President Obama bombed Libya without congressional authorization.
The health care law was suspended throughout 2014 by the president alone.
The President ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) not to deport
anyone who has been here five years and anyone who has entered the
United States under the age of sixteen as long as they’re not a security
risk.
The President further ordered DHS not to deport the parents of children
who are citizens of legal residents.
The President ordered DHS to provide work
permits to these persons who are not here legally.
The President has also appointed members of the National Labor Relations
Board during what he called a “recess of the United States Senate,”
even when the Senate itself did not call it a recess.
The President has instructed the Department of Justice not to prosecute marijuana
sales or possession cases in states where state law has permitted such
sales.
Other presidents have exercised executive authority in the past.
n 1970, President Richard Nixon
ordered the Environmental Protection Agency not to release funds that
were available and due to New York City.
In 1951, President Harry S. Truman ordered the United States Army to take possession of the nation’s steel mills.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt traded U.S. naval ships to Britain in
return for leases on British naval bases in Newfoundland and the West
Indies.
President Woodrow Wilson paid for U.S. commercial shipping to be armed
against U-boat attacks before World War I, even though Congress had
forbidden any belligerent actions.
President Bill Clinton bombed Belgrade, Yugoslavia, for 79 days without the approval of Congress.
As the current president has exercised Presidential authority to the extreme, will anyone care wht the next president does with executive authority?
From the New York Times:
ReplyDeleteIf, under the Constitution, the president must enforce much of the law but need not enforce all of it, where should the line be drawn? It might be surprising that after two centuries of constitutional experience, we don’t know the answer. Probably the reason is that most of the time, the president’s nonenforcement decisions are not controversial. Every day, an executive branch official decides to drop an investigation, or not to prosecute a case, because resources are scarce and the harm caused by a particular legal violation does not seem serious. We don’t object because that’s a sensible thing to do.
And the sensible thing to do in the area of immigration law is to bring removal proceedings against the most serious violators — typically, criminals — while leaving otherwise law-abiding noncitizens alone. Given that Congress has not appropriated nearly enough money to deport 10 million or more people, this type of priority-setting is unavoidable, and not merely wise. Indeed, the president is just following in the footsteps of his predecessors, who also focused removal efforts on dangerous aliens. Congress has acquiesced in this practice for years. The president’s discretion over immigration is deeply interwoven in our law. As the Supreme Court recognized just two years ago, in the course of summarizing the statutory scheme: “A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.”
The only difference between the president and his predecessors is that the president has openly declared the de facto policy of his predecessors. We might disagree about whether this move is wise, but it’s not a constitutional violation.
In that case, the doors should be open to the world except for the worst offenders.
DeleteI would make the case the country can ill afford to accept the world's poor and needy. You seem to advocate all from the south are welcome however the rest of the world be damned.
Where do you draw the line Mick? 10 million more? 50 million more? When do we cease to have a national identity unable to absorb the worlds poor? When do we become insolvent trying to take care of the world. To bad you don't have young children that would likely be affected by the invading hoards.
It's called prosecutorial discretion.
Why bother to pass laws if a president is not required to enforce them?
DeleteSo the original concept was directed to individuals and now we direct it to millions.
Review the duties of the president.
Of course Louman you don't play well with facts and this is all over the internet if you will just look it up before speaking
ReplyDeleteExecutive order by president
Eisenhower 454
Kennedy 214
Johnson 323
Nixon 345
Ford 168
Carter 319
Reagan 377
GHW Bush 166
Clinton 364
GW Bush 291
Obama 203
Looks like 3 of the top four crown princes represent the republican party with your hero King Reagan in the #2 spot. Now tell me again how bad Obama is on executive orders. You don't like them because either 1. You don't agree or 2. he's black. which is it Louman be truthful. You obviously have a reason that he should not have the executive order available to him as it was King Reagan.....
Pay real close attention, it's not just about government over reach but about circumventing congress and the constitution. It about the president not doing hos job, enforcing laws passed by congress but about the imperial presidency.
