Originally posted by joe beyserSince you dodged the question, do you question Obama's place of birth?
You may be confusing him with me. I am a birthed and you can tell your first sergeant all about it.
Obviously your reply will be another dodge. I just want to put it on display.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI don't remembering you asking that but yes I do question where he was born. Not just the fact of him being adopted and all that.
Since you dodged the question, do you question Obama's place of birth?
Obviously your reply will be another dodge. I just want to put it on display.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYes I am stupid, but way smarter than you. You just need to start thinking for yourself, thats all. I am sure that first sargent of yours treats you decent in the bedroom, but ya gotta resist believing everything he tells ya.
Thank you. You're one of the stupid ones I was talking about before.
Originally posted by moon1969All true, but the constitutional danger lies in the popular executive orders, not just the unpopular ones.
It is also a political issues and impediments in at least a couple of ways. First, EOs can be undone by the next President. Unlike a king, the term is only 4 years. Second, upopular EOs do not do the President or his party any good. With unpopular EOs, he loses political capital while in office and could jeipardize many initiatives that need actual legi ...[text shortened]... on if in the first term, and hurts his party if in the second term. There are political checks.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI don't really know what a "birther" is. The term is usually a pejorative to dismiss any questioning of the President's origins. I do question, but don't look at the issue as something that will ever amount to anything.
Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else, but aren't you a birther?
Originally posted by sh76Almost none of them are ever repealed, and so become sort of extra Constitutional law, because of the number of executive branch agencies regulating every facet of life.
All true, but the constitutional danger lies in the popular executive orders, not just the unpopular ones.
The tendency is to not like them when an opposite party President writes one, but then to like it when your guy wins later on.
Originally posted by normbenignAn executive order is little more than an intra-agency directive. They have no status of law and each President is free to use or ignore them. If they start replacing legislation, you have a problem. But I don't see an inherent problem with use of the executive order.
Almost none of them are ever repealed, and so become sort of extra Constitutional law, because of the number of executive branch agencies regulating every facet of life.
The tendency is to not like them when an opposite party President writes one, but then to like it when your guy wins later on.
Originally posted by normbenignThe Executive Branch has power including discretion in administering laws. It is an equal branch. A significant weakness is that it does not have the power of the purse.
The notion of impeachment over EOs is laughable. It doesn't even deserve the attention of a web site debate forum, never mind significant Congressional attention.
The general tendency of President's to use EOs is a cause for serious concern for right minded people of both parties. The EO only has direct effect on Executive Branch agencies, but because ...[text shortened]... elected a President of the opposite party often likes the new power his predecessor gave him.
The state legislature in most states sets the speed limits. If the state police (part of the state executive branch) gives a 5 mph cushion on speed limits, is that discretion legislating? If the governor issues an executive order to the head of the state police to give a 5 mph cushion with some exception discretion by the state police, is that legislating?
If a state prosecutor (part of the state executive branch) cuts a deal wtih a defendant to characterize the defendant's act as a lesser crime (than the plain language of the relevant statute), is that prosecutorial discretion legislating?
If an EPA administrator works out a penalty assessment and remedial plan with a chemical company, and that is at least loosely within the four corners of the related federal legislation, but with some interpretation required, has that EPA administrator legislated? If the EPA sets some code more detailed than the law to help with adminstration of the law, has the EPA legislated? If the President issues an executive order related to an environmental law giving more detailed guidance for the EPA in administering the law, has the President or executive branch legislated?
There are many practical and administering issues well within the discretion of the executive branch. It is needed and a fact of life. The federal Administrative Code is much more detailed than the legislative United States Code. And there is always the courts to step in if needed.