think you know what you are arguing

It was what j-mac said. Once more, you show no desire to comprehend what you read before you post. Shocked, I tell ya!
Click to expand...

Yes you really don't know what you are talking about or arguing. If you had proof or evidence you would have supplied it.
so we will go just partisan hyperbole which is typical.

I see, thank you for clarifying. And, as I've said, I suspect whether SCOTUS makes the right decision or not likely depends on your agenda and what you consider "right".
Click to expand...

actually it is what the constitution says vs what they say. there is a difference.
the constitution is correct. SCOTUS not always.
 
WCH said:
Or rulings like the ACA mandate.
Click to expand...

bingo the government now has the power to force any person or persons to buy any private good or service
regardless if that person wants it or not as long as they attach a tax on it.

you don't want to buy a crappy GM car? to bad you will pay a tax if you don't. 100% constitutional now thanks
to that ruling. yet the constitution says government doesn't have the power to do that.

a ton of freedom was lost in that ruling. people seriously don't understand how much freedom they lost.
 
ludin said:
So far you don't have a position. By rolling back previous EO's trump is not creating or changing law. I honestly don't think you know what you are arguing
Click to expand...
I know exactly what I'm arguing. You don't seem to get it. I don't have a position on Trump's actions, other than to say so long as they are within his power, there's nothing "illegal" or "unconstitutional" about them. My position is to point out other people don't hold a position similar to mine, their position is often "if it's something I don't like, then the President is acting like a king". This mentality is prevalent on both sides of the political aisle, I was just pointing it out.

President Obama's actions did not create law either. That was just partisan nonsense coming from people who didn't like the actions he took, actions which were within his powers as granted by law.

Yes you really don't know what you are talking about or arguing. If you had proof or evidence you would have supplied it. so we will go just partisan hyperbole which is typical.
Click to expand...
I was not accusing President Trump of acting like a king, I was asking j-mac if he held a member of his party to the same standards he held a President from the other party.

For God's sake, take the time to actually read and comprehend an argument so you don't post stupid things in reply.

actually it is what the constitution says vs what they say. there is a difference.
the constitution is correct. SCOTUS not always.
Click to expand...
Of course. :roll:
 
Slyfox696 said:
I know exactly what I'm arguing. You don't seem to get it. I don't have a position on Trump's actions, other than to say so long as they are within his power, there's nothing "illegal" or "unconstitutional" about them. My position is to point out other people don't hold a position similar to mine, their position is often "if it's something I don't like, then the President is acting like a king". This mentality is prevalent on both sides of the political aisle, I was just pointing it out.
Click to expand...

There is a limit to EO's as courts have ruled. EO's cannot change or create law. that is overstepping the separation of powers.
Obama should know this well. many of his EO were ruled unconstitutional by the court. many of his agencies attempting to change law by regulation
were done the same.

President Obama's actions did not create law either. That was just partisan nonsense coming from people who didn't like the actions he took, actions which were within his powers as granted by law.
Click to expand...

The court system disagrees with you therefore you are wrong. Many of this EO did in fact violate the separation of powers act.
which is why they were ruled unconstitutional.

I was not accusing President Trump of acting like a king, I was asking j-mac if he held a member of his party to the same standards he held a President from the other party.
For God's sake, take the time to actually read and comprehend an argument so you don't post stupid things in reply.
Click to expand...

It is not my job to clarify or try and decipher your argument. if you would like I can go back and repost exactly what you said. now you are changing what you said to mean something
else so which is it?

Of course. :roll:
Click to expand...

proof or evidence that the SCOTUS is 100% perfect in all their rulings.
not that you will actually supply any proof or evidence you never do.
 
ludin said:
I don't see how undoing what someone else did as abuse of power.
the president doesn't have the ability to make law. which is exactly what Obama tried to do.
that is why court after court struck down his OE.

Proof or evidence or more hyperbole?
Click to expand...

Libs lived by the rule of executive power while obama was in office and now that power is gone from them

Trump will sign the executive orders from now on
 
Mac77 said:
Trump will sign the executive orders from now on
Click to expand...

Well at least for 4 years, no more than 8.

And when the Dems retake the office, I will expect the right to go back to bitching about EOs.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I know exactly what I'm arguing. You don't seem to get it. I don't have a position on Trump's actions, other than to say so long as they are within his power, there's nothing "illegal" or "unconstitutional" about them. My position is to point out other people don't hold a position similar to mine, their position is often "if it's something I don't like, then the President is acting like a king". This mentality is prevalent on both sides of the political aisle, I was just pointing it out.

