White House: Obama to sign order banning anti-gay discrimination

I'm asking when anyone has ever controlled him.

If it is in the presidents power to regulate who the government does business with and this is signed then I am happy. If it isnt in his power and he does it then I am not happy. I am starting to get concerned with end runs around the Constitution.

TheNextEra said:

You know, while I support SSM and support not discriminating against gays, Obama has set a horrible precidence from legislating by executive order.

I really fear the next GOP president that comes in. The precidence set is that it is ok to legislate nationally through executive order when something can't get approved through congress. While the number of Obama's executive orders have been less than past presidents, the impact of Obama's executive orders have been massive.

People supporting this IMO are using the excuse of "The ends justify the means", however, the stage is set for a GOP president to do the same thing.

Click to expand...

It's not legislating via executive order. Obama already has authority over government contracts.

apdst said:

And one more step towards dictatorship.

Click to expand...

Dictatorship: Preventing the government from supporting discrimination.

Listen to yourselves.

clownboy said:

True enough, and it's a last, last resort. This POTUS seems to be begging for it though.

Click to expand...

No, you just have this self-sustaining circle of hate for the man. You never gave a crap about right-wing executive orders.

tres borrachos said:

Not the first time he was caught doing this. Most of what he bashed Bush for he did exactly the same thing. Obama is a prolific liar, but sadly people believe him.

Click to expand...

Politician criticizes opposing party for action then takes same action when in power? No. That never happens.

See also: filibusters.

Deuce said:

Politician criticizes opposing party for action then takes same action when in power? No. That never happens.

See also: filibusters.

Click to expand...

Those politicians didn't promise "change", did they? No, they didn't.

But we all know who did, don't we?

Deuce said:

No, you just have this self-sustaining circle of hate for the man. You never gave a crap about right-wing executive orders.

Click to expand...

Well, considering I campaigned locally and voted for him the first time, that dog doesn't hunt. The dislike only came after he proved himself a liar and incompetent. And yes, I always gave a crap about EOs that go beyond the grant of the Executive.

Perhaps we could save a ton of money.

Who needs a Congress anyway?

Hicup said:

1.)So, simply that he is "planning" to do it, does not mean that he has done it, so is that the strawman you are referring too?
2.)What about the 32 EO's changing the ACA?
3.)What about immigration law changes by EO? Are those fabrications, and strawmen as well?

Tim-

Click to expand...

1.) nope that has nothgin to do with it either. This EO is legal and nothing is wrong with it no power is over stepped.
2.) what about them? not familiar with them nor do they matter to this EO and the facts associated with them. If theres EOs you dont like start a thread about them. They are meanignless to this topic LMAO
3.) yes they factually are since they have nothing to do with this topic.

thank you for gaian proving facts rights and your own posts and others wrong.

clownboy said:

1.)Nor do you. But that's par for the course.
2.) The fact is the POTUS was already told no on this matter by the only body granted the power to make legislation and now he's legislating through EO.
3.)I'd say that I just can't wait to hear you squeal when some other POTUS legislates like this in a way that goes against your "facts", but I don't really want that to happen either.

Click to expand...

1.) nobody educated and honest believes this lie
2.) nope not true sorry. I deal in facts and reality not your false opinions
3.) wont happen since im honest and objective. This has NOTHING to do with "OBAMA" lmao thats where your biased shows. This has to do with the EO and how this one is a great thing.

let me know when you can support your failed claim until then your posts have nothing
facts win again

apdst said:

What if you're wrong?

Click to expand...

why are you dodging the question?

has nothing to do with "me" lol this is about facts so AGAIN i ask you, what NEW precedence does this set, please try to answer this time and realize it its legal and many other presidents have done the same there is no new "precedence" set

I bet the question is dodged again

tres borrachos said:

Those politicians didn't promise "change", did they? No, they didn't.

But we all know who did, don't we?

Click to expand...

Ahh, so hypocrisy is ok as long as you didn't use "change" as a catchphrase. (because Obama is the first president ever to say he was going to be different than the last guy. as opposed to "every time the incumbent or outgoing president is from the other party")

TheNextEra said:

You know, while I support SSM and support not discriminating against gays, Obama has set a horrible precidence from legislating by executive order.

I really fear the next GOP president that comes in. The precidence set is that it is ok to legislate nationally through executive order when something can't get approved through congress. While the number of Obama's executive orders have been less than past presidents, the impact of Obama's executive orders have been massive.

People supporting this IMO are using the excuse of "The ends justify the means", however, the stage is set for a GOP president to do the same thing.

Click to expand...

Only there is precedent for this:

Executive Order 11478 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, or age, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. This policy of equal opportunity applies to and must be an integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement, and treatment of civilian employees of the Federal Government.

Click to expand...

Executive Order 8802 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FDR said:

There is evidence available that needed workers have been barred from industries engaged in defense production solely because of considerations of race, creed, color or national origin, to the detriment of workers' morale and of national unity.

Click to expand...

Executive Order 9981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Truman said:

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.

Click to expand...

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation said:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

Click to expand...

Presidents have ensure that the government doesn't discriminate and neither do those who get money from the government for.... well.... over a century now. So yes, there is precedent for this on all account. There are executive orders used previously for the same reasons and and there are even situations where this has been done before. None have been deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

TheNextEra said:

You know, while I support SSM and support not discriminating against gays, Obama has set a horrible precidence from legislating by executive order.

I really fear the next GOP president that comes in. The precidence set is that it is ok to legislate nationally through executive order when something can't get approved through congress. While the number of Obama's executive orders have been less than past presidents, the impact of Obama's executive orders have been massive.

People supporting this IMO are using the excuse of "The ends justify the means", however, the stage is set for a GOP president to do the same thing.

Click to expand...

Somebody gets it - I've been trying to point this out for a while.

I'm going to laugh my butt off at the explosions of anger and disbelief when President Rubio (or whomever) instructs the IRS to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" with regards to the tax code in order to push tax reform without Congress, and simply deems radical changes to healthcare, as this President is wont to do to his own law. Perhaps we should then set the IRS on unions, and declare that the Justice Department shall now consider closed-shops to be a violation of anti-monopoly laws...

Lots of fun you can have, once the precedent for an ever-expanding imperial presidency is put in place by the other team.

Rubio's gonna have a phone, and he's gonna have a pen.

Its funny all the strawmen in this thread

the thread is about equal rights winning and gaining ground.

some how "obama sucks", tyranny, EOs that have nothing to do with this one are things people are trying(and failing) to relate to this lol

So how about congress cut the crap and do this themselves?

TheNextEra said:

You know, while I support SSM and support not discriminating against gays, Obama has set a horrible precidence from legislating by executive order.

I really fear the next GOP president that comes in. The precidence set is that it is ok to legislate nationally through executive order when something can't get approved through congress. While the number of Obama's executive orders have been less than past presidents, the impact of Obama's executive orders have been massive.

People supporting this IMO are using the excuse of "The ends justify the means", however, the stage is set for a GOP president to do the same thing.

Click to expand...

Were none of you conservatives paying attention at all during the past 30 years or so? The expansion of the power of the POTUS has been going on for quite some time, and it's not just with EOs, but with broad claims of nearly unchecked power as "Commander in Chief." Particularly after 9/11 Yoo, with Cheney's full support (he has been a believer in a 'robust' WH since Reagan, where he argued Reagan was authorized to ignore Congress with regard to dealing with the Contras) aggressively expanded the legal arguments for the Unitary Executive.

I'm OK with people arguing liberals are being hypocrites when they cheer an an Obama EO they support , but screamed like stuck pigs when W. used a string of them to ignore Congress, but no one can legitimately claim that Obama's recent acts have set a new precedent. They just have not. Nothing he's done would have been even slightly inconsistent with the interpretation outlined by Yoo and others during the post 9/11 era or inconsistent with Cheney's long time view of the powers of the POTUS, or inconsistent with acts taken from Reagan, through Clinton, then W. and now Obama. At most what anyone can legitimately claim is each Pres. in the post Watergate era (where powers of the POTUS were clipped) has taken a series of steps to reclaim and seize greater powers in the Executive branch and POTUS.

He's absolutely free to do this to my understanding as it's just dealing with those companies doing business with the government.

That said, he's an absolute hypocrite and continues to daily demonstrate that his entire 2008 campaign was complete and utter hogwash and that so many of those casual voters that bought into his presentation as being something other than a typical politician were hoodwinked fools.

cpwill said:

Somebody gets it - I've been trying to point this out for a while.

I'm going to laugh my butt off at the explosions of anger and disbelief when President Rubio (or whomever) instructs the IRS to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" with regards to the tax code in order to push tax reform without Congress, and simply deems radical changes to healthcare, as this President is wont to do to his own law. Perhaps we should then set the IRS on unions, and declare that the Justice Department shall now consider closed-shops to be a violation of anti-monopoly laws...

Lots of fun you can have, once the precedent for an ever-expanding imperial presidency is put in place by the other team.

Rubio's gonna have a phone, and he's gonna have a pen.

Click to expand...

That's right. And if you'd been reading left wing writers during Bush, they made the EXACT argument you're making above only it was generally "Wait till Hillary gets in power and starts claiming the unchecked Unitary Executive and Commander in Chief powers..." They were wrong about the "Hillary" part, but right about the rest.

Let's face it - we all like it when 'our' guy is a strong leader and takes bold acts to advance an agenda we support, and if we oppose that agenda, we're going to whine and complain about it. But if anyone really cares about the issue, about the powers of the WH, Congress is going to have to come together, on a bipartisan basis, and reclaim their authority that's been slowly stripped by each POTUS since at least Reagan, Clinton and Obama included.

cpwill said:

I'm going to laugh my butt off at the explosions of anger and disbelief when President Rubio (or whomever) instructs the IRS to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" with regards to the tax code in order to push tax reform without Congress

Click to expand...

We need to better allocate our resources and focus our efforts in terms of enforcement of our laws. So IRS, only investigate and bring charges against those with $500,000 worth of tax fraud. Anything less than that ignore. And as a note, we'll go ahead and make sure the fact that we're functioning in this fashion going forward is made well known to everyone.


.....what? It worked with immigration.