• 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!

White House considers executive order, leaves Internet takeover a possibility

jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
One more thing the government should stay out of.

White House considers executive order, leaves Internet takeover a possibility | The Daily Caller
The White House has left open the possibility of enacting its Internet agenda via executive order after the failed effort to bring the Democrat-supported cybersecurity bill to a full vote in the Senate last week.
In response to a question from The Hill, a Washington, D.C. political newspaper, about whether President Obama was considering advancing his party’s cyber-plan through an executive order, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney didn’t rule out the possibility.
“In the wake of Congressional inaction and Republican stall tactics, unfortunately, we will continue to be hamstrung by outdated and inadequate statutory authorities that the legislation would have fixed,” he said via email.
 
I don't get what this means:

The failed cyber security bill, which could be revived by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid when the Senate comes back from recess in September, would have given federal agencies in charge of regulating critical infrastructure industries like power companies and utilities the ability to mandate cybersecurity recommendations.
Click to expand...

Is the bill written in such a way that these federal agencies could enforce any sort of security measure they saw fit across the entire scope of the internet (i.e. requiring WEP 32-character encrypted passcodes for all online accounts, or specific fire wall settings, or disallowing port forwarding, etc)? Or these agencies would only mandate stuff in relation to their operations?
 
I honestly have no problem with it. There are those who see politically motivated censorship to shut down website like Drudge in this. I don't I see this a purely a national security measure. Iran for example would love to hack into our communications systems and wreak havoc just before missiles start flying to bring back the 12th Imam. I'm having trouble finding it right now but I recall China was already busted with a malicious trojan installed on American computer networks, which if I recall could shut down electricity or water all over north America. When will people see that the President takes national security seriously?
 
jamesrage said:
One more thing the government should stay out of.

White House considers executive order, leaves Internet takeover a possibility | The Daily Caller
The White House has left open the possibility of enacting its Internet agenda via executive order after the failed effort to bring the Democrat-supported cybersecurity bill to a full vote in the Senate last week.
In response to a question from The Hill, a Washington, D.C. political newspaper, about whether President Obama was considering advancing his party’s cyber-plan through an executive order, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney didn’t rule out the possibility.
“In the wake of Congressional inaction and Republican stall tactics, unfortunately, we will continue to be hamstrung by outdated and inadequate statutory authorities that the legislation would have fixed,” he said via email.
Click to expand...

It is passed time for Congress to consider the powers of the president as they relate to Executive Orders. That's just "a way around the people," in my opinion.
 
MaggieD said:
It is passed time for Congress to consider the powers of the president as they relate to Executive Orders. That's just "a way around the people," in my opinion.
Click to expand...

And if he did this via EO, it wouldn't be the first time he has gone around congress in such a manner. Purely against the entire structure of the separation of powers.
 
Arbo said:
And if he did this via EO, it wouldn't be the first time he has gone around congress in such a manner. Purely against the entire structure of the separation of powers.
Click to expand...

In fairness, Bush did the same thing, though not to the same extent:

Bush -- 63 Executive Orders in 8 years, 12 of them having to do with 9/11
Obama -- 61 Executive Orders in less than half that amount of time.

Interesting.

List of United States federal executive orders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
MaggieD said:
In fairness, Bush did the same thing, though not to the same extent:

Bush -- 63 Executive Orders in 8 years, 12 of them having to do with 9/11
Obama -- 61 Executive Orders in less than half that amount of time.

Interesting.

List of United States federal executive orders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Thanks for the honesty.


I don't like Executive Orders and don't think the founders envisioned them. I wish there could be an expedited way Congress could be in on authorizing them in emergencies maybe just key leaders and/or via secure text.
 
The EOs need to stop. I understand the need to allow the president to take action quickly, but we need better limitations. Maybe they should have a 30 day limit in which time congress and senate are required to vote on the measure without filibuster. Failure to vote would be considered a positive vote.

Just to be clear, this distaste applies to all presidents, not just our current one.
 
Some EOs I see problems with, others I think are ok.

Any EO that has the effect of a law, establishes regulation or restrictions upon civilians and non-governmental workers/companies or non-federal agencies, or are in conflict with existing law as passed by congress are bad EOs.

EOs that clarify policy and procedures for offices under control of the Executive Branch and structures the Executive Branch to meet a particular Presidents desires/needs beyond those positions mandated by law and are not in direct conflict with existing law or the Constitution, I do not consider as bad.
 
DVSentinel said:
Some EOs I see problems with, others I think are ok.

Any EO that has the effect of a law, establishes regulation or restrictions upon civilians and non-governmental workers/companies or non-federal agencies, or are in conflict with existing law as passed by congress are bad EOs.

EOs that clarify policy and procedures for offices under control of the Executive Branch and structures the Executive Branch to meet a particular Presidents desires/needs beyond those positions mandated by law and are not in direct conflict with existing law or the Constitution, I do not consider as bad.
Click to expand...

I would also add: many of the EOs created under both Bush and Obama called for the creation of committees to analyze a specific situation, environment, or issue and return results for consideration. I see nothing wrong with that, either, so long as said committee is not granted powers to enact new policy or law without congressional/senatorial votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom