Originally posted by whodey ...we now have the president of the United States deciding everything ranging from how your child is educated to what doctors you see.
You got any links to executive orders or legislation to back up these assertions? No links to diatribes on "Nobama" blogs or forum comments on www.freerepublic.com please. Executive Orders or enacted Laws. Links.
Originally posted by FMF You got any links to executive orders or legislation to back up these assertions? No links to diatribes on "Nobama" blogs or forum comments on www.freerepublic.com please. Executive Orders or enacted Laws. Links.
Ever heard of the Department of education? What great thing has any president ever done for education? Did you like "W"'s no child left behind? LOL. The mere fact that the department exists is laughable. Education is individual to a persons community and their specific needs, not broad sweeping one fits all policies.
As for enacting laws, Congress just recently voted to give the EPA the power to enact cap and trade. I have posted this before. I have also posted the fact that Obama promised to prohibit abortions being covered under Obamacare. Congress and the nation awaits his ruling on the matter. In fact, Obamacare was passed under Reconcilation because of Senator Brown being elected so the Democrat Congress and Obama bypassed the Constitutional process of passing a law.
Originally posted by whodey Ever heard of the Department of education? What great thing has any president ever done for education? Did you like "W"'s no child left behind? LOL. The mere fact that the department exists is laughable. Education is individual to a persons community and their specific needs, not broad sweeping one fits all policies.
As for enacting laws, Congress jus ...[text shortened]... ted so the Democrat Congress and Obama bypassed the Constitutional process of passing a law.
Three oft-repeated lies in the second paragraph that have been debunked here several times. Keep rolling 'em out, whodey; you remain a shrill, partisan laughingstock purveyor of falsehoods.
Originally posted by whodey Ever heard of the Department of education? What great thing has any president ever done for education? Did you like "W"'s no child left behind? LOL. The mere fact that the department exists is laughable. Education is individual to a persons community and their specific needs, not broad sweeping one fits all policies.
I asked you for any links that you might have to executive orders or legislation to back up your assertion that "we now have the president of the United States deciding everything ranging from how your child is educated to what doctors you see". Not URLS leading to blog tirades. I am asking for links to laws preventing you from seeing a doctor you want to visit or preventing you from educating your child as you wish. Statements like "The mere fact that the Education Department exists is laughable" don't wash. I want links showing how President Obama - as you claim - can prevent you from seeing the doctor of your choice or prevent you from educating your child in the way you want.
Originally posted by whodey I have also posted the fact that Obama promised to prohibit abortions being covered under Obamacare. Congress and the nation awaits his ruling on the matter.
This came up the other day. Your error was pointed out to you. On your own thread, indeed. Have you forgotten already?
Originally posted by whodey Obamacare was passed under Reconcilation because of Senator Brown being elected so the Democrat Congress and Obama bypassed the Constitutional process of passing a law.
Isn't this a lie on your part, whodey? As no1. has pointed out.
Originally posted by FMF Isn't this a lie on your part, whodey? As no1. has pointed out.
Show me where Reconciliation is anywhere in the Constitution. The bottom line is that under the Contitution the bill should have gone back to the Senate....of course we all know why it did not, don't we?
Originally posted by FMF This came up the other day. Your error was pointed out to you. On your own thread, indeed. Have you forgotten already?
My objection was the use of an exective order by Obama in the legislation. Executive orders are absent in the Constitution, rather, they use the vague "executive power" given under Article ll Section l, Clause l of the Constitution and furthered by the declaration to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". This is a far cry from writing laws via Executive orders. In fact, all a President would have to do it seems is make an executive order to make the abortion provision irrelavant.
Of course, those on the left are in love with executive orders much like the one FDR used to imprison Asian Americans in prison camps during WW2.
Originally posted by whodey Show me where Reconciliation is anywhere in the Constitution. The bottom line is that under the Contitution the bill should have gone back to the Senate....of course we all know why it did not, don't we?
Show me where a "filibuster" is mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
Both are procedural rules which Congress is Constitutionally empowered to adopt if they see fit. Article I, Section 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings
Originally posted by no1marauder Show me where a "filibuster" is mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
Both are procedural rules which Congress is Constitutionally empowered to adopt if they see fit. Article I, Section 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings
I was discussing the ever growing power of the executive branch. Naturally you would have no intest in addressing this since you would probably rather have a Hugo Chavez calling all the shots anyway.
Originally posted by whodey My objection was the use of an exective order by Obama in the legislation. Executive orders are absent in the Constitution, rather, they use the vague "executive power" given under Article ll Section l, Clause l of the Constitution and furthered by the declaration to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". This is a far cry from writing laws via E ...[text shortened]... ve orders much like the one FDR used to imprison Asian Americans in prison camps during WW2.
How could the President instruct the members of the Executive Department on what they should do without issuing orders?
The first executive order, issued by George Washington on June 8, 1789, http://www.answers.com/topic/executive-order-1
Was George Washington violating the Constitution in the first few months of his term, whodey?
You really need to start thinking for yourself and stop relying on loony, right wing blogs.
Originally posted by whodey I was discussing the ever growing power of the executive branch. Naturally you would have no intest in addressing this since you would probably rather have a Hugo Chavez calling all the shots anyway.
You were actually either deliberately lying about certain matters or are pathetically ill-informed.
Do you see the difference, it's a thing called CHOICE. It's what makes humans humans, acting on our ability to reason, grass doesn't have a choice it just grows where it can, it doesn't know why, dumb beasts act on instinct. Humans have this thing sitting on our shoulders that distinguishes us from all the rest. The more choices that are taken from us and made by others reduces humans from what they are.
It is an illusion that less government equates to more choice or the converse. Power is not distributed evenly nor fairly, but is acquired in many ways including by force and by theft and by inherited privilege and by unfair advantages in an unfair economy or society. Power is also acquired through politics: someone like Stalin or Mao had almost limitless power and almost zero accountability.
It seems logical to seek to balance power and hold it to account and in that respect, pressure to limit the scope of government is democratic and rational. This is the case from a Left perspective as well as from the Right. Chavez for example is pressing for more public resources to be controlled at the level of communities, outside of the structures of government. Participatory democracy is often an alternative to excessive governmental control.
When government is rendered difficult or even impossible by a failure of its citizens to support government with the resources required for its work, then it ceases to function effectively. When people argue in a way that is destructive of government as such then they are acting in a way that is no longer democratic and becomes supportive of other power structures. The most likely beneficiaries in the USA seem to be the major corporations (often at the expense of small enterprise on which a huge proportion of people depend) and the very wealthy, who are becoming an American aristocracy.
31 Jul '10 17:01
are there any conservatives in these forums who...
Back to Top