• 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

I dislike labels in politics. In fact, I'm of the opinion that it is the labels that have ruined the government and divided the people. Our voting process is moronic and criminal. Why should there be any "parties"? ANYBODY should be able to run for president without having to claim a party or label. If several people who differ greatly in their views are battling to be the nominee to represent their "party", the system has already failed because supporters of the ones who didn't win are not represented. If you just had a ballot with all of them on it, and no "parties", then you cast your vote and whoever wins wins. The parties were created to manipulate the voting process because it is too difficult to manipulate it if there is just a ballot with a bunch of names. Tell me I'm wrong.
+

If we didn't have parties we would have even worse stalemates than we do now, it also misses the fact that people will naturally form groups with people who share similar ideas.
 
Well Obama did use an Executive Order to implement an illegal amnesty for illegal aliens who the left has labeled as dreamers.

A complete violation of the Constitution. Only Congress can set the nations immigration policies, the Executive branch is only allowed and is required to enforce the immigration policies passed by Congress.
Q: Did President Obama “enact” the DREAM Act by executive order to give “amnesty” to 20 million illegal immigrants?

A: No. But the administration in 2011 adopted a policy of giving “particular care” before deporting students, military veterans and others deemed to be low risk. In 2011, it issued a new policy to allow certain illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to apply for two-year work permits.

FactCheck.org : Did Obama ‘Enact’ DREAM Act?
 

It's an amnesty, he has ordered immigration agents not to deport these "dreamer" illegal aliens and ordered that these illegal aliens be issued work permits.

am·nes·ty/ˈæmnəsti/ Show Spelled [am-nuh-stee] Show IPA noun, plural am·nes·ties, verb, am·nes·tied, am·nes·ty·ing.
noun
1. a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.
3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.
 
It's an amnesty, he has ordered immigration agents not to deport these "dreamer" illegal aliens and ordered that these illegal aliens be issued work permits.

am·nes·ty/ˈæmnəsti/ Show Spelled [am-nuh-stee] Show IPA noun, plural am·nes·ties, verb, am·nes·tied, am·nes·ty·ing.
noun
1. a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.
3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.
At the same time you would bluntly ignore the fact that Obama has deported more illegals than any other president in recent history - mostly the high risk type. So, instead of the INS wasting time shipping a student or veteran back to their "homeland" (whatever that means when you're talking about someone who served in our military) they've concentrated on thinning down the illegal thugs that end up being supported in our jails. Sorry, but I think his way is better.
 
At the same time you would bluntly ignore the fact that Obama has deported more illegals than any other president in recent history - mostly the high risk type. So, instead of the INS wasting time shipping a student or veteran back to their "homeland" (whatever that means when you're talking about someone who served in our military) they've concentrated on thinning down the illegal thugs that end up being supported in our jails. Sorry, but I think his way is better.

Another Obama lie like the borders are secured.

Obama plays a shell game and cooks the numbers.

Back in 2010 Obama made this claim and it ends up he combined those who were ordered deported in 2008 along with the 2009 numbers. He got caught.

What the Obama administration doing now is including those who are caught at the border and are returned to Mexico as being deported. Obama has been using those who voluntary agree to return to Mexico as being deported. Only a court can order a deportation.

Have you ever heard of "Operation Wet Back" That may be the largest round up and deportation of illegal aliens by any President. That President was Eisenhower, not Obama. Eisenhower took an oath to enforce the laws of our land.

>"
Operation Wetback was a 1954 operation by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove about one million illegal immigrants from the southwestern United States, focusing on Mexican nationals.

The operation was modeled after a program that came to be termed the Mexican Repatriation, which put pressure on citizens of Mexico to return home during the Great Depression, due to the economic crisis in the United States.

The effort began in California and Arizona, and coordinated 1075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies, to mount an aggressive crackdown. ... By the end of July, over 50,000 immigrants were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal immigrants are claimed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their accord.

To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory, prior to releasing them.

Tens of thousands more were deported by two chartered ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried them from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (800 kilometers) to the south. Some were taken as far as 1,000 miles.

when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents – less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

[T]he late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower's first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office. America "was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale," Mr. Brownell said. "When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico every year without restraint."

Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers.

According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were "approximately half" the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state.

Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike's official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.

General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said "Amen" to Senator Fulbright's proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."

Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower.

Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement "had friends among the ranchers," and agents "did not dare" arrest their illegal workers.

Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: "When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now."

During the 1950s, however, this "Good Old Boy" system changed under Eisenhower - if only for about 10 years.

In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.

Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing's close connections to the president shielded him - and the Border Patrol - from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.

[O]n June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. ... By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.

General Swing's fast-moving campaign soon secured America's borders - an accomplishment no other president has since equaled.

Illegal migration had dropped 95% by the late 1950s.

Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today.

"Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!" Edwards says.

Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, "they'd be on top of this in a minute."

William Chambers, another '50s veteran, agrees. "They could do a pretty good job" sealing the border.

