• 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!

Obama to sign promised executive order on abortion

Hatuey said:
Since SCOTUS declared it is not so simple to change laws.



No. It can't. The military has to run policy changes through congress and congress has to approve them.



It seems you don't know how laws in this country work.
Click to expand...


So an executive order is pointless?Is that what you are admitting?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Are you seriously trying to imply that conservatives care more about the day to day welfare of military personnel than liberals do? Please knock off the hyperpartisan b.s. Hatuey and I both gave you good reasons why DADT hasn't been ended by Exec order. Your response is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

I wasn't implying anything except that a executive order doesn't mean squat.
 
jamesrage said:
So an executive order is pointless?Is that what you are admitting?
Click to expand...

In the case of DADT? Yes. Not allowing federal funds to go to towards abortion is already part of U.S. law. Obama simply has to write an executive order that ensure the federal funds in the health bill do not go towards abortion providers. DADT itself is an entire set of laws which would have to be changed so signing an executive order would leave a void that would have to be filled with another set of laws.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
With this statement alone you confirm what a hoax the whole Stupak ruse was....good one demo's....


j-mac
Click to expand...

With this statement alone you prove that you do not know the difference between law and executive order. DADT is mandated by federal law. An executive order can't simply do away with it. Changing a single issue within a bill 1,000 pages long with an executive order is however, quite easy because Obama would not be creating new laws or changing laws but enforcing what is already law.
 
Hatuey said:
In the case of DADT? Yes. Not allowing federal funds to go to towards abortion is already part of U.S. law. Obama simply has to write an executive order that ensure the federal funds in the health bill do not go towards abortion providers. DADT itself is an entire set of laws which would have to be changed so signing an executive order would leave a void that would have to be filled with another set of laws.
Click to expand...

So how would executive order stop anyone from making a change to the law?
 
Hatuey said:
Who is anyone?
Click to expand...

Are you saying an executive order would stop those in office from changing the law to allow for federal funds to pay for abortions?
 
jamesrage said:
Are you saying an executive order would stop those in office from changing the law to allow for federal funds to pay for abortions?
Click to expand...

You're not even making sense now.

1) American law already states that federal funds can not be used to pay for abortions.

2) Obama cannot simply make a new law that says the government can fund abortions through an executive order. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer demonstrate the power an executive order has.

------------------------------------

What exactly are you having trouble with? The fact that it is already a law in the books, or the fact that this law can not be changed through an executive order?
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
You're not even making sense now.

1) American law already states that federal funds can not be used to pay for abortions.
Click to expand...


Is there a law that says that law can not be overturned and how would a executive order prevent this?

2) Obama cannot simply make a new law that says the government can fund abortions through an executive order. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer demonstrate the power an executive order has.

------------------------------------

What exactly are you having trouble with? The fact that it is already a law in the books, or the fact that this law can not be changed through an executive order?
Click to expand...


DO you admit that an executive order is meaningless since it can not change anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom