• 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!

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,055
Reaction score
33,373
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive orders | WashingtonExaminer.com

Attorney General Eric Holder couldn't explain the constitutional basis for executive orders such as President Obama's delay of the employer mandate because he hasn't read the legal analysis -- or at least, hasn't seen it in a long time.

"I'll be honest with you, I have not seen -- I don't remember looking at or having seen the analysis in some time, so I'm not sure where along the spectrum that would come," Holder replied when Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, asked him to explain the nature of Obama's constitutional power to delay the mandate.

Lee had based his question on a standard legal test, first described by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who said the president's authority to issue executive orders is strongest when he does so with the backing of Congress (category one), more dubious when he issues an order pertaining to a topic on which Congress has not passed a law (category two), and weakest when the executive order is "incompatible with a congressional command" (category three), to use Lee's paraphrase.

This should be pretty fundamental stuff for a Constitutional scholar and his Attorney General. All this should be documented prior to drafting and signing an EO. :doh
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive orders | WashingtonExaminer.com
This should be pretty fundamental stuff for a Constitutional scholar and his Attorney General. All this should be documented prior to drafting and signing an EO. :doh
Are we saying that Holder's memory is documentation?
Or that the analysis which Holder hasn't seen in some time is not a document?
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

Are we saying that Holder's memory is documentation?
Or that the analysis which Holder hasn't seen in some time is not a document?

Do you think that they ask surprise questions, or do you think Holder gets a heads up for testifying? It's not like he couldn't order the paperwork brought over.
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive orders | WashingtonExaminer.com



This should be pretty fundamental stuff for a Constitutional scholar and his Attorney General. All this should be documented prior to drafting and signing an EO. :doh

But if, say, the person(s) engaged in this activity didn't care about the Constitutional basis - whether one exists or not - then that person(s) probably wouldn't bother to investigate.
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive orders | WashingtonExaminer.com



This should be pretty fundamental stuff for a Constitutional scholar and his Attorney General. All this should be documented prior to drafting and signing an EO. :doh

Eric Holder a "Constitutional Scholar" ? :lamo

That's like claiming that Obama has upheld the oath of office he took. >" I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Obama preserving protecting and defending the Constitution. :2rofll:

I suppose the only reason articles of impeachment haven't been drawn up is the CATCH-22 of the oath of office. >"Best of my ability'<
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

I almost pissed in my pants with Obama said " he taught the constitution for 10 years" at the SOTU....

another bold face lie..
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

I doubt Holder even cares if Marse Barack's EO's are constitutional.
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

It must be the same basis that was used for the creation of a, cabinet level, federal department of education - an imaginary federal power granted to itself and by itself yet never mentioned in the constitution. It appears that if something contrary to the constitution is encted into federal law (meaning only that it was popular at the time) or has been done before (precedent established?) then it gets a special SCOTUS pass. PPACA seemed to fall into this category since 4 justices said it was not constitutiopnal based on commerce, 4 justices said it was constitutional based on commerce and one justice though calling it a tax made it OK just to break the tie.
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

But if, say, the person(s) engaged in this activity didn't care about the Constitutional basis - whether one exists or not - then that person(s) probably wouldn't bother to investigate.

I can almost guarantee that frantic searching will now commence, in order to have some sort of rational-sounding explanation ready! UNLESS this is bait meant to prove that Obama knows everything better than anyone else, which will prove how brilliant he is, which would not only validate his personal belief in himself, but would reaffirm to his followers that he really is worthy of adoration when he smugly explains why he is legally correct in what he does!

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

I can almost guarantee that frantic searching will now commence, in order to have some sort of rational-sounding explanation ready! UNLESS this is bait meant to prove that Obama knows everything better than anyone else, which will prove how brilliant he is, which would not only validate his personal belief in himself, but would reaffirm to his followers that he really is worthy of adoration when he smugly explains why he is legally correct in what he does!

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

Hey Pol. I think you're right. Obama did say in 2007 that he was a constitutional law professor and that unlike Bush, he actually respects it. I think he has problems with the ACA and it's implementation, but I'm certain they can find someone of some value somewhere who'll support their position. Maybe John Roberts isn't busy this Friday. I really think that Obama has reached the end of his rope and is willing to do damn near anything to salvage what looks more and more like an ugly ship wreck.
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

I almost pissed in my pants with Obama said " he taught the constitution for 10 years" at the SOTU....

another bold face lie..

