Honest question, not trolling and not trying to pin into a corner...

What do you guys think about him moving to the executive order to get things done because he has cut himself off so much with congress, is it a good idea or is it a slippery slope to go down?

I know he wont be the first to use this tactic but from the sounds of it he will be the most extensive with his plans for 2nd terms that have no shot in congress, so he will just bypass them. Thoughts?

can only do so much before it'll result in his impeachment.

He will attempt to rule by fiat using executive orders and damn that inconvenient piece of paper called the constitution. Which was developed specifically to prevent the kinds of abuses of power we are seeing right now.

I figure that upcoming to the next election, we might see them stir up a LOT of civilian disturbances due to some reason or other such as "forgetting" to apply food stamp money to desperate people's accounts without warning and thus generating an incident that will allow them to declare martial law and start clamping down on America's liberty and that would include the right to VOTE, which will be suspended until we can emerge from martial law, and thus he remains to hang his towel in the White House untll the revolt that overthrows the federal government.

somebody in the Secret Service will ahoot him before that happens.

hmm. ahoot, eh? nope. don't feel like fixing it.

That's doubtful, Dibs. Those guys will be susceptible to the same thing that afflicts the politicians, GREED!

Make no mistake, when fluff gets hot for him, those Secret Service People will suddently become more wealthy than they used to be.

I can't believe I'm wading into this, but:

1. Executive orders have been part of America's method of governance right back to George Washington and have been exercised by (virtually) every president since.

2. Executive orders are not unconstitutional. While they are not mentioned in the constitution, they are the obvious method for the president to exercise power which is specifically granted to him by that document. Claiming they are unconstitutional is much like saying buying a gun is unconstitutional because only the right to "bear arms", not purchase them, is mentioned in the second amendment.

3. There is a significant body of legislation, passed by congress, which specifically and implicitly indicates powers which the executive can wield through orders. Therefore there is a tacit understanding that executive orders are a legitimate part of the executive's function.

4. The number of executive orders Obama is issuing has been trending down, not up.

5. The number of executive orders issued by Obama has never been on track to significantly eclipse the number issued by his most recent antecedents and has certainly never been on track to eclipse those of the

6. As of the end of Obama's first term, his executive order/year ratio is lower than any president since Grover Cleveland.

7. Executive orders are not some mystical, uncontrollable force. They can be challenged and overturned by the judiciary.



Until you're somewhat more specific about what executive orders you're concerned about, and where you heard these "sounds", I'm afraid I can't be more specific. But my thoughts can probably best be summed up as this:

There are certainly times when it is reasonable to oppose an action, not because it will have negative consequences, but because it could set a precedent to be abused. No one wants to give a leader the power to save a tenth an empire, only to have his successor use the precedent of that power to destroy it all.

However, the precedent here is well established. It is difficult to see how Obama's use of executive power is overstepping or extending the precedents already established in American history.

Therefore, the discussion ought to be entirely focused on the merits of his agenda, not the legalistic avenues he walks to enact that agenda.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Item 1. Executive orders that establish a bad precedent.

Obama, himself, issued an executive order to not enforce the law that he himself ramrodded through the congress by delaying the corporate mandate for Obamacare. Thus establishing the precedent that he can override ANY law passed by the congress AFTER it has already been enacted.

Item 2. That violates the constitution since he is NOT going to enforce the law as passed by the congress. It's a bad law, yes, but that still does not allow him to unilaterally change it's implementation.

If he didn't like the law, his option was to VETO the law and force congress to override, not just single handedly modify it by fiat.

the jist of foogs post? grover cleveland is the best president ever :P (non consecutive terms, anybody? and his wife had elenora duse over for luncheon :P)

(maybe it was afternoon tea.. either way, the uselessness of the knowledge is kind of astounding :P)

Cerberus, you're making a few mis-representations there.

First, it's simply mis-leading to characterize what's happening as "refusal to enforce" the law as written. When a law isn't ready to be implemented, it's pretty routine to delay it until it can be made ready. In fact, that's a good summary for a civics class about why an executive is involved in the process at all. Where untidiness of the real world encroaches on the theoretical perfection that is legislation, the executive makes the allowances to make sure things work.

Second, there's no first precedent being set here. Literally, none. No new ground, what-so-ever, is being tread in the decision to delay the corporate mandate.

I often find the "this is a dangerous precedent" argument a strange one, because its use more often serves as an indictment of America's education system than as an indictment of the person purportedly doing the thing which is a "dangerous precedent". This is especially true in this case, because the most obvious precedent (Heckler v. Chaney) not only came down 9-0, but the opinion was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist whose conservative bonafides are pretty well established by his being appointed by Ronald Reagon (oh, and his legal rulings, which were somewhat right of draconian).

This is settled law. There is no extension of power here. None. In other words, no precedent, dangerous or otherwise for us to concern ourselves with. All that matters is whether or not it's a good decision, because the President does have this power.

Third, the president can't use this power (which he already has) to "override ANY law passed by the congress AFTER it has already been enacted". That same case I cited above (I did cite it due to more than its conservative bonafides) established exactly how far this power of the president extends. Basically, the president can't "refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons". That's settled law too.

