• 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

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee brought in legal experts with a message of tough love.
They testified that the House — indeed, the whole Congress — was a bunch of lily-livered pushovers, unable to stand up to a bully.

“Recently, Congress has seemed — frankly — feckless and uncertain as to its authority,” testified Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University.
Later on, Turley went further. This wasn’t just weakness.
It was worse. Did Congress actually hate itself?
“For Congress not to act, in my view, borders on self-loathing,” he said.
“If you want to stay relevant as an institution,” said Elizabeth Price Foley, a law professor at Florida International University, “I would suggest that you not stand idly by and let the president take your power away.”

Congress urged to challenge Obama’s executive actions - The Washington Post

As usual The WaPo cherry picked, and left much out....Turley, no 'right winger' was far more in depth than they let on....



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.
 
As usual The WaPo cherry picked, and left much out....Turley, no 'right winger' was far more in depth than they let on....



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.


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
 
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

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....
 
Can anyone point out a specific EO that is objectionable that Obama has issued since the SOTU? That's a real question.
 
Can anyone point out a specific EO that is objectionable that Obama has issued since the SOTU? That's a real question.

Which SOTU address? He has given six.
 
As usual The WaPo cherry picked, and left much out....Turley, no 'right winger' was far more in depth than they let on....



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.


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.
 
Which SOTU address? He has given six.

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.
 
Quit being so snotty.

You asked a question, but failed to be specific, and not being a mind reader legitimately prompted my question.
 
As usual The WaPo cherry picked, and left much out....Turley, no 'right winger' was far more in depth than they let on....



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.


The problem is congress has stopped being a congress a long time ago. Those members of congress of whichever party that is in the White House have become part of the administration and not of congress. There was a time when congress would have been very protective of its powers, not anymore. The last time congress reigned in any presidential powers was just after Watergate. Since then each succeeding president has garnered more power and left congress weaker and weaker. Congress as a whole has only themselves to blame.

As for impeachment, it is a waste of time. President Obama has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the American people. Until and unless one can prove to them what exactly he has done wrong that deserves impeachment and the American people agree with that finding, you’re peeing into the wind. You’re over reaching.
 
As usual The WaPo cherry picked, and left much out....Turley, no 'right winger' was far more in depth than they let on....



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.


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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Talk about stupid. The libs are focusing on the number of executive orders, even though no one cares or has complained about the number of executive orders. Let me just be clear, nobody cares about the number of executive orders. In your mind, a person with 10 traffic tickets is worse than someone with 6 armed robberies. The failure of our system is that the self loathing democrats in Congress will not impeach this destructive President.

Please, do tell, why you are focused on that.
 
Talk about stupid. The libs are focusing on the number of executive orders, even though no one cares or has complained about the number of executive orders. Let me just be clear, nobody cares about the number of executive orders. In your mind, a person with 10 traffic tickets is worse than someone with 6 armed robberies. The failure of our system is that the self loathing democrats in Congress will not impeach this destructive President.

Please, do tell, why you are focused on that.

If you don't believe the nature of executive orders is relatively consistent from president to president making the sheer volume relevant, then you must believe that somehow the nature of the order has changed. The link below will take you to each executive order issued since FDR took office (81 years ago). There about about 7,000 executive orders here (of which Obama has written about 170). Kindly cull through the list and let us know how the nature has "suddenly" changed.

Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index

Actually, you should not do it... First, because you are too lazy to get to the details yourself and second, you can't as they have not changed in nature, so the task is impossible. Sorry, but you got no game... you shoot off your mouth without a clue about which you speak: "talk about stupid."
 
Last edited:
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....
Congress is rendering Congress a moot point.
 
There are lots of individual Americans with lots of money - lots of business interests too with loads of cash. Can't one or some of them take the President to court challenging a particular executive order that affects them?

The problem, as I see it, with many of Obama's executive orders is that he issues directives not to apply a particular law or to delay implementation of a particular law - Obamacare provisions, as an example - and there is no one who's particularly adversely affected by such orders even if they abuse laws passed by congress.
 
If you don't believe the nature of executive orders is relatively consistent from president to president making the sheer volume relevant, then you must believe that somehow the nature of the order has changed. The link below will take you to each executive order issued since FDR took office (81 years ago). There about about 7,000 executive orders here (of which Obama has written about 170). Kindly cull through the list and let us know how the nature has "suddenly" changed.

Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index

Actually, you should not do it... First, because you are too lazy to get to the details yourself and second, you can't as they have not changed in nature, so the task is impossible. Sorry, but you got no game... you shoot off your mouth without a clue about which you speak: "talk about stupid."

Another dose of stupid from the left. Oh, well. I guess your tactic is to pigeon hole all this just to EOs, and to then show that every President uses them, and your flawed conclusion is therefore Obama can make any EO he wants. Standard left wing tactic to mislead. Got it.

There was a federal program called R.I.F. (reading is fundamental). So, I say again, I don't care about the number of EOs. We have a lawless President. We have a President that is overstepping his authority, he is threatening to take over legislative duties if Congress does not do what he wants. A President that thinks he can just modify laws on the fly, change them as he pleases. Or just decide not to enforce them at all. A President that is attacking the Constitution, violating his oath to defend it.

And many Presidents want to take as much power as they can. But in this case, we have a Democrat Congress that is willing to do nothing as he weakens them and takes more and more power. And Republicans that are complicit. The Founders of this nation put in checks and balances, but they never envisioned a Congress like this, that would just sit there and not protect their branch of government.
 
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....

Bush and the neocons contrived the notion of the Unitary Executive, took overt acts to achieve that nefarious goal, and Barack simply loves it.

Turley is right on!
 
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.

Usurpation of power is not petty at all, it is significant.

Even though governments and greedy leaders have usurped power, or attempted to do so, over the ages, that does not make it lawful.

Obama's claim to being a conscientious constitutional law professor are spurious.
 
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.

Attempting to become a dictator is not "pettiness". Undermining our system of government and ordering changes to law passed by congress is not "pettiness". If impeaching such a person would not cause "total failure of our system", just the opposite. If "impeaching the first black president" would cause "total social unrest and race riots", then we should issue mini-guns and plenty of ammo, then let them have at it.

As to the Cons, the only point I will argue is their lack of vision, the have enough vision to know that a socialized bankrupt America would be a bad thing.
 
Another dose of stupid from the left. Oh, well. I guess your tactic is to pigeon hole all this just to EOs, and to then show that every President uses them, and your flawed conclusion is therefore Obama can make any EO he wants. Standard left wing tactic to mislead. Got it.

There was a federal program called R.I.F. (reading is fundamental). So, I say again, I don't care about the number of EOs. We have a lawless President. We have a President that is overstepping his authority, he is threatening to take over legislative duties if Congress does not do what he wants. A President that thinks he can just modify laws on the fly, change them as he pleases. Or just decide not to enforce them at all. A President that is attacking the Constitution, violating his oath to defend it.

And many Presidents want to take as much power as they can. But in this case, we have a Democrat Congress that is willing to do nothing as he weakens them and takes more and more power. And Republicans that are complicit. The Founders of this nation put in checks and balances, but they never envisioned a Congress like this, that would just sit there and not protect their branch of government.

Tell us which EOs you have a problem with and how they are changing the Country.
You do realize that an EO is not a law, presidents can not create or change laws.
 
Tell us which EOs you have a problem with and how they are changing the Country.
You do realize that an EO is not a law, presidents can not create or change laws.

In fact he can and is doijg just that. As well, his attorney general is ignoring the laws with which he disagrees, and abetted by Obama.Congressman Smith to Obama: Enforce the Laws as Congress Wrote Them | Texas GOP Vote

11 State AGs Say Obama Breaks Law With Healthcare Changes

Obama is using executive power to affect immigration law - McClatchy DC News - The Sacramento Bee
 
Usurpation of power is not petty at all, it is significant.

Even though governments and greedy leaders have usurped power, or attempted to do so, over the ages, that does not make it lawful.

Obama's claim to being a conscientious constitutional law professor are spurious.

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.
 
I say leave him alone. It keeps him busy and doesn't hurt that much for very long. All those things can be undone later. As long as it doesn't grow government and government debt, it isn't something that has to last forever. What Congress does is far more harmful to the American way of life.
 
Another dose of stupid from the left. Oh, well. I guess your tactic is to pigeon hole all this just to EOs, and to then show that every President uses them, and your flawed conclusion is therefore Obama can make any EO he wants. Standard left wing tactic to mislead. Got it.

There was a federal program called R.I.F. (reading is fundamental). So, I say again, I don't care about the number of EOs. We have a lawless President. We have a President that is overstepping his authority, he is threatening to take over legislative duties if Congress does not do what he wants. A President that thinks he can just modify laws on the fly, change them as he pleases. Or just decide not to enforce them at all. A President that is attacking the Constitution, violating his oath to defend it.

And many Presidents want to take as much power as they can. But in this case, we have a Democrat Congress that is willing to do nothing as he weakens them and takes more and more power. And Republicans that are complicit. The Founders of this nation put in checks and balances, but they never envisioned a Congress like this, that would just sit there and not protect their branch of government.

There is nothing new about what Obama is doing. Again, review the list and show us how it has changed. This is a typical tactic of the right: here it on Fox News or some political porn site, take it as fact (because they are too lazy or do not know how to fact check themselves) and then result to insult and insolence when confronted with the truth (because they lack the education to know the truth themselves). You are but a tool of this right-wing propaganda machine... you don't know enough about the issue to know you are being used.


Do you honestly believe that Obama has suddenly changed the power of the executive? Actually, he may have only in not battling congress, who has pretty much made the executive impotent. Have you heard of the concept of the unitary executive / the imperial executive? It pretty says the President can do what he wants. Its a pretty arrogant and outrageous contention, but its been the contention of almost every president since Nixon.

Imperial Presidency 101 - The Unitary Executive Theory, Separation of Powers, and Signing Statements

There is nothing new in Obama's executive orders. Past executive orders have been used to intern Japanese Americans, adjust wages paid by the federal government, seize control of businesses, round up americans in the street at night and hold them without charges, create federal agencies and direct foreign policy.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/02/26/fdr-set-the-terms-for-labor-executive-orders/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richard...-of-presidential-power-obama-is-a-mere-piker/
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/01/executive-orders-how-past-presidents-used-them/
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...tive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101369574
 
Last edited:
I make it easy for everyone.

Below is a link that display all of President Obama's executive orders. Everyone who believes that he should be impeach on any of them, please refer to them and we can debate from there. I'm sick of hearing talking points.


Barack Obama Executive Orders Disposition Tables
 
Back
Top Bottom