After a while it becomes easier to simply find the few things Obama says that are true. Saves a lot of work.
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

After a while it becomes easier to simply find the few things Obama says that are true. Saves a lot of work.

This "shocking"news from Holder does steer the talk away from Obama's disappointing SOTU last night, though. Isn't it great that Holder decided to make this public now? What a friend, and it's reassuring in a way to assume that nobody told Obama about this, either!
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

This "shocking"news from Holder does steer the talk away from Obama's disappointing SOTU last night, though. Isn't it great that Holder decided to make this public now? What a friend, and it's reassuring in a way to assume that nobody told Obama about this, either!

We need something to divert focus from the failed ACA. Christie served for a bit, but stopping traffic lacks staying power even for the most dedicated political nuts. We'll have us a new agenda of items coming up shortly which will serve to distract from the economy, jobs, energy, ACA, and all the rest that most nations consider central functions of government. Of course Obama doesn't know. As with lies, it will probably easier to start with exactly what Obama does know and not dwell on the voluminous things he doesn't.
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

Do you think that they ask surprise questions, or do you think Holder gets a heads up for testifying? It's not like he couldn't order the paperwork brought over.
We're rescinding our previous objection about the lack of documentation? We're now just criticizing Holder for being ill-prepared for a press conference?
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

I almost pissed in my pants with Obama said " he taught the constitution for 10 years" at the SOTU....

another bold face lie..

...another person that lives in his world of impressions, oblivious to the facts...

Media Inquiries | University of Chicago Law School

... to live in such a state is to live a lie. To pass off your impressions as fact is the spread that lie.

BTW... Chicago is universally regarded as one of the nations ten best law schools

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings
 
Last edited:
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

I almost pissed in my pants with Obama said " he taught the constitution for 10 years" at the SOTU....

another bold face lie..

You're right. It was twelve years.
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

Holder is the worst AG in my lifetime. He should have been impeached by the press long ago and I believe that the House should go after him as well. He's racially biased and too willing to at minimum council the President when he steps over the constitutional line. Instead I believe that he assures the President that he can legislate from the Oval Office with no consequence. I will be as glad to see him go as I will to be rid of the President.
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

Why is there such a freakout over Obama's executive orders when he has issued far less than most presidents:

1.29.14.2.jpg

Really, when you consider the financial crisis he took office in the middle of, the fact he issued so few executive orders is remarkable. Presidents have historically issued far more executive orders, especially in a time of economic crisis. Why the selective outrage now?
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

Why is there such a freakout over Obama's executive orders when he has issued far less than most presidents:

View attachment 67161218

Really, when you consider the financial crisis he took office in the middle of, the fact he issued so few executive orders is remarkable. Presidents have historically issued far more executive orders, especially in a time of economic crisis. Why the selective outrage now?

It's not selective outrage, it's a reaction to what Obama said in the State of the Union.
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

It's not selective outrage, it's a reaction to what Obama said in the State of the Union.

What that he is going to start issuing more executive orders? He better get moving if he wants to catch up with his predecessors. In fact, he will have to at least double his rate if he even wants to catch Reagan at this point.
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

What that he is going to start issuing more executive orders? He better get moving if he wants to catch up with his predecessors. In fact, he will have to at least double his rate if he even wants to catch Reagan at this point.

The point is that it's a controversy that Obama's created. Also, even though your graph shows that numerically signing statements have been low under Obama, and I have no way to know if the graph is correct, what he has done has had a bigger impact legislatively than any president in memory. He changed Obamacare fundamentally when he exempted groups from it's punishment and delayed implementation for a whole segment of insurance policies until after the mid term election for political reasons.

At this point in my mind, it's not numbers that are significant, it's circumventing congress and legislating from his office on major legislation.
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

The point is that it's a controversy that Obama's created. Also, even though your graph shows that numerically signing statements have been low under Obama, and I have no way to know if the graph is correct, what he has done has had a bigger impact legislatively than any president in memory. He changed Obamacare fundamentally when he exempted groups from it's punishment and delayed implementation for a whole segment of insurance policies until after the mid term election for political reasons.

