Obama Ready To Use Exec. Orders On Voting Rights, Healthcare, Job Creation, etc.

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Aug 03, 2013 12:29 AM GMT
    Obama Ready To Use Exec. Orders On Voting Rights, Healthcare, Job Creation, etc.

    http://occupydemocrats.com/president-obama-ready-to-use-executive-orders/


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 2:03 AM GMT
    Just assume dictatorship and see if anyone complains, good idea...
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Aug 03, 2013 4:50 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidJust assume dictatorship and see if anyone complains, good idea...


    It worked pretty well for George Bush - did you complain then?
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Aug 03, 2013 5:07 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidJust assume dictatorship and see if anyone complains, good idea...



    What can be done is very narrow. He could not impose a Tax as that is vested with congress within the constitution.

    Congress can simply defund specifically areas related to implementation to any executive order it deems an overreach.

    When congress and the president are in disagreement and the president acts, he is at his least legitimate power according to Supreme court precedent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 10:52 AM GMT
    tazzari said
    Blakes7 saidJust assume dictatorship and see if anyone complains, good idea...


    It worked pretty well for George Bush - did you complain then?


    Of course he didn't. Bush's presidential vetoes, for example, totalled 12, while Obama has used just 2 to date.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Aug 03, 2013 11:04 AM GMT
    Considering the (in)actions of the worst "Do Nothing" Congress in recent memory; what choice does the President have?



    icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 12:20 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    tazzari said
    Blakes7 saidJust assume dictatorship and see if anyone complains, good idea...


    It worked pretty well for George Bush - did you complain then?


    Of course he didn't. Bush's presidential vetoes, for example, totalled 12, while Obama has used just 2 to date.

    And don't forget Bush's use of Presidential "signing statements" that he added to Congressional bills, unprecedented for their frequency and reach. In which he wrote how he planned to interpret and enforce the bills in his own way, often in defiance of the very words on the documents he was signing into law.

    There's no Constitutional basis or authority for a President to claim such power, just as the US Supreme Court has rejected the concept of the Line Item Veto. The President signs an entire bill into law and must implement it all, not just the certain parts he selects.

    Bush's actions were clearly a power grab that placed him above the Congress, following the "Unitary Presidency" claim espoused by neocons like Dick Chaney. That wasn't a democratic Liberal idea but a Right Wing Fascist concept to put unconstitutional powers in the hands of one person, the true definition of a dictatorship.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 1:32 PM GMT
    tazzari said
    Blakes7 saidJust assume dictatorship and see if anyone complains, good idea...


    It worked pretty well for George Bush - did you complain then?


    If I were aware of any over reaches, yes I would. As I've stated, I like checks and balances.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 1:34 PM GMT
    And saying "if so and so did it, so can I" is childish. Must we continue destructive policies, or can we learn and try and do better?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 1:41 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidAnd saying "if so and so did it, so can I" is childish. Must we continue destructive policies, or can we learn and try and do better?

    The examples of Bush are provided to illustrate how flexible and partisan your definition of dictatorship is. It's not to give Obama free reign, but rather, to ask if what Bush did was OK, how can the much lesser things Obama has done be a dictatorship? When did the definition change?

    Republicans set the precedent, and now they want to change the rules back to what they were before Bush, because a Democrat is in the White House. Typical Republican double-standards and hypocrisy. But in government and in law precedent carries great weight. Republicans opened this can of worms of increased Presidential authority, now they can live with their creation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 1:43 PM GMT
    rnch saidConsidering the (in)actions of the worst "Do Nothing" Congress in recent memory; what choice does the President have?
    icon_mad.gif

    Not merely in recent memory, but approaching all-time historical lows for inaction. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 1:52 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    Blakes7 saidAnd saying "if so and so did it, so can I" is childish. Must we continue destructive policies, or can we learn and try and do better?

    The examples of Bush are provided to illustrate how flexible and partisan your definition of dictatorship is. It's not to give Obama free reign, but rather, to ask if what Bush did was OK, how can the much lesser things Obama has done be a dictatorship? When did the definition change?

    Republicans set the precedent, and now they want to change the rules back to what they were before Bush, because a Democrat is in the White House. Typical Republican double-standards and hypocrisy. But in government and in law precedent carries great weight. Republicans opened this can of worms of increased Presidential authority, now they can live with their creation.


    "The examples of Bush", coming from you, are at best skewed way to the left, twisted and stretched, projected or just untrue. I don't entirely trust most mainstream media, and I sure as hell don't trust you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 1:53 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    rnch saidConsidering the (in)actions of the worst "Do Nothing" Congress in recent memory; what choice does the President have?
    icon_mad.gif

    Not merely in recent memory, but approaching all-time historical lows for inaction. icon_razz.gif



    Which is a good thing, considering all that could happen if some people actually had their way. Think about it....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 2:28 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidJust assume dictatorship and see if anyone complains, good idea...