DeleteYou will never get it as your blinded by the blue fog you walk in and can't get get out to see the light.
But if el Presidente Bamboozala does it, it's ok and right as rain.
An executive order doesn't necissarily defy law. Most exceutive orders are administrative in nature and are part of operational procedure of the departments under the presidents control... So I don't think that you have provided any real statistics showing... well... anything. It is quite possible that the vast majority are purely administrative but this president's, at least the ones that get attention are in defiance of law and congress.
DeletePerhaps it is time to stop making excuses for the presidents deviation from his/her oath of office before they manage to do something really harmful to the people of this country... I am truely tired of hearing that this president got away with it so mine can double down.
President Obama bombed Libya without congressional authorization.
DeleteThe health care law was suspended throughout 2014 by the president alone.
The President ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) not to deport anyone who has been here five years and anyone who has entered the United States under the age of sixteen as long as they’re not a security risk.
The President further ordered DHS not to deport the parents of children who are citizens of legal residents.
The President ordered DHS to provide work permits to these persons who are not here legally.
The President has also appointed members of the National Labor Relations Board during what he called a “recess of the United States Senate,” even when the Senate itself did not call it a recess.
The President has instructed the Department of Justice not to prosecute marijuana sales or possession cases in states where state law has permitted such sales.
The above actions were not executive orders directives by your commander in chief. Obama.
If the next president is a R or Libertarian, will you be upset if they suspend the ACA and refuse to enforce it?
Will you be upset of they double down on orders issues by presidential decree>
TS and Lou,
DeleteMy opinion, for a long time now, has been that congress should take responsibility if they are tired of executive orders. In a way, the teas and the conservative types have taken the advice of Saul Alinsky to heart, they regrouped, and they did what they needed to do to get their districts gerrymandered, they made alliances with donors, and they have sent quite a few members to congress. What they have NOT done, however, is significantly alter the trajectory of everything they allegedly hate. Government is not smaller. Spending is not less. Regulation certainly isn't any less although it's not followed anyway. And last but not least, 25 million illegal immigrants have come to the country under Obama. Heck, it's probably more like a billion because Democrats and only Democrats support that kind of thing.
I understand the purity of thought and the anger and annoyance at everyone who just doesn't fucking get it and also doesn't care. but at some point, because Democracy is sloppy, you need to persuade people. A constant attack and assault on everyone and everything you don't like, coupled with a disdain for everyone who doesn't wholeheartedly support your beliefs (saying this generally to conservatives rather than eiether of you personally) will win votes and get some donor money, and not much else. Democrats STILL do not get this point. Alinsky has a great point, the people that regroup and get a game plan tend to get what they want. Teas and conservatives have a near lock on congress for probably another ten years and Obama is still end running on them.
Interesting as it really isn't a matter of getting tired of executive orders. It's the prerogative of congress to do something or nothing. One would think that Congress would tire on the presidential over reach and actually do something about that. The president changing laws to suite his political needs circumventing Congress is unacceptable. Amnesty for millions, unacceptable. Unfortunately congress, both parties are afraid to make waves lest they upset their base and not be re-elected or possibly lose the majority.
Delete"coupled with a disdain for everyone who doesn't wholeheartedly support your beliefs"
I find that beyond laughable as you attach it to conservatives as the progressives/liberals are equally intolerant of anyone who disagrees with Obama's agenda or the progressive agenda. The howling of inequality a perfect example especially when it comes to wages. Raise the minimum wage when there are 10 waiting for that entry level job. The disparity between the wealthy and middle class as the federal reserve caught in a catch 22 leaving interest rates at near zero killing savers and their interest income causing more inflation. Yet here we are Business is at fault, not your government who signed sealed delivered jobs to poor countries with Free Trade Agreements. Sealing the fate of the middle class then claim income inequality.
What BS.