Edwards says: "When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce." "< -> Usually Right: Operation Wetback

The Border | 1953 Operation Wetback

Operation Wetback - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I believe Obama is abusing his power. I think that the whole "executive order" thing was designed to be used like, maybe ONCE in a total state of emergency when there is no time for congress to convene. Obama has signed about 150 or so. Is this just a clever way of being a dictator?

You might want to check before complaining:

Barack Obama - 234
GW Bush - 290
WJ Clinton - 363
GHW Bush - 145
R Reagan - 380
J Carter - 319
G Ford, - 168
R Nixon - 345
LB Johnson - 323
JF Kennedy - 213
D Eisenhower - 481
HS Truman - 893
 
I myself am in support and opposition of the EO, depending on how it is used.

Often times it was used for situations where either legislation really could not solve an issue (segregation), or in the case of something that can't wait for legislation to take place (a lot of those of FDR). And most of the time, it was used in lieu of legislative action.

However, this time we are seeing it used a lot after something fails to pass legislation, and that bothers me a lot. When some proposal fails to pass legislation, then I feel an EO should be strictly forbidden since it violates the separation of powers. However, I will grant that I would generally overlook a limited EO, say for a single year (with a fixed expiration date and a provision that it could not be renewed without legislative approval) to give a chance for new legislation to be drafted and passed.

For a hypothetical example, imagine if some study came out saying that cutting grass increased the greenhouse effect. I feel that the President would have a right to order the Federal Government to stop cutting grass because he is the Chief Executive Officer. I feel he would also have a right to put a limited moratorium on the cutting of grass, say for one year for the legislative process to be followed. But after that year, the general ban should expire and no further EO should be allowed short of directed at the federal government itself.

And this should be only direct through action, not an "action through inaction" such as ordering the government to not follow laws and policies.
 
Are you kidding? Think about it. It'll come to you. What you missed - it'll come... ok maybe not. Give up? Sir (veyor), who cares about which order is dictatorial? The dictatorial is when he omits congress from participating in the way that they were designed to participate, specifically so that a dictatorship would not be able to occur. He is bypassing the tool that was set in place to prevent dictatorships. Please watch the link. In it, Panetta makes it clear that he places the UN and NATO above congress. This is what you support? If you value your freedom and American values, you would refrain from commenting in support of this rogue government. Be part of the solution. Americans cannot afford to be passive any longer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84


I won't list them here but you are more than welcome to read this:

Here Are Obama's 23 Executive Orders on Gun Violence


I would be interested to know which of these you think is "dictatorial".
 
If we didn't have parties we would have even worse stalemates than we do now, it also misses the fact that people will naturally form groups with people who share similar ideas.

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.
 
i'm not big on EOs.

that being said,

Executive Orders

So building on what Helix said.

Obama has used less EO than any other president for the past... what? 50 years? And before that of course FDR used a lot of EO's. He eventually had to fight a war you know.

So Obama is not abusing his power, but the executive branch is already very powerful because it has been invested with a great deal of power because of negligent laws passed. However, he still is just in his second term. We will see at the end of the second term how many EO's he will have signed. I suppose he will exceed George Bush Sr. but I doubt he will surpass George W. Bush or Clinton.
 
You might want to check before complaining:

Barack Obama - 234
GW Bush - 290
WJ Clinton - 363
GHW Bush - 145
R Reagan - 380
J Carter - 319
G Ford, - 168
R Nixon - 345
LB Johnson - 323
JF Kennedy - 213
D Eisenhower - 481
HS Truman - 893

A point that seems valid on the surface, but whatever EO's past presidents enacted, we didn't see an alienation of congress and allegiance to international entities over congress, dismantling of the constitution, and seemingly intentional attempts to buckle the American economy (another 100 million dollars of money we don't have went out to "Syrian aid" - why?), and the false flags back then were a little more discreet and were used to do things other than erosion of our rights.
 
I myself am in support and opposition of the EO, depending on how it is used.

Often times it was used for situations where either legislation really could not solve an issue (segregation), or in the case of something that can't wait for legislation to take place (a lot of those of FDR). And most of the time, it was used in lieu of legislative action.

However, this time we are seeing it used a lot after something fails to pass legislation, and that bothers me a lot. When some proposal fails to pass legislation, then I feel an EO should be strictly forbidden since it violates the separation of powers. However, I will grant that I would generally overlook a limited EO, say for a single year (with a fixed expiration date and a provision that it could not be renewed without legislative approval) to give a chance for new legislation to be drafted and passed.

For a hypothetical example, imagine if some study came out saying that cutting grass increased the greenhouse effect. I feel that the President would have a right to order the Federal Government to stop cutting grass because he is the Chief Executive Officer. I feel he would also have a right to put a limited moratorium on the cutting of grass, say for one year for the legislative process to be followed. But after that year, the general ban should expire and no further EO should be allowed short of directed at the federal government itself.

And this should be only direct through action, not an "action through inaction" such as ordering the government to not follow laws and policies.

I was not able to put it better myself, but that is what I intended to say - that it could be used in good ways, but is being used, instead, to subvert.
 
Are you kidding? Think about it. It'll come to you. What you missed - it'll come... ok maybe not. Give up? Sir (veyor), who cares about which order is dictatorial? The dictatorial is when he omits congress from participating in the way that they were designed to participate, specifically so that a dictatorship would not be able to occur. He is bypassing the tool that was set in place to prevent dictatorships. Please watch the link. In it, Panetta makes it clear that he places the UN and NATO above congress. This is what you support? If you value your freedom and American values, you would refrain from commenting in support of this rogue government. Be part of the solution. Americans cannot afford to be passive any longer.

Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria - YouTube
In the end he's still deported more illegal immigrants than Bush ever thought about. Were you whining during the Bush admin about their lack of deportation? I'd rather see illegal immigrant thugs deported in mass numbers than illegal immigrant students, wouldn't you? I'm glad that's where they're focusing their efforts. Why don't you step down off the partisan platform and quit the partisan whining long enough to actually take a good look at what is being done?


There was such an uproar on the Right from Patriot I & II that I'm sure "American values" is all you're concerned about. :roll:
 
A point that seems valid on the surface, but whatever EO's past presidents enacted, we didn't see an alienation of congress and allegiance to international entities over congress, dismantling of the constitution, and seemingly intentional attempts to buckle the American economy (another 100 million dollars of money we don't have went out to "Syrian aid" - why?), and the false flags back then were a little more discreet and were used to do things other than erosion of our rights.
Oh, that's got to earn 3/3 ...

:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
I believe Obama is abusing his power. I think that the whole "executive order" thing was designed to be used like, maybe ONCE in a total state of emergency when there is no time for congress to convene. Obama has signed about 150 or so. Is this just a clever way of being a dictator?

Executive orders are well within the spirit of checks and balances and separation of powers that the Framers designed in the Constitution.
 
Executive orders are well within the spirit of checks and balances and separation of powers that the Framers designed in the Constitution.

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?
 
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?
It's not the exact same thing. If it was he wouldn't need Congressional approval. You can look through the immigration policies he put forth and see that he's concentrating on criminals instead of students. Personally, I think that's a damn good policy considering INS can only handle so many cases a year.
 
It's not the exact same thing. If it was he wouldn't need Congressional approval. You can look through the immigration policies he put forth and see that he's concentrating on criminals instead of students. Personally, I think that's a damn good policy considering INS can only handle so many cases a year.

This is where I start to object to such things however.

The Executive Order was made after the DREAM Act failed to pass congress. When this legislation failed, the President choose to enact it through Executive Order, bypassing the legislative process all together. This is exactly the type of behavior I was talking about, although I did not mention what because it really does not matter.

And once again, to me this is not a partisan issue. If President Bush had enacted the PATRIOT Act in this manner after Congress had rejected it, I would be complaining in the same way for the same reason.

The problem is that you are not looking at it as a violation of the three branches of power, you are seeing that it passes something you like and therefore it is acceptable. What if a President were to order all illegals to be deported regardless of how long they have been here? Would you stil be saying it was a good thing?
 
This is where I start to object to such things however.

The Executive Order was made after the DREAM Act failed to pass congress. When this legislation failed, the President choose to enact it through Executive Order, bypassing the legislative process all together. This is exactly the type of behavior I was talking about, although I did not mention what because it really does not matter.

And once again, to me this is not a partisan issue. If President Bush had enacted the PATRIOT Act in this manner after Congress had rejected it, I would be complaining in the same way for the same reason.
The law encompassed much, much more than these EO's did. Sure, he could have done them before but the law covered more ground and did more things. I'm sure he would have rather had the more comprehensive legislation. Instead, he had to settle for what he could do without Congress, which is exactly the same thing he could have done had DREAM never been introduced.

The problem is that you are not looking at it as a violation of the three branches of power, you are seeing that it passes something you like and therefore it is acceptable. What if a President were to order all illegals to be deported regardless of how long they have been here? Would you stil be saying it was a good thing?
Duh! - I've been following the thread. :roll: I simply don't see it as a violation of the three branches of power.

If he can pull off deporting them all then more power to him! I don't gain anything by them being here. But I'd still rather see them start with the criminals even if they finally get around to all of them. It's not rocket science to know it's better to get the imported thugs out of here, first.
 
In the end he's still deported more illegal immigrants than Bush ever thought about. Were you whining during the Bush admin about their lack of deportation? I'd rather see illegal immigrant thugs deported in mass numbers than illegal immigrant students, wouldn't you? I'm glad that's where they're focusing their efforts. Why don't you step down off the partisan platform and quit the partisan whining long enough to actually take a good look at what is being done?


There was such an uproar on the Right from Patriot I & II that I'm sure "American values" is all you're concerned about. :roll:

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.
 
Executive orders are well within the spirit of checks and balances and separation of powers that the Framers designed in the Constitution.

So, in your opinion, it's solidly checked and balanced? There's no potential for too much freedom of discretion?
 
Back
Top Bottom