Look, I'm sorry a law has been passed that you don't agree with. I understand the impulse to take an "ends justify the means" approach to opposing such a law, and take hold of any opportunity which gives you an opportunity to make the law seem illegitimate. But you're better than that, even if others aren't. You gain more credibility by opposing baseless arguments (even... actually, especially when proposed by those whose end goals you agree with) than you ever will be jumping on the band wagon and spewing forth ignorance. And that credibility is political power. Even if you never run for office, or actively participate in a political campaign, that power can only serve your interests in the future -- especially if combined with similar power accrued by thousands of other people seeking the same end goal as you.

Just a thought.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I will never run for political office ever again, the last time it took my months to get the stench of it of me.

The way I see things is simple, I've read the constitution thoroughly, I understand the system of checks and balances that the founding fathers put in place to prevent the rise of a despot.

He is currently in the process of circumventing as many of those as he can so that he can rule by fiat.

Have you been watching the news? Paying attention to what is going on? He's been conducting a purge of senior military commanders by using a litmus test concerning whether or not they will fire upon American Citizens at his direction. In addition to that, they have threatened to court martial "Christian" chaplains for speaking on their religion, AND he has had Muslim Imams speak at funeral/memorial services for our dead servicemen and women where in the memorial they are being condemned and vilified by the Imam.

This guy is a Manchurian Candidate for sure. He's not an American by birth, the birth certificate was faked, he does not act in the best interests of America, rather he acts in the best interests of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, Egypt's current administration wants to put him on trial for war crimes for arming the Muslim Brotherhood, who then rampaged through the streets of Cairo killing Christians, such as the Egyptian Coptics, and in general anyone opposed to Muslim Brotherhood rule.

And don't even think about the scandals for spying on our citizens, and our allies, and the lapses in judgement over Benghazi, and the lying to cover up the previous lies, etc.

You can go right ahead and defend this traitorous POS, but don't tell me how wrong I am until you are in a FEMA camp somewhere with NOTHING and NO ONE to stand for you.

nobody marvels at my knowledge of white house societal tidings from a hundred and twenty years ago?

ELANORA DUSE.. la citta morte, anybody? anybody?

in the movie, laurence harvey was a born american, though. extra points to anybody who can accurately pronounce his estonian birth name :P

and i would argue not FOR the MB, but for the worlds perception of americans, more so than the americans themselves.

but at the same time, i'm still trying to figure out if fiat is a calque from latin or not :(

(or maybve it was latvia or lithuania.. ben mankiewitz told us before the movie.. son of of esteemed hollywood icon joseph leo, yes, who helped write manhattan melodrama which dillinger was shot to death upon leaving, hah, clark gable is totally boss)

Ah, the anger which comes when one finds his world view demonstrably false. Or is it because you were challenged to take some level of personal responsibility, and not just fluff about the best intentions of others? Motives can be so hard...

(Braden, I'm sorry that I don't know enough to marvel at your knowledge. I've never heard of Elanora Duse, so it's hard to be impressed that you know she had tea with Cleveland's wife. I know La Città Morta was a play, because I studied Sarah Bernhardt in University. Sorry.)

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Your signature sums it all up Fooglmog, you haven't got a clue.

My world view is not wrong, in fact, it's pretty clear. It's yours that has been colored by those rose colored glasses you've been sporting.

Did you know that liberalism is a mental disorder?

It is, you know. The Liberal Paradise consists of a place where everyone is treated equally, they get their breakfast, lunch and dinner served to them, they all have equal accommodations and only the police and guards have weapons. In fact, it greatly resembles a prison.

why do people even bother mentioning anything about personal responsibility in association with the US? there is none here. that's why everybody needs insurance.

Actually, Dibs, everyone here needs insurance because of the extreme number of lawyers who's lips are fastened to the teat of the justice system. Lawyers are way over represented in the U.S. Government. For Chrissakes, every congressman and senator is a lawyer, the president and his wife are lawyers (disbarred), but nevertheless lawyers, his entire cabinet is lawyers, I even think Jay Carney is a lawyer (which explains his extreme facility in lying for the administration).

The lawyers are killing America, folks. We need a lot fewer lawyers and a lot more people doing actual work and producing something other than hot air.

invest more money in efficient and selective guillotines.

Cerberus: I agree we have way more lawyers than we need, but at least they're working. I think what we have too much of are unemployable welfare rats.

Seriously, dude. I know you try to fit every little piece of information into your skewed worldview, but at least use a fact-checking website like Snopes once in a while to filter out at least the totally discredited bullfluff you post. Neither PRes. Obama nor his wife have been disbarred. They had their law licenses put into "inactive" status since they weren't actively practicing, and this is a common practice not only in law, but in virtually any field where continuing education is a requirement to keep one's license (for instance, I'm a teacher and have to complete CPDUs to get my cert renewed, if I stopped teaching, I'd have my cert moved to inactive status so that I wouldn't need to do CPDUs).

http://www.snopes.com/...ics/obama/lawlicenses.asp

I can't believe it, but I agree with Dibs completely...