• 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 orders

How is this the case when say a bill fails to pass the Legislature, so the President invokes an Executive Order in order to get the exact same thing to happen?

Exactly, that is a dictatorship in disguise.
 
Exactly, that is a dictatorship in disguise.

Well, it is not quite a dictatorship, since no President can serve for more then 10 years. However, Presidents are also very hesitant to overturn the EO of another President. This is one reason why I believe they should have "time limits", 1 year up until their term of office +1 year maybe.

Otherwise it becomes as much an abuse as making laws through the judiciary.
 
Fine, there's nothing wrong with forming groups. But when the groups start interfering in the voting process and compromising it, that is a major problem with the integrity of the vote. Look at what the republicans did last time. They acted like children and exposed themselves as having no integrity. The MSM ignored it. Only the people who were interested enough to watch videos of the primaries as they were posted by people who were there, got to see what really happened. People had to secretly video the events because video was strictly prohibited, then they would post them when they got home - and by the next day or so they would disappear from youtube and I wouldn't be able to find them again. They said that Ron Paul delegates had to vote for Romney, made new rules up on the spot, ignored old rules if to do so would be in Romney's favor... you can't tell me that having "parties" does not affect the integrity of the voting process.

That is what the groups will do. They will all oppose what they believe is counterproductive to their goals. If you want to avoid this have three parties.
 
This would be comical if i didn't feel so bad for you...

The only reason I would feel bad for me is because there are people like you here, who lack the ability to make simple observations regarding what the government does, and see where we are headed. This has happened all throughout history so it's not new, we can see it coming. In fact, they are quite open about the fact that they want a "New World Order (one world government) and they don't even try to hide it anymore as they stomp out the constitution. Apparently, you are oblivious to things like the mega-purchase of hollow-point rounds by the DHS, as well as the armored, basically, TANKS they have purchased for use in the US (I believe 750 of them). They have refused to explain these purchases. But Obama goes out there and makes a good honest-sounding speech, and that's all it takes to hoodwink the majority (that includes you) so that they now feel bad for people like me, who pay attention not to what they say, but to WHAT THEY DO.
 
That is what the groups will do. They will all oppose what they believe is counterproductive to their goals. If you want to avoid this have three parties.

NO PARTIES. Just people running for the office of president. Just names on the ballot.

WITH PARTIES: influence and imposing of wills - and rules telling voters how and who they can vote for

WITHOUT PARTIES: a clean straight untainted vote

Come on, it's not that complicated of a thing to see.
 
NO PARTIES. Just people running for the office of president. Just names on the ballot.

WITH PARTIES: influence and imposing of wills - and rules telling voters how and who they can vote for

WITHOUT PARTIES: a clean straight untainted vote

Come on, it's not that complicated of a thing to see.

The argument I'm making is that people will naturally form into parties themselves, you can't stop it unless you ban them. What would improve it is to have democratic reform laws which would change how conscious voting works and setting restriction on what parties have control over. For example the Canadian parliament now has a session in the house that allows backbench MPs to say what they want without fear of party backlash.
 
The argument I'm making is that people will naturally form into parties themselves, you can't stop it unless you ban them. What would improve it is to have democratic reform laws which would change how conscious voting works and setting restriction on what parties have control over. For example the Canadian parliament now has a session in the house that allows backbench MPs to say what they want without fear of party backlash.

After the circus of the Repub primaries/caucuses where they made up and broke rules as they went to serve Romney, I was shocked that the federal government didn't step in and disqualify Romney or put the GOP back in its place. That they didn't, was a major blow to the integrity of our voting process. Repub officials maintained that they are a private "club" and that they can follow, ignore, or change the rules as they see fit. This is not true at all, however, because the federal government provides them with funding with which to run these caucuses.

Kind of funny when you consider that in one caucus where there were mostly Paul supporters, the outnumbered Romney constituents who ran the caucus, quickly appointed delegates for Romney and then closed the meeting amid shouts of objection, demands for points of order, and a vote count, then told all the Paul supporters that if they wanted to continue the caucus they needed to pay the rent and insurance for the building. They never had to answer for this behavior and I just think that's crazy. IT'S A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. How did they get away with this?
 