At this point in my mind, it's not numbers that are significant, it's circumventing congress and legislating from his office on major legislation.

They all do it, that is the point. Anytime a president doesn't get their way with congress they issue executive orders. Moreover, he has faced more filibusters over than any other president, yet still has issued less executive orders. There are plenty of reasons to criticize the Obama Administration, executive orders is not. If anything he has been more spineless with them than anything else.

I have been on these forums since 2005. I don't remember any conservatives or right leaning libertarians criticizing the Bush Administration for their huge number of signing statements or for all his executive orders which is exactly why this is obviously nothing but partisan bitching now.
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

They all do it, that is the point. Anytime a president doesn't get their way with congress they issue executive orders. Moreover, he has faced more filibusters over than any other president, yet still has issued less executive orders. There are plenty of reasons to criticize the Obama Administration, executive orders is not. If anything he has been more spineless with them than anything else.

I have been on these forums since 2005. I don't remember any conservatives or right leaning libertarians criticizing the Bush Administration for their huge number of signing statements or for all his executive orders which is exactly why this is obviously nothing but partisan bitching now.

You asked why we were talking about it. The answer was that Obama brought it up at the SOU. That's not an opinion. It's the answer. Lets move on.

I don't know about the filibusters but I can tell you this much. He's done a poor job working with congress. He is inflexible in his demands and has no desire to either build relationships, consensus or compromise. He's also trying to change the fabric of American culture. Many see that as a move toward large Federal government and more control over the lives of citizens. I am thankful for gridlock and filibuster because I dislike very much the Presidents agenda.

With respect to partisanship. Partisans will be partisan but these signing statements would not be an issue if Obama hadn't made a statement about them. His legislating from the Oval office however would be.
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

It's not selective outrage, it's a reaction to what Obama said in the State of the Union.

But it is selective outrage.

I hate to say it because doing so will only bring up the "keep blaming Bush" deflectors, but the very people (politicians) who are now claiming that President Obama is disregarding laws are the same people who kept their mouths shuts when GWB made all his Signing States concerning provisions of laws he either disagreed with or determined he would not uphold. For example, from the book "Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency," by Charlie Savage, Chapter 10, page 229:

When [President G.W. Bush] put his signature on the bill [USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act], officially known as H.R. 3199, at the elaborate signing ceremony in the East Room, the saga seemed to be over. But it wasn't over. Later that day, after the members of Congress and reporters had left, Bush issued a signing statement declaring that 'he did not consider himself bound to obey the new oversight requirements." Despite the law's mandatory provisions that the executive branch regularly give Congress a complete accounting of how the FBA was using the Patriot Act, 'Bush declared that he could withhold any such information if he decided that its disclosure would be undesirable'. The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch...in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."

So, here we have an example of a former President declaring in writing for the public record that he will not adhere to a provision of a law, but when a sitting President issues an Executive Order that outlines how his Administration should carry out provisions of a law to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" or act where Congress has been slow to take deliberate action, suddenly it's a bad thing for the guy currently in the White House but was overlooked by that last guy to sit in the big chair?

Sometimes, you just have to shake your head...
 
Re: Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's execu

But it is selective outrage.

I hate to say it because doing so will only bring up the "keep blaming Bush" deflectors, but the very people (politicians) who are now claiming that President Obama is disregarding laws are the same people who kept their mouths shuts when GWB made all his Signing States concerning provisions of laws he either disagreed with or determined he would not uphold. For example, from the book "Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency," by Charlie Savage, Chapter 10, page 229:



So, here we have an example of a former President declaring in writing for the public record that he will not adhere to a provision of a law, but when a sitting President issues an Executive Order that outlines how his Administration should carry out provisions of a law to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" or act where Congress has been slow to take deliberate action, suddenly it's a bad thing for the guy currently in the White House but was overlooked by that last guy to sit in the big chair?

Sometimes, you just have to shake your head...

Do you think we'd be talking about signing statements if Obama hadn't said he was going to use them to pass his agenda in the State of the Union? I don't.
 
Back
Top Bottom