Wee Max, at least your not touting the 11 million illegals as the government tells us daily. And no Max, it's no 25 million. No one knows how many are here. We know it's not 11 million and could be as high as 40 million. Not all under Bama but he certainly has exasperated the problem during his years. Come one come all, Free. I am sad for my daughter who has to live with this mess and all young people that will need to compete with the economy that congress and Obama has built and the tidal wave of illegals. It will end one day violently when a terrorist act is tracked to our open southern border. Today we have the oceans separate us attitude that nothing can hurt us attitude which will finally end with a disaster.
To be fair, I did make the point that Democrats still don't understand that message. If you find progressives to be equally intolerant, that's not really a refutation of what I am saying. Democrats, and I mean Democrats rather than true liberals, won their power after Bush by doing little but bitching. Like or hate Obama, he made his case twice as did Republicans, and he was elected twice. Conservatives have gotten many many miles out of mocking hope and change, and to a certain segment of the country who loves shit talking even more than they do accomplishment, this is satisfactory enough. As for me, I groan listening to many Democrats talk because they were all complicit in signing NAFTA and the repeal of Glass/Steagall and now they want to bitch about the reality of what happens when you lose in the marketplace.
DeleteRespectfully, I find a bit of a flaw in some of what you are saying coupled with things you have said in the past. It's fair enough to state how galling it is to watch someone on food stamps buy, allegedly, anything they want. Even with my political views, I feel there are way too many people taking advantage of government programs. But, your second para there is basically telling we shouldn't be mad at businesses who are taking advantage of free trade agreements that you don't like any more than I do. So, it's like saying we should look down the poor for taking advantage of food stamps but we shouldn't have any ill will towards multinational corps that are arbitraging labor and the endless supply of free money from the FED that the rest of pay for with inflation. Why is one moocher any more or less virtuous than any other moocher? There are countless ways that holders of capital these days are getting a free ride. My schtick is that if one needs to be held accountable, then all of the moochers do.
Addendum, we've now just fixed it so that spoiled progeny of the rich are allowed to inherit gobs of money without paying a dime.
DeleteBusiness taking advantage of free trade agreements????
DeleteBusiness provides what people demand. People didn't want Yugo's they went away. People always put down the 10 buck hammer for the cheaper 5 buck import. People always buy cheaper imported goods from Walmart instead of more expensive goods made in the USA. People always bitch about everything made in China and continue to but more. Then people wonder why we have fewer good paying manufacturing jobs and hammer at government to fix it.
And yes, people across the board should not be able to inherit from their relatives when they die without paying taxes. Everyone should pay their fair share not just the wealthy. This is what government is all about take as much as you can from the people, it's the right of government to redistribute all wealth, small and large alike.
At this point, I could care less what people do with their SNAP benefits. Here they use them for POT, what ever they want. The legislature recently took away SNAP access at the ATM's at your local POT shop. To bad they are harming those businesses.
Everyone in the US that can get a handout from the Fed Gov't., from SNAP, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, utility assistance, rent assistance, etc. should belly up to the bar and get theirs. After all, that's what this nation is all about getting your fair share from government.
You are of course correct Max, empathy is, or should be an imperative with any libertarian who is genuinely trying to change the minds of people as opposed to just hearing themselves talk. After all, we all, have been raised in a world that pushes the idea that it is government and not power of self-governance and/or social interaction that is the root of social order and by talking at, rather than conversing with, those who ‘just don’t get it’ is, in the long run self-defeating and ultimately harmful.
DeleteI do however find it ironic that the pompom wavers of the forced distribution of property that does not even belong to them would find someone who is … shall we say robust… in their assertion that we are a Constitutional Republic and are supposed to be a nation of laws as assaulting you. That is of course unless all that talk about following the law isn’t just an annoyance but a real hindrance to the mission of ‘government types’ and their minions.
I don’t know how much attention you paid to the hatchet job performed on Ron Paul in the last presidential cycle by both the Republican Party and the media but I can tell you, getting a shot at the speaker’s podium and having someone constantly unplug the microphone gets damned annoying. This time around the establishment Democrats and Republicans are working tirelessly to insure that the libertarian and teas message doesn’t get out… my question here is that if the message is so crazy… so out of the park, why not let the crazies shoot themselves in the foot?