President Obama's actions did not create law either. That was just partisan nonsense coming from people who didn't like the actions he took, actions which were within his powers as granted by law.

I was not accusing President Trump of acting like a king, I was asking j-mac if he held a member of his party to the same standards he held a President from the other party.

For God's sake, take the time to actually read and comprehend an argument so you don't post stupid things in reply.

Of course. :roll:
Click to expand...

DACA is clearly new law created by obama through executive action

And it sets a precedent that I am sure trump will exploit
 
Ikari said:
Well at least for 4 years, no more than 8.

And when the Dems retake the office, I will expect the right to go back to bitching about EOs.
Click to expand...

And in that time America will move closer to being a dictatorship
 
Mac77 said:
And in that time America will move closer to being a dictatorship
Click to expand...

....not sure your statement means what you meant it to mean.
 
Mac77 said:
What do you think I meant it to mean?
Click to expand...

I said that Trump will be in office for 4 to 8 years, and eventually when the Dems take over the right will go back to bitching about EO's.

You said that in that time, America will move closer to being a dictatorship. Meaning that under Trump and the Republican leadership, America will move closer to being a dictatorship.

Given your partisan nature, I would think you meant at that time, America will move closer to being a dictatorship, which would mean that the Democratic leadership would be the ones pushing to dictatorship.
 
Ikari said:
I said that Trump will be in office for 4 to 8 years, and eventually when the Dems take over the right will go back to bitching about EO's.

You said that in that time, America will move closer to being a dictatorship. Meaning that under Trump and the Republican leadership, America will move closer to being a dictatorship.

Given your partisan nature, I would think you meant at that time, America will move closer to being a dictatorship, which would mean that the Democratic leadership would be the ones pushing to dictatorship.
Click to expand...

I think that if trump merely recinds obamas executive actions that is a good thing

But if trump uses the power that obama assumed for himself the same way obama used it to make end runs around congress that is not a good thing
 
Mac77 said:
I think that if trump merely recinds obamas executive actions that is a good thing

But if trump uses the power that obama assumed for himself the same way obama used it to make end runs around congress that is not a good thing
Click to expand...

OK, fair enough then.
 
Mac77 said:
DACA is clearly new law created by obama through executive action

And it sets a precedent that I am sure trump will exploit
Click to expand...

Expect to hear blanket hardship waivers for individuals and non-enforcement of the employer mandate over the next few weeks.
 
Mac77 said:
Libs lived by the rule of executive power while obama was in office and now that power is gone from them

Trump will sign the executive orders from now on
Click to expand...

as long as they fall under the guidelines that EO's are supposed to then it is fine.
attempting to make law because you don't like it and can't get congress to do anything is well.
no.
 
Mac77 said:
DACA is clearly new law created by obama through executive action

And it sets a precedent that I am sure trump will exploit
Click to expand...

DACA is no longer an issue and ruled unconstitutional.
 
Samhain said:
Expect to hear blanket hardship waivers for individuals and non-enforcement of the employer mandate over the next few weeks.
Click to expand...

Explain the phrase "blanket hardship exemptions"
 
Mac77 said:
Explain the phrase "blanket hardship exemptions"
Click to expand...

ACA said:
Sec. 2. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies (agencies) with authorities and responsibilities under the Act shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.
Click to expand...

The ACA individual mandate penalty is a fiscal burden, therefore, you can exempt anyone that would be burdened by the penalty. This effectively applies to all, therefore, its a blanket exemption.

Additionally, the employer mandate was delayed in 2013 via enforcement discretionary action( Continuing to Implement the ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful Manner ). No reason to think it can't be delayed indefinitely.
 
Mac77 said:
Libs lived by the rule of executive power while obama was in office and now that power is gone from them

Trump will sign the executive orders from now on
Click to expand...

They love to do end arounds to get bye our Constitution. They appoint leftist judges to corrupt the system, then get them to reverse the will of the people, and then you h̶a̶v̶e̶ had Obama with his EOs. A clear violation of Separation of Powers. The ends justifies the means to them.
 
Samhain said:
The ACA individual mandate penalty is a fiscal burden, therefore, you can exempt anyone that would be burdened by the penalty. This effectively applies to all, therefore, its a blanket exemption.