    When I think of dictators, I think of guys who do things like authorize the use of torture.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 4:23 PM GMT
    That "torture" as you call it, keeps people safe. Remember, we are dealing with real evil.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 6:03 PM GMT
    Everyone wants to be a comedian.....


    Actually, if you think a Tea Party member is dangerous at all compared to fanatical islamists on jihad, then you're beyond reason. I would ask if you're on drugs.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Aug 03, 2013 6:35 PM GMT
    inertia in Congress is a built in check to limitless power of the Executive.

    The President has to deal with Congress just like all of the Presidents before him.

    This executive order thing is really inconsequential. The areas in which he can do things are very limited. They really only involve areas in which congress has already given the executive enforcement power.

    He could not impose a tax, create new gun regulations, extend or expand entitlement benefits .

    This link is just a ra ra Aaron Sorkin liberal fantasy that he can do anything substantial with executive orders.

    Unless if he did not care about the 2014 elections, the Senate and any possible Supreme Court nominations.

    I dont see how this helps him, his message. It would damage any ideal and cause it touched.

    For example if he would somehow would overreach and enact gun via orders to the ATF, you would see the ATF defunded. Any future gun control would be dead on arrival.

    I cannot think of 1 think he could possibly do on voting rights. Enforcement of the voting rights act is by the department of justice , the courts have ruled on this recently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 8:09 PM GMT
    Everything written by musclmed in his post above should be published and distributed to the Tea Party crazies.

    Daily they are being sold the opposite information. They are being told by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and too many others that they are living powerlessly in a dictatorship headed by an illegitimate president.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 8:24 PM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    "The examples of Bush", coming from you, are at best skewed way to the left, twisted and stretched, projected or just untrue. I don't entirely trust most mainstream media, and I sure as hell don't trust you.

    Typical ad hominem attack from a Right Wing extremist. If you can't attack the facts, then attack the messenger.

    Declaring that you don't "trust" me is your counter? You think you can really just walk away by saying you don't trust me, along with mainstream media, and so the matter has been decided? (Putting me in rather good company, I must say)

    Reminds me of the rather liberal educators who once advocated students being lean on facts and heavy on what they "felt". You had a right to express & defend your "feelings" even if they were totally off-base and contrary to facts & evidence. An approach I always opposed, despite its popularity with the left wing, being a more practical facts-first kind of thinker myself.

    Sounds like you've gone a little left wing on us, giving us feelings instead of facts. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 8:34 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidThat "torture" as you call it, keeps people safe. Remember, we are dealing with real evil.

    We are being real evil when we use torture.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2013 9:03 PM GMT
    Philibuster said
    Blakes7 saidThat "torture" as you call it, keeps people safe. Remember, we are dealing with real evil.

    We are being real evil when we use torture.

    +100

    When I was taught history and civics, the use of torture formed part of the very definition of an evil government & society. But Right Wingers today reverse that logic, in order to condone torture.

    Instead their thinking is that we're Americans (Go USA! Go USA! Go USA!), and so whatever we do, even torture, can't be evil. And a President who authorizes and uses torture can't be evil (Go USA! Go USA! Go USA! With us or against us! - President GW Bush).

    That kind of childish and unsophisticated team mentality, of us versus them, is a hallmark of modern Right Wingers, and especially their water carriers, the Teabaggers.

    It's "Deutschland ├╝ber alles" all over again, but with an American-as-apple-pie slant to it. It's the USA against the world, and just like in 1930s Germany, also against a great many of our own citizens who don't fit the ideal mold of White hetero male supremacy.

    The Republican War on Women, War on Gays, War on Immigrants, War on Unions, War on Minorities, War on Workers, War on Anything Different, mirrors the German war against White Aryan nonconformity of 80 years ago.

    Fascists are fascists, no matter in what generation they appear. Regrettably we have a fascist battle to fight in our own time. That it would arise again in the US is both ironic & tragic. Thank gawd social media now exists, to expose & oppose these regressive forces.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2013 1:29 AM GMT
    Sorry, I'm not falling for that old left wing trick. Throw out a bunch of so called facts, allegations, innuendo and projections, and put the other side on defense by making them respond to each, when you have an answer for each at the ready. I have better things to do than to research your assertions. Especially when I'm sure you and your sources are biased way to the left. And anyone who thinks aggressive interrogation of terrorists is not justified needs to watch films of 9/11 again, because extreme naivete can be quite dangerous indeed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2013 4:23 AM GMT
    ^ Facts are such pesky things. Best to ignore them. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2013 12:38 PM GMT
    showme said^ Facts are such pesky things. Best to ignore them. icon_biggrin.gif

    LOL! Ignore or invent, a classic right wing fascist tactic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2013 2:13 PM GMT
    Bush created the Patriot Act.

    Obama renewed it and even strengthen it, after promising us he would kill it if we elected him.

    How's that for bipartisanship?