What gives the president the power to make executive orders?

UncleBuck · Mar 25, 2013

DrKynes said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Barack_Obama_.282009.E2.80.93present.29

nuff said.

i asked for what "new laws" he has created, not a list of executive orders related to faithful execution of current laws.

DrKynes said:
and you therefore imply that our national immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus he is duty bound to ensure that they are not enforced by anyone?

the fed gov enforces those laws. more boots on the ground than ever before, more deportations than the last administration.

quit yer crying, sally.

Rob Roy · Mar 25, 2013

UncleBuck said:
give some examples of obama creating "new laws", please (by executive power, of course).

the president swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution (that's the main oath, numbnuts) in addition to 'faithful execution' of laws (that's the constitution, monkeydick).

refusing to enforce an unconstitutional law is his oath first and foremost. deal with it.

So I wonder why he keeps enforcing laws that prevent free people from ingesting certain plant matter? Nobody ever gave the dickwad executive branch or any other of the branches of the federal government the power of determining what a person can or cannot ingest did they?

Seems fairly obvious Barry, picks and chooses, just like all the dickwads that preceded him.

Praying to government is like worshipping a false idol.

UncleBuck · Mar 25, 2013

Rob Roy said:
Nobody ever gave the dickwad executive branch or any other of the branches of the federal government the power of determining what a person can or cannot ingest did they?

actually, they did. it's called the controlled substances act, and it's been around for 40+ years.

Dr Kynes · Mar 25, 2013

UncleBuck said:
actually, they did. it's called the controlled substances act, and it's been around for 40+ years.

claiming a power not granted by the constitution is not being GIVEN that power by the persons who reserve that power to themselves (10th amendment)

alcohol prohibition required an amendment, yet prohibition of EVERYTHING ELSE does not?

ohh bucky why can you not see that "Scotus" is not right on this issue any more than they are on citizen's united, US V Miller, or any of a number of rulings where they created new rights or invented new powers out of whole cloth rather than simply adjudicating the constitutionality of a law or settling a dispute.

further, the controlled substances act merely creates a new bureaucracy, and professes to give them a power the congress does not have, and has never had. it is actually LESS constitutional than the federal reserve bank, since the congress actually had the power they surrendered to that faceless bureaucracy.

Edit: dredd scott was the law of the land for how many years before it was overturned? ohh wait, it NEVER WAS OVERTURNED! the class of people it effects were simply redefined.

Jim Crow lasted for HOW many decades before it was abolished?

Segregation was considered constitutional by the supreme court for HOW long?

you claiming that something is good and just because it has been around for a while is just MORE HYPOCRISY.

UncleBuck · Mar 25, 2013

Dr Kynes said:
claiming a power not granted by the constitution is not being GIVEN that power by the persons who reserve that power to themselves (10th amendment)

alcohol prohibition required an amendment, yet prohibition of EVERYTHING ELSE does not?

ohh bucky why can you not see that "Scotus" is not right on this issue any more than they are on citizen's united, US V Miller, or any of a number of rulings where they created new rights or invented new powers out of whole cloth rather than simply adjudicating the constitutionality of a law or settling a dispute.

further, the controlled substances act merely creates a new bureaucracy, and professes to give them a power the congress does not have, and has never had. it is actually LESS constitutional than the federal reserve bank, since the congress actually had the power they surrendered to that faceless bureaucracy.

Edit: dredd scott was the law of the land for how many years before it was overturned? ohh wait, it NEVER WAS OVERTURNED! the class of people it effects were simply redefined.

Jim Crow lasted for HOW many decades before it was abolished?

Segregation was considered constitutional by the supreme court for HOW long?

you claiming that something is good and just because it has been around for a while is just MORE HYPOCRISY.

relax, sistah. i was just answering his question.

Dr Kynes · Mar 25, 2013

UncleBuck said:
i asked for what "new laws" he has created, not a list of executive orders related to faithful execution of current laws.

and if you read even one like for example:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13577
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13550
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13556

and basically ever other order given, you would recognize that each one is an expansion or creation of a power or agency which should be under the control of the congress.
BHO has been creating Blue Ribbon Panels, Task Forces, and "Czars" with reckless abandon, counting on the obstructionism of harry reid's senate to protect his overreach.

UncleBuck said:
the fed gov enforces those laws. more boots on the ground than ever before, more deportations than the last administration.

bullshit. no president since eisenhower (and the hilariously named Operation Wetback) in the 50's has done shit about the border.

the republican establishement loves having a servile and cheap labour force to keep wages down, and the left loves all the new votes they get from illegal aliens, and the butthurt of "Insourced" workers who need somebody to blame, and have been conditioned to assume that the left is on their side, even when the left is JUST AS GUILTY of "insourcing" their livelihood away as the right.

UncleBuck · Mar 25, 2013

Dr Kynes said:
...the obstructionism of harry reid's senate...

lol.

it's funny because it's hackish, partisan, and retarded.

Rob Roy · Mar 25, 2013

UncleBuck said:
actually, they did. it's called the controlled substances act, and it's been around for 40+ years.

Of course the controlled substances act is a violation of the limited powers of government. Didn't you pay attention in your civics class (do they still teach that shit?) , statutory law and "acts" are supposed to be subordinate to the constitution. Obama has done nothing to uphold his oath, by continuing the war on weed, he is BREAKING his oath. The power to prevent people from ingesting something cannot be self given to the government can it? If the government can grant itself power, how good has the constitution been at PREVENTING these kinds of things?

Dr Kynes · Mar 25, 2013

UncleBuck said:
lol.

it's funny because it's hackish, partisan, and retarded.

Q: how many budget proposals have come up for a vote in the senate over the last 5 years?
A: zero

Q: who blocked them all?
A: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

lol indeed.

Totoe · Mar 25, 2013

Actually the senate just passed a budget.

Dr Kynes · Mar 25, 2013

Totoe said:
Actually the senate just passed a budget.

after 4 years without a bdget this should make me happy? with a TRILLION dollars in tax increases, i should be ecstatic?

where are the spending cuts? no place.

barry seotoro was doing better when he was failing to get shit passed, and let the bush budgets do the job they were advertised for. now we are back on the fucking treadmill, with PROJECTED budget balancing after several years, but each new budget will of course push those balanced budgets back a few years. every fucking year.

Doer · Mar 25, 2013

SOTUS is right on what they rule on
And that has been very narrow ruling for a while

It is not right or wrong

Nothing emotional about it to say otherwise is just lay opinion

It is the rule of law only

Not much. Just the best there is so far

Dr Kynes · Mar 25, 2013

Doer said:
SOTUS is right on what they rule on
And that has been very narrow ruling for a while

It is not right or wrong

Nothing emotional about it to say otherwise is just lay opinion

It is the rule of law only

Not much. Just the best there is so far

this assumption does not stand up.

the prohibition on abortion WAS constitutional for the longest time, until the supreme court overturned themselves and invented the affirmative right to privacy (as a first and 5th amendment creature, not a part of the 10th) in the case of ONLY women, and ONLY with regards to their vaginas.

meanwhile the court has repeatedly upheld random searches, roadside checkpoints, seizure of private diaries and personal correspondence of private citizens, wire tapping, cell phone snooping, intrusion into computer records, collection of private data by government and private agencies, searches of private residences based on the presence of a water heater exhaust vent, infrared cameras (the radiation once it leaves your house is "public") laser microphones (the window is in "public view" so the vibration from your talking inside becomes "public" when it moves the glass...) and so many other specious and illogical excesses, which have been later overturned by the very same courts (infrared cameras NOW require a warrant, lulz) nad some rulings which were patentlk foolish are now simply disregarded as if they never existed because "Narrow Legalisms" is just a code phrase for "Double Standard" or "Because I Said So"

Carthoris · Mar 25, 2013

UncleBuck said:
give some examples of obama creating "new laws", please (by executive power, of course)
the president swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution (that's the main oath, numbnuts) in addition to 'faithful execution' of laws (that's the constitution, monkeydick).
refusing to enforce an unconstitutional law is his oath first and foremost. deal with it.

I never even said Obama's name, did I? Why are you defending someone the question had nothing to do with? You are truly a stupid cocksucker. Refusing to enforce the laws that the all 3 branches of government passed per the Constitution before it has been address by the SCOTUS is against the Constitution. The president can veto laws that he believes are unconstitutional but he has to execute ones already on the books. Why are you such a biased retard?

Carthoris · Mar 25, 2013

Doer said:
No, come on....many, many law as not defended ( as Doer takes a morning flower sniff) We can't be fuzzy about the President. He is the one above the law, action figure we have. But, he can still be caught and held to account. Not a King. His Executive Orders can be immediately countermanded by more Congressional law.

It's balance. And get this, it's balance frequency, how fast and how far the scale swings is beyond a lifetime in some cases. Roe v Wade......and on and on....Every thing is subject to srutiny, and it it's not firmly in, like all the Bills and Amendments, the ideas shred over time as they are suppose to. Like the assault weapons ban, voting rights, EVERYTHING. It all get thrown in and discussed, screamed about, and when we see Unions and TeaBags, they fist fight. They turn on the reporters. YEAH!!! More news.

I see it as the area of Ideas. And ideas come with champions and opposition...the pure Che-ist Struggle.

But, unlike any other system, we Throw the ideas and their brute combatant Lawyers, into the shredder called the Constitution, and very little comes out intact. Especially these days. The Holy Days of 50/50 market segment. We are just filling out the details of the System and detailing the response of Law in new situations. It's WORKING! Things work best (or only) in divided Rule.

Remember, even France has been through 4 Constitutions in the time we've manage to preserve our Original.

I agree with most of what you said. However, the position that was being espoused was that the POTUS has the right to make rules and laws and that is OK unless they get a super majority of Congress to overrule him.

Without the Republicans, the Democrats would turn us Communist in short order. Without the Democrats, the Republicans would turn us Fascist. The ineffective split government that fights instead of changing things is the only reason we don't completely suck yet.

Dr Kynes · Mar 25, 2013

Carthoris said:
I agree with most of what you said. However, the position that was being espoused was that the POTUS has the right to make rules and laws and that is OK unless they get a super majority of Congress to overrule him.

Without the Republicans, the Democrats would turn us Communist in short order. Without the Democrats, the Republicans would turn us Fascist. The ineffective split government that fights instead of changing things is the only reason we don't completely suck yet.

ha ha ha ha ha ha !! ohh man.

whoo thats a good one.

if left completely unchecked, the republican neo-con establishment would turn us into a plutocracy.

plutocracy is NOT fascism, fascism is just another flavour of marxism which has been used as an ad hominem for so long that it's meaning is poorly understood.

Carthoris · Mar 25, 2013

Dr Kynes said:
ha ha ha ha ha ha !! ohh man.

whoo thats a good one.

if left completely unchecked, the republican neo-con establishment would turn us into a plutocracy.

plutocracy is NOT fascism, fascism is just another flavour of marxism which has been used as an ad hominem for so long that it's meaning is poorly understood.

The point was that either way we have Statist bitches in control. Thank god they are too stupid to realize they want the same exact thing in the end.

Doer · Mar 25, 2013

Dr Kynes said:
this assumption does not stand up.

the prohibition on abortion WAS constitutional for the longest time, until the supreme court overturned themselves and invented the affirmative right to privacy (as a first and 5th amendment creature, not a part of the 10th) in the case of ONLY women, and ONLY with regards to their vaginas.

meanwhile the court has repeatedly upheld random searches, roadside checkpoints, seizure of private diaries and personal correspondence of private citizens, wire tapping, cell phone snooping, intrusion into computer records, collection of private data by government and private agencies, searches of private residences based on the presence of a water heater exhaust vent, infrared cameras (the radiation once it leaves your house is "public") laser microphones (the window is in "public view" so the vibration from your talking inside becomes "public" when it moves the glass...) and so many other specious and illogical excesses, which have been later overturned by the very same courts (infrared cameras NOW require a warrant, lulz) nad some rulings which were patentlk foolish are now simply disregarded as if they never existed because "Narrow Legalisms" is just a code phrase for "Double Standard" or "Because I Said So"

I never said it was right or wrong, remember? And I thank you every time you add these cogent details. It is the sad tail end of the wonderful Tale of self rule.

Of course, it is all fucked up. Of course, it all seems like up from here. You and a bunch of others argue it out before the peers in forum or in Court every day. I hear you.

But, you are no more right or wrong than the very same Law we gnaw on in this pitiful looking, I agree, self rule. It could be a lot better and it could be a lot worse. And if you and I were in charge things would be different, I'm sure. But the Living Consitituional process is in charge. One SCOTUS is not the same SCOTUS for our childern, but continues with the paves to more struggle. That's the LAW.

And we kill anyone who tries to take it from us.

You will agree with that.

Dr Kynes · Mar 25, 2013

Doer said:
I never said it was right or wrong, remember? And I thank you every time you add these cogent details. It is the sad tail end of the wonderful Tale of self rule.

Of course, it is all fucked up. Of course, it all seems like up from here. You and a bunch of others argue it out before the peers in forum or in Court every day. I hear you.

But, you are no more right or wrong than the very same Law we gnaw on in this pitiful looking, I agree, self rule. It could be a lot better and it could be a lot worse. And if you and I were in charge things would be different, I'm sure. But the Living Consitituional process is in charge. One SCOTUS is not the same SCOTUS for our childern, but continues with the paves to more struggle. That's the LAW.

And we kill anyone who tries to take it from us. You will agree with that.

as i read it, your assumption was the supreme court rulings meant something, and their rulings were the final word, when in fact they reverse themselves regularly, and play semantic games of keep-away with our constitution.

the supreme court's opinion on any matter is less important to me than the opinion my cat has on my choice of tuna fish brands.

the cat at least is consistent, logical and reliable.

plus he has soft fur.

GOD HERE · Mar 25, 2013

Dr Kynes said:
plutocracy is NOT fascism, fascism is just another flavour of marxism which has been used as an ad hominem for so long that it's meaning is poorly understood.

You give Marx a lot of credit Keynes.

Next week wiping your ass will be a statement of the proletariat.

What gives the president the power to make executive orders?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member