Additionally, the employer mandate was delayed in 2013 via enforcement discretionary action( Continuing to Implement the ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful Manner ). No reason to think it can't be delayed indefinitely.
Click to expand...

Expect trump to do away with all that

Besides I thought you were talking about the Dreamers not getting deported
 
Mac77 said:
Expect trump to do away with all that

Besides I thought you were talking about the Dreamers not getting deported
Click to expand...

The Office of the President has, quite frankly, a ****ton of new powers that have been gained over the last 10 years. I'm not happy about that, but its clear that everyone will turn a blind eye as long as they agree with what is being done. While I certainly prefer they be blocked, those that could do so are too busy wiping the drool from their faces as they salivate for that same power.
 
Samhain said:
The Office of the President has, quite frankly, a ****ton of new powers that have been gained over the last 10 years. I'm not happy about that, but its clear that everyone will turn a blind eye as long as they agree with what is being done. While I certainly prefer they be blocked, those that could do so are too busy wiping the drool from their faces as they salivate for that same power.
Click to expand...

That's what I said in a previous post

The use of executive orders moves us closer to a dictatorship
 
ludin said:
There is a limit to EO's as courts have ruled. EO's cannot change or create law. that is overstepping the separation of powers.
Click to expand...
No one is disputing that.
Obama should know this well. many of his EO were ruled unconstitutional by the court.
Click to expand...
First of all, there's a difference between executive actions and executive orders. Second of all, the number of actions and orders ruled unconstitutional pale in comparison to the ones that didn't. Finally, this is the last I'm saying about this because it has nothing to do with my point.

The court system disagrees with you therefore you are wrong. Many of this EO did in fact violate the separation of powers act.
Click to expand...
See above. And then research.

It is not my job to clarify or try and decipher your argument.
Click to expand...
Um...yes it is. If you willingly replied to me, it is most definitely incumbent upon you to understand the argument to which you reply. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

if you would like I can go back and repost exactly what you said.
Click to expand...
No, I'd rather you go back and actually read and understand what I said. I never said Trump was king or dictator or anything like that. I asked j-mac if, given that Trump is doing what j-mac disapproved of Obama doing, if he would call Trump the same things he said about Obama.

It's right there in black and white and anyone with an IQ in the double digits can understand it.
now you are changing what you said to mean something else so which is it?
Click to expand...
I haven't changed what I said once. Just because you lacked the desire to understand it the first time, that does not mean I changed my position. Again, it is on you to understand an argument before you reply to it, so you can avoid posting stupid things.

proof or evidence that the SCOTUS is 100% perfect in all their rulings.
Click to expand...
Yet more evidence you simply don't understand the conversation. I'll explain it one more time for you, but after that, you're on your own.

My contention is the blindly partisan will often excuse for one what they condemn in another. In this case, j-mac previously said Obama was worse than a king or dictator because he was issuing executive orders/actions. In this case, j-mac started a thread about Trump issuing executive orders/actions so I asked if he thought Trump was worse than a king or dictator, since that was what he said of Obama. I never once said Trump was king or dictator, despite your previous misunderstanding.

Finally, with regards to SCOTUS, my "of course" refers back to yet another thing I said, which is partisans on either side of the aisle generally tend to see EA/EO as lawful or unconstitutional based on the agenda of the partisan. In other words, I was saying someone like you, who is definitely partisan, likely feels SCOTUS gets rulings "correct" when they rule the way you want them to rule, but get it "wrong" when they don't. Because that's what partisans do, they lack objectivity.

I've now explained this in-depth to you. Despite your absurd belief it is not your job to understand an argument before you reply to it, the fact is it IS your responsibility to understand an argument before you reply to it. So, before you reply with yet another post which has nothing to do with what I've actually said, take the time to actually read and comprehend. Maybe take a full day to think about it before you reply. Because I've reached my limit for tolerating stupidity for the day.
 
Slyfox696 said:
...j-mac previously said Obama was worse than a king or dictator because he was issuing executive orders/actions. In this case, j-mac started a thread about Trump issuing executive orders/actions so I asked if he thought Trump was worse than a king or dictator, since that was what he said of Obama....
Click to expand...

So, all of this out of you was based on you wanting to expose some kind of hypocrisy? Well, maybe a little, but my God man....How petty are we to get here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom