Building High-Performance Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
Impeach Him?
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 36740

countingbeans wrote:
Hey...

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/...

He hasn't put whitey in interment camps yet, so we've got that going for us.

Oh FDR, you bastion of Liberal Ideals you...


As illegal any action ever by a President.

FDR surely signed that executive order with his middle finger extended at Madison's founding document.

  Report
 

H factor
Level 1

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 2363

pushharder wrote:


The author mentions it casually but not enough: it's not the number of executive orders, it's the substance.

Even when used properly the number of e.o.'s was likely to rise in the past 50 years because more legislation, cabinet departments and bureaucracy overall would have necessitated more e.o.'s.

"Faithfully execute" is the critical term. What we see with Bam's BamCare e.o.'s is not that. He is illegally legislating.


I agree the substance matters, but unconstitutional executive orders are old. If "we" didn't care with the last President's why would anyone expect "us" to care now?

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm disagreeing with the idea their will be repercussions for these unconstitutional actions. It's really hard to argue something will happen now when it didn't happen under the last guy.

Substance is subjective. I'd like to get rid of executive orders period. Our recent Presidents have proven they can't use them in a constitutional way. Why continue to give Presidents the power to disobey their limits with this tool?

Why would we assume the next President won't abuse them if the last two did?

No defense exists for how Obama is using it or how Bush used it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...5121600021.html

  Report
 

Bismark
Level

Join date: Nov 2013
Location:
Posts: 400

cwill1973 wrote:
The President's duty is to enact the laws passed by Congress. It was my impression executive orders were used to instruct the various agencies in order to fulfill those duties. I do not see how altering, delaying, or ignoring the law is remotely Constitutional. It should be an impeachable offense. Sadly though, neither Congress or the Supreme Court has the ethical or political backbone to do what is right. And by failing to act and holding Presidents responsible, Congress is reducing their own power. What is the point of making laws if you are not going to insist the President enforce them.


Yes, because the executive branch has NEVER legislated, nor has the legislative branch EVER executed. For those of you crying unconstitutional this or unconstitutional that, how did you react at the time to the passage of the 2001 Patriot Act?

  Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 36740

Bismark wrote:
cwill1973 wrote:
The President's duty is to enact the laws passed by Congress. It was my impression executive orders were used to instruct the various agencies in order to fulfill those duties. I do not see how altering, delaying, or ignoring the law is remotely Constitutional. It should be an impeachable offense. Sadly though, neither Congress or the Supreme Court has the ethical or political backbone to do what is right. And by failing to act and holding Presidents responsible, Congress is reducing their own power. What is the point of making laws if you are not going to insist the President enforce them.


Yes, because the executive branch has NEVER legislated, nor has the legislative branch EVER executed. For those of you crying unconstitutional this or unconstitutional that, how did you react at the time to the passage of the 2001 Patriot Act?


Negatively.

How 'bout you?

  Report
 

countingbeans
Level 2

Join date: Oct 2008
Location:
Posts: 19113

Bismark wrote:
For those of you crying unconstitutional this or unconstitutional that, how did you react at the time to the passage of the 2001 Patriot Act?


I hated Bush for signing the first one before I hated Obama for signing the extension.

Look, Bush and that congress sucked too. But I feel I have room to bitch as a reformed Contemporary American Liberal seeing as the "hope and change" I pushed for, wanted, and cheered for, ended up more of the same.

I think that is the defining feature of the unique nature of criticism Obama gets from a lot of people like myself. He ran on "hope and change", he ran on the idea he was going to be different, he was a new POTUS that was going to be different than Bush. Turns out he governs way too much like Bush, and those before to not have to pay a little bit more in the way of mud slinging, because he ran on not being who he ended up being...

  Report
 

MaximusB
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 13997

countingbeans wrote:
Bismark wrote:
For those of you crying unconstitutional this or unconstitutional that, how did you react at the time to the passage of the 2001 Patriot Act?


I hated Bush for signing the first one before I hated Obama for signing the extension.