You dodged the issue again. Illegal immigrants? Ill be concerned about illegal immigrants as soon as we have a government that isn't mimicking the footsteps of 1938 Nazi Germany.
I didn't dodge anything but I'm not going to chase your ghosts, either. I suggest you dial 555-2368.
 
So, in your opinion, it's solidly checked and balanced? There's no potential for too much freedom of discretion?

If Congress feels that the President is overreaching his powers the House can always vote to impeach him so that he can be tried in the Senate.
 
How is this the case when say a bill fails to pass the Legislature, so the President invokes an Executive Order in order to get the exact same thing to happen?

Because Congress can pass unconstitutional legislation and the President can issue executive orders to counter it. The President can also issue executive orders to ensure that the Constitution is carried out.
 
If Congress feels that the President is overreaching his powers the House can always vote to impeach him so that he can be tried in the Senate.

Good because it may come to that. It should have already.
 
Last edited:
Because Congress can pass unconstitutional legislation and the President can issue executive orders to counter it. The President can also issue executive orders to ensure that the Constitution is carried out.

No, if Congress passes Unconstitutional legislation, the Supreme Court knocks it out. That is outside the jurisdiction of the President.
 
No, if Congress passes Unconstitutional legislation, the Supreme Court knocks it out. That is outside the jurisdiction of the President.

He may also issue executive orders prohibiting executive agencies from following those laws. That's the President's check against Congress.
 
He may also issue executive orders prohibiting executive agencies from following those laws. That's the President's check against Congress.

No, the President's check is to veto laws that Congress attempts to pass that he feels are not Constitutional. He does not have the right to retroactively strike down laws that were passed before he became President. That is the job of the Supreme Court.
 
No, the President's check is to veto laws that Congress attempts to pass that he feels are not Constitutional. He does not have the right to retroactively strike down laws that were passed before he became President. That is the job of the Supreme Court.

He's not striking them down. He's just choosing to not enforce them. Big difference.
 
I didn't dodge anything but I'm not going to chase your ghosts, either. I suggest you dial 555-2368.

My apologies for the misunderstanding. Nobody mentioned anything about ghosts. How did you get my phone number? Anyways, I called it and got a busy signal.
 
After the circus of the Repub primaries/caucuses where they made up and broke rules as they went to serve Romney, I was shocked that the federal government didn't step in and disqualify Romney or put the GOP back in its place. That they didn't, was a major blow to the integrity of our voting process. Repub officials maintained that they are a private "club" and that they can follow, ignore, or change the rules as they see fit. This is not true at all, however, because the federal government provides them with funding with which to run these caucuses.

Kind of funny when you consider that in one caucus where there were mostly Paul supporters, the outnumbered Romney constituents who ran the caucus, quickly appointed delegates for Romney and then closed the meeting amid shouts of objection, demands for points of order, and a vote count, then told all the Paul supporters that if they wanted to continue the caucus they needed to pay the rent and insurance for the building. They never had to answer for this behavior and I just think that's crazy. IT'S A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. How did they get away with this?

Again, I ask, why did the Republican party not suffer consequences outside of losing the election? Doesn't anybody, after having seen the display of what dirty cheaters they are, look differently upon the party? Or is it because they did it to Ron Paul and nobody likes Ron Paul so that makes it okay?
 
Last edited:
Again, I ask, why did the Republican party not suffer consequences outside of losing the election? Doesn't anybody, after having seen the display of what dirty cheaters they are, look differently upon the party? Or is it because they did it to Ron Paul and nobody likes Ron Paul so that makes it okay?

I'll answer that. Yes, I think it has affected the party deep down at the core. On the surface, it appears to be business as usual and they'll be back in 4 years BUT they won't ever be the same because whether you liked Ron Paul or not, in the back of your mind you know what lowdown scandalous cheating piles of **** the REpubs have shown themselves to be.
 
Back
Top Bottom