Liberals on forums are particularly vocal in shutting down any message that calls for fiscal discipline as it is not in line with mission of continual and consistent expansion of the state and its apparatus. Don’t kick people in the shins when they have the floor and you won’t raise the temperature of the discussion… and if good governance is about solid ideas, debate them and expose all of the flaws… democrats rarely if ever address the serious shortcomings of their policies and programs because the know that the facts would not be kind to their position… instead they continually name call and use extremist generalizations like… libertarians want NO government… don’t like attacks.. quit attacking… that’s pretty simple.
It is, no doubt due to many years of social conditioning, truly difficult for many to understand these words by Thomas Paine: “A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. “
It’s easy to conclude the essential nature of government… it has metastasized all around us. It’s buildings and agencies and people and badges doing things that they say are indispensable to social order. Signs of disorder are easily attributed to nongovernmental sources. Rising prices associated with inflation are easily blamed on the greed of sellers. The spiralling cost of healthcare blamed on an out of control, for profit market. These are in fact the tools of the establishment... these are the tools of the people who you grew up learning from both democratic and republican, most of the people in positon of power and most who seek position of power. It’s hard not to be passionate when you know the message is valid and the established order.. Particularly its ‘progressive’ element, fights tooth and toenail to prevent the discussion from occurring…
I was citing the Times article, which is the author's opinion, not mine. I don't have any young children anymore, however I do have 8 grand children and 4 great grand children who will be affected by our national policies in the years to come. So I do not advocate allowing unlimited foreign immigrants, nor have I ever.
ReplyDeleteHowever it's what we have today. As many people that want to make the trek are home free yet people like yourself say nothing. The idiots in our government cite 11 million illegals in the US. Amazing as it's the same number as in 2000 derived from the 2000 census. In reality it's between 11 and 40 million. With our new amnesty program, we will see how many are here illegally.
DeleteCome one, come all, the DEMOCRATS offer FREE.
DeleteBy the way, my maternal great grandparents were immigrants from Germany and my paternal great great grandparents were immigrants from England and Ireland.
ReplyDelete
DeleteDid they arrive in the US via Castle Garden or Ellis Island or perhaps Angel Island?
My wife arrived after having properly and excruciatingly endured 18 months of BS from the US Immigration.... forms, affidavits, medicals and all. In the end, she finally received a green card which, because of circumstance she used for all of 2 years... Now the feds own her for 10 years but don't expect them to let her back in on her still valid green card without reapplying...
Yes, we need immigration reform to fix the hideous trials and tribulations that are required to get legal status in the US... but any criteria at all would have prevented the vast majority since the 1986 amnesty from any hope of entry....
They arrived at Ellis. My English ancestor was disowned by his father for marrying an Irish girl. They moved to Virginia and later to Kentucky where they were farmers. My German ancestors moved to North Carolina and later to Tennessee, he was a jeweler and had a successful business.
ReplyDeleteMy Grandfather James Martin was an English immigrant as was his Irish wife Florence Murphy. James and his brother Charles were builders.
DeleteSo I guess we have that in common Mick.
My other side came over from Poland.
Auh... builders and jewelers so common... so ordinary...of course we all have skeletons in our closets.... one of mine was a Governor of the Bank of England... how ironic is that! But the one who came to the states brought money and helped finance a railroad... guess it went bust cause the coffers are empty.....
DeleteI am afraid William that I have offened your family line on many occations in my misspent youth... at least until I learned about political correctness cause still don't know how many ..... welll, never mind.
Watch out ts. There is a branch that touched mother Russia. Military general or some such. Boarders in Eastern Europe change so often it's difficult to ascertain.
DeleteAmericans tend to pooh pooh such nonsense but sister in law is rumored to be a DAR. Mayflower or somethimg. Not worth the investigation being a revolutionary type myself. If you couldn't tell.
The family stretches to put up with me.