Look, Bush and that congress sucked too. But I feel I have room to bitch as a reformed Contemporary American Liberal seeing as the "hope and change" I pushed for, wanted, and cheered for, ended up more of the same.

I think that is the defining feature of the unique nature of criticism Obama gets from a lot of people like myself. He ran on "hope and change", he ran on the idea he was going to be different, he was a new POTUS that was going to be different than Bush. Turns out he governs way too much like Bush, and those before to not have to pay a little bit more in the way of mud slinging, because he ran on not being who he ended up being...



Didn't Gumby speak about repealing it when he ran in 2008 ?

  Report
 

H factor
Level 1

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 2363

countingbeans wrote:
Bismark wrote:
For those of you crying unconstitutional this or unconstitutional that, how did you react at the time to the passage of the 2001 Patriot Act?


I hated Bush for signing the first one before I hated Obama for signing the extension.

Look, Bush and that congress sucked too. But I feel I have room to bitch as a reformed Contemporary American Liberal seeing as the "hope and change" I pushed for, wanted, and cheered for, ended up more of the same.

I think that is the defining feature of the unique nature of criticism Obama gets from a lot of people like myself. He ran on "hope and change", he ran on the idea he was going to be different, he was a new POTUS that was going to be different than Bush. Turns out he governs way too much like Bush, and those before to not have to pay a little bit more in the way of mud slinging, because he ran on not being who he ended up being...


What I don't get is how so many people seem to see huge differences in Bush and Obama. They are not the exact same President, but on almost all the biggest stuff they are completely the same.

So why does everyone pretend Democrats and Republicans are so different? Of course Republicans are running as that was the old Republican party right now...which is exactly what Democrats will do if the Democrat brand gets as bad as the Republican was.

That's what they ALWAYS do. And everyone keeps trying to talk about how different they are. All I ever talk about is how similar they are and no one wants to hear that...most people just want to cheer on their team and say "yeah, but OWE-BAMA, or Bush lied people died!"

If someone liked Bush I have no fucking idea how they dislike Obama. And if someone hated Bush how the fuck do you like the President?

Oh, because "we" think everything in terms of letters and like to paint our side as much better by simply pointing about the other sides mess ups.

Frustrating. Hope and change was actually more of the same.

  Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 36740

H factor wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
Bismark wrote:
For those of you crying unconstitutional this or unconstitutional that, how did you react at the time to the passage of the 2001 Patriot Act?


I hated Bush for signing the first one before I hated Obama for signing the extension.

Look, Bush and that congress sucked too. But I feel I have room to bitch as a reformed Contemporary American Liberal seeing as the "hope and change" I pushed for, wanted, and cheered for, ended up more of the same.

I think that is the defining feature of the unique nature of criticism Obama gets from a lot of people like myself. He ran on "hope and change", he ran on the idea he was going to be different, he was a new POTUS that was going to be different than Bush. Turns out he governs way too much like Bush, and those before to not have to pay a little bit more in the way of mud slinging, because he ran on not being who he ended up being...


What I don't get is how so many people seem to see huge differences in Bush and Obama. They are not the exact same President, but on almost all the biggest stuff they are completely the same.

So why does everyone pretend Democrats and Republicans are so different? Of course Republicans are running as that was the old Republican party right now...which is exactly what Democrats will do if the Democrat brand gets as bad as the Republican was.

That's what they ALWAYS do. And everyone keeps trying to talk about how different they are. All I ever talk about is how similar they are and no one wants to hear that...most people just want to cheer on their team and say "yeah, but OWE-BAMA, or Bush lied people died!"


Oh, because "we" think everything in terms of letters and like to paint our side as much better by simply pointing about the other sides mess ups.

Frustrating. Hope and change was actually more of the same.


It's not about Bush vs Obama. Quit torturing yourself with this angle.



If someone liked Bush I have no fucking idea how they dislike Obama.



I have two reasons right off the bat:

1) Bush never pushed gun control.

2) Bush never imposed the totally ridiculous BamCare concept.

I could come up with 100 more if need be.

So what? If a president, any president, pushes his authority past its constitutional limits he needs to be slapped around, figuratively speaking (I don't need the Secret Service knocking my door down).

  Report
 

Bismark
Level

Join date: Nov 2013
Location:
Posts: 400

pushharder wrote:
Bismark wrote:
cwill1973 wrote:
The President's duty is to enact the laws passed by Congress. It was my impression executive orders were used to instruct the various agencies in order to fulfill those duties. I do not see how altering, delaying, or ignoring the law is remotely Constitutional. It should be an impeachable offense. Sadly though, neither Congress or the Supreme Court has the ethical or political backbone to do what is right. And by failing to act and holding Presidents responsible, Congress is reducing their own power. What is the point of making laws if you are not going to insist the President enforce them.


Yes, because the executive branch has NEVER legislated, nor has the legislative branch EVER executed. For those of you crying unconstitutional this or unconstitutional that, how did you react at the time to the passage of the 2001 Patriot Act?


Negatively.

How 'bout you?


Likewise. Less so because of its effects on civil liberties than it's short sighted focus on terrorism and the expense of much larger shadows in the near future.

  Report
 

H factor
Level 1

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 2363

pushharder wrote:
H factor wrote:
countingbeans wrote:
Bismark wrote:
For those of you crying unconstitutional this or unconstitutional that, how did you react at the time to the passage of the 2001 Patriot Act?


I hated Bush for signing the first one before I hated Obama for signing the extension.

Look, Bush and that congress sucked too. But I feel I have room to bitch as a reformed Contemporary American Liberal seeing as the "hope and change" I pushed for, wanted, and cheered for, ended up more of the same.

I think that is the defining feature of the unique nature of criticism Obama gets from a lot of people like myself. He ran on "hope and change", he ran on the idea he was going to be different, he was a new POTUS that was going to be different than Bush. Turns out he governs way too much like Bush, and those before to not have to pay a little bit more in the way of mud slinging, because he ran on not being who he ended up being...


What I don't get is how so many people seem to see huge differences in Bush and Obama. They are not the exact same President, but on almost all the biggest stuff they are completely the same.

So why does everyone pretend Democrats and Republicans are so different? Of course Republicans are running as that was the old Republican party right now...which is exactly what Democrats will do if the Democrat brand gets as bad as the Republican was.

That's what they ALWAYS do. And everyone keeps trying to talk about how different they are. All I ever talk about is how similar they are and no one wants to hear that...most people just want to cheer on their team and say "yeah, but OWE-BAMA, or Bush lied people died!"


Oh, because "we" think everything in terms of letters and like to paint our side as much better by simply pointing about the other sides mess ups.

Frustrating. Hope and change was actually more of the same.


It's not about Bush vs Obama. Quit torturing yourself with this angle.



If someone liked Bush I have no fucking idea how they dislike Obama.



I have two reasons right off the bat:

1) Bush never pushed gun control.

2) Bush never imposed the totally ridiculous BamCare concept.

I could come up with 100 more if need be.

So what? If a president, any president, pushes his authority past its constitutional limits he needs to be slapped around, figuratively speaking (I don't need the Secret Service knocking my door down).


Lol.

"It's not about Bush vs. Obama.

Here's why I prefer Bush."

Point from my post ignored, and then proven by you.

Thanks. And yet another strawman for suggesting I don't think the President needs slapped down in a thread where I just got done saying the President needs slapped down.

Then again, why read what someone posts?

  Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 36740

Napolitano: Impeachment Only Way to Stop Obama's Executive Actions

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/...2#ixzz2tJxlooqp

  Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 36740

Obamacare Changes Are 'Dangerous' Precedent, Lawyers Say

http://www.newsmax.com/...02/14/id/552873

By the way, this idea that these are unconstitutional actions is coming from the left and the right. I saw an interview with liberal Georgetown law professor Jonathan Turley a few days ago where even he agreed the pres is clearly out of bounds.

  Report
 

zecarlo
Level 4

Join date: Aug 2006
Location:
Posts: 2308

H factor wrote:
Then again, why read what someone posts?

Because it might hurt his feelings.

  Report