Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 60

Thread: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

  1. #21
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    What that he is going to start issuing more executive orders? He better get moving if he wants to catch up with his predecessors. In fact, he will have to at least double his rate if he even wants to catch Reagan at this point.
    The point is that it's a controversy that Obama's created. Also, even though your graph shows that numerically signing statements have been low under Obama, and I have no way to know if the graph is correct, what he has done has had a bigger impact legislatively than any president in memory. He changed Obamacare fundamentally when he exempted groups from it's punishment and delayed implementation for a whole segment of insurance policies until after the mid term election for political reasons.

    At this point in my mind, it's not numbers that are significant, it's circumventing congress and legislating from his office on major legislation.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  2. #22
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,400

    Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    The point is that it's a controversy that Obama's created. Also, even though your graph shows that numerically signing statements have been low under Obama, and I have no way to know if the graph is correct, what he has done has had a bigger impact legislatively than any president in memory. He changed Obamacare fundamentally when he exempted groups from it's punishment and delayed implementation for a whole segment of insurance policies until after the mid term election for political reasons.

    At this point in my mind, it's not numbers that are significant, it's circumventing congress and legislating from his office on major legislation.
    They all do it, that is the point. Anytime a president doesn't get their way with congress they issue executive orders. Moreover, he has faced more filibusters over than any other president, yet still has issued less executive orders. There are plenty of reasons to criticize the Obama Administration, executive orders is not. If anything he has been more spineless with them than anything else.

    I have been on these forums since 2005. I don't remember any conservatives or right leaning libertarians criticizing the Bush Administration for their huge number of signing statements or for all his executive orders which is exactly why this is obviously nothing but partisan bitching now.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  3. #23
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    They all do it, that is the point. Anytime a president doesn't get their way with congress they issue executive orders. Moreover, he has faced more filibusters over than any other president, yet still has issued less executive orders. There are plenty of reasons to criticize the Obama Administration, executive orders is not. If anything he has been more spineless with them than anything else.

    I have been on these forums since 2005. I don't remember any conservatives or right leaning libertarians criticizing the Bush Administration for their huge number of signing statements or for all his executive orders which is exactly why this is obviously nothing but partisan bitching now.
    You asked why we were talking about it. The answer was that Obama brought it up at the SOU. That's not an opinion. It's the answer. Lets move on.

    I don't know about the filibusters but I can tell you this much. He's done a poor job working with congress. He is inflexible in his demands and has no desire to either build relationships, consensus or compromise. He's also trying to change the fabric of American culture. Many see that as a move toward large Federal government and more control over the lives of citizens. I am thankful for gridlock and filibuster because I dislike very much the Presidents agenda.

    With respect to partisanship. Partisans will be partisan but these signing statements would not be an issue if Obama hadn't made a statement about them. His legislating from the Oval office however would be.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  4. #24
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    It's not selective outrage, it's a reaction to what Obama said in the State of the Union.
    But it is selective outrage.

    I hate to say it because doing so will only bring up the "keep blaming Bush" deflectors, but the very people (politicians) who are now claiming that President Obama is disregarding laws are the same people who kept their mouths shuts when GWB made all his Signing States concerning provisions of laws he either disagreed with or determined he would not uphold. For example, from the book "Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency," by Charlie Savage, Chapter 10, page 229:

    When [President G.W. Bush] put his signature on the bill [USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act], officially known as H.R. 3199, at the elaborate signing ceremony in the East Room, the saga seemed to be over. But it wasn't over. Later that day, after the members of Congress and reporters had left, Bush issued a signing statement declaring that 'he did not consider himself bound to obey the new oversight requirements." Despite the law's mandatory provisions that the executive branch regularly give Congress a complete accounting of how the FBA was using the Patriot Act, 'Bush declared that he could withhold any such information if he decided that its disclosure would be undesirable'. The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch...in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."
    So, here we have an example of a former President declaring in writing for the public record that he will not adhere to a provision of a law, but when a sitting President issues an Executive Order that outlines how his Administration should carry out provisions of a law to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" or act where Congress has been slow to take deliberate action, suddenly it's a bad thing for the guy currently in the White House but was overlooked by that last guy to sit in the big chair?

    Sometimes, you just have to shake your head...
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  5. #25
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    But it is selective outrage.

    I hate to say it because doing so will only bring up the "keep blaming Bush" deflectors, but the very people (politicians) who are now claiming that President Obama is disregarding laws are the same people who kept their mouths shuts when GWB made all his Signing States concerning provisions of laws he either disagreed with or determined he would not uphold. For example, from the book "Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency," by Charlie Savage, Chapter 10, page 229:



    So, here we have an example of a former President declaring in writing for the public record that he will not adhere to a provision of a law, but when a sitting President issues an Executive Order that outlines how his Administration should carry out provisions of a law to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" or act where Congress has been slow to take deliberate action, suddenly it's a bad thing for the guy currently in the White House but was overlooked by that last guy to sit in the big chair?

    Sometimes, you just have to shake your head...
    Do you think we'd be talking about signing statements if Obama hadn't said he was going to use them to pass his agenda in the State of the Union? I don't.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  6. #26
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,544

    Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive orders | WashingtonExaminer.com



    This should be pretty fundamental stuff for a Constitutional scholar and his Attorney General. All this should be documented prior to drafting and signing an EO.
    where do you get the idea that AGs are supposed to be or have bee constitutional scholars. The only one who comes close to that definition in recent memory was acting AG Peter Keisler who was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Meese was a law professor . He qualified as well



  7. #27
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    Do you think we'd be talking about signing statements if Obama hadn't said he was going to use them to pass his agenda in the State of the Union? I don't.
    Of course! Republicans have been accusing President Obama of using Executive Orders to bypass Congress or disregard provisions of standing laws as far back as the Arizona Immigration law. And since then it was his Executive Memo (Order) not to deport illegal aliens w/o criminal records. And since then it was giving insurance companies permission to reinstate insurance policies purchased on the individual market that were terminated as a provision of the ACA. What Republicans are trying to do now is say, "See! He's is a brazen President! He was even bold enough to actually say to the nation he'd go around Congress and exert his Executive Power as he sees fit." This tactic falls right in line with the phrase, "If you say it often enough, it becomes the truth." Only Republicans have forgotten a couple of things:

    1) They expect people to forget how they lack the ability to govern. They can sure work against something they don't like, but to govern...no.

    2) Congress' approval ratings are in the tank; moreso due to actions by the Republican Party than Democrats, but down none the less. So, this "tyrannical, empirical, dictatorial" President mantra acts as good deflection.

    3) Claiming that the President will usurp his authority as President goes counter to the argument that "he lacks leadership". (And mind you a leader either convinces you to follow him or he drags your stubborn ass along kickin' and screaming if he has to. Seems to me President Obama has tried to do the former and has decided to do the latter.)
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  8. #28
    Guru
    sawdust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    03-04-16 @ 09:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,177

    Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Of course! Republicans have been accusing President Obama of using Executive Orders to bypass Congress or disregard provisions of standing laws as far back as the Arizona Immigration law. And since then it was his Executive Memo (Order) not to deport illegal aliens w/o criminal records. And since then it was giving insurance companies permission to reinstate insurance policies purchased on the individual market that were terminated as a provision of the ACA. What Republicans are trying to do now is say, "See! He's is a brazen President! He was even bold enough to actually say to the nation he'd go around Congress and exert his Executive Power as he sees fit." This tactic falls right in line with the phrase, "If you say it often enough, it becomes the truth." Only Republicans have forgotten a couple of things:

    1) They expect people to forget how they lack the ability to govern. They can sure work against something they don't like, but to govern...no.

    2) Congress' approval ratings are in the tank; moreso due to actions by the Republican Party than Democrats, but down none the less. So, this "tyrannical, empirical, dictatorial" President mantra acts as good deflection.

    3) Claiming that the President will usurp his authority as President goes counter to the argument that "he lacks leadership". (And mind you a leader either convinces you to follow him or he drags your stubborn ass along kickin' and screaming if he has to. Seems to me President Obama has tried to do the former and has decided to do the latter.)
    You are missing the point and you didn't answer the question. We aren't talking about this because of Bush or the Republicans. Obama brought it up at the SOTU. You can bitch about politics, I don't care what you think. The reason it's a topic on the message board is Obama brought it up. If he had brought up puppy dogs, we'd be talking about them.
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler

  9. #29
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    You are missing the point and you didn't answer the question. We aren't talking about this because of Bush or the Republicans. Obama brought it up at the SOTU. You can bitch about politics, I don't care what you think. The reason it's a topic on the message board is Obama brought it up. If he had brought up puppy dogs, we'd be talking about them.
    I get the point fully. It's a trending topic now because he said TWICE recently that "he had a phone and a pen" and he'd "issue an Executive Order" to act where Congress would not. But you're acting as if this is a hot button issue that resonates with everyone the same way. I'm not as uptight about the issue as others (on the Right) appear to be except when they try to make it seem as if one side of the political divide is so terribly wrong and conducting himself illegally/unconstitutionally. Yet they didn't say a word when the last guy in office did the exact same thing only he made it clear that HE would not adhere to certain provisions of law, whereas all President Obama has done for the most part is say how his Administration can use the law to help move the country forward.

    The reason I've chimed in isn't because I agree or disagree with the President of the United States using his Power as Chief Executive to direct his Administration how to go about doing the country's business. It's to try and counter the notion that "the President is overstepping his bounds", towit, I say if that truly were the case, why hasn't he been impeached at worse or the laws the Republican leadership claims he's disregarding strengthened or executive authority he's taking too broadly reigned in?

    Answer(s):

    1) Because he's not; and,

    2) They want to ensure that once one of their own returns to the WH, he exercises the same broad powers to forester their political power and control.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 02-02-14 at 11:29 PM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  10. #30
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Why is there such a freakout over Obama's executive orders when he has issued far less than most presidents:

    Attachment 67161218

    Really, when you consider the financial crisis he took office in the middle of, the fact he issued so few executive orders is remarkable. Presidents have historically issued far more executive orders, especially in a time of economic crisis. Why the selective outrage now?
    not that I am disagreeing that criticism is misplaced (it's not an issue I am overly concerned with), but wouldn't a better measure be the issues those executive orders concerned and how legally and socially controversial they were?

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •