Write Review
2,077,843 Total Reviews 3,838 New Reviews
10,104 Users Online

Politics and Religion

Maybe?
JackDunphy 2657 reads
posted
1 / 22
Immigration and Impeachment.

Let's assume the R's take the senate and a few weeks/months later, Obama issues an executive order on immigration.

Would the liberals here support that? If you do, now that that precedent would have been set, how would that stop, say, a R president in the future from rolling back something like environmental laws unilaterally?  

For everyone here, do you think the R controlled house will vote to impeach? Will the senate take it up?  

And, forgeting the politics of it, will it be a "high crime and misdemeanor" and would it get some D votes in the senate?

Thoughts?

mattradd 40 Reviews 472 reads
posted
2 / 22
The precendent?

There's nothing new about presidential executive orders.

Related Link: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

613spades 5 Reviews 732 reads
posted
3 / 22
They arent supposed to create laws...

"But two things executive orders cannot do: They cannot make law, and they cannot stop laws from being carried out. This is where Obama is taking what may be unprecedented steps in violation of the Constitution.  

For example, refusing to prosecute a class of drug crimes is failing to enforce the law as Congress wrote it. If laws such as the different punishments for powder cocaine versus crack cocaine are unjustified, then it is up to the Congress—the lawmaking branch of government—to decide whether to change that law.

Or voter intimidation. The Black Panthers intimidated white voters in Philadelphia in 2008. The federal government under the Bush administration won a court judgment against some of those responsible. When Obama took over, he ordered the Justice Department to drop the matter by not filing the final papers, even though the case was already won.  

Or Obamacare’s employer mandate, which Congress specified in the Affordable Care Act went into effect on Jan. 1, 2014. The impact was going to be politically disastrous for Democrats in the midterm elections, so Obama announced in a speech that the IRS would not enforce that provision of the ACA until 2015.  

Those are three of many instances of not enforcing the law; sometimes Obama puts it in a formal executive order, other times not. (For example, he had the employer mandate suspension announced by an assistant treasury secretary in a blog post.)

Even worse, some of Obama’s executive orders actually make substantive public policy. In other words, they actually make new law without Congress.  

Obama’s DACA program (not deporting “Dreamers”) is an example. He’s not just failing to enforce immigration law. Instead he’s created a new federal program, designating illegal aliens into four different categories and establishing new criteria for who can indefinitely stay in the United States and who cannot.  

Another is Obama’s executive order that organizations who do not support the LGBT agenda under the rubric of “nondiscrimination” cannot receive a business contract with the federal government. As a consequence, if Hobby Lobby or any other business wholly owned and operated by observant Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, or even Muslims, denies spousal benefits to same-sex partners, or doesn’t want to bake wedding cakes for gay-marriage receptions, the federal government can refuse to do business with them."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/04/The-Truth-About-Obama-s-Executive-Orders-that-Republicans-Fail-to-Explain
 
Posted By: mattradd
There's nothing new about presidential executive orders.

mattradd 40 Reviews 458 reads
posted
4 / 22
Maybe?

"This is where Obama is taking what may be unprecedented steps in violation of the Constitution."  

Here's a list of executive orders stretching back to George Washington. How about you just find out, yes or no if he's setting a precedent?   ;)
Related Link: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

mattradd 40 Reviews 388 reads
posted
5 / 22
Oh, I guess Obama is in good company!

Sorry! I did a little of the homework for you!   ;)

Related Link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/02/03/the-lawless-presidencies-of-barack-oba...

bigguy30 447 reads
posted
6 / 22
You know what maybe congress, should start doing their fucking jobs and start passing some laws!


END OF MESSAGE

ed2000 31 Reviews 844 reads
posted
7 / 22
BHO has been very careful thus far in both his EOs and executive decisions. . . .

to not create injured parties with standing, both of which are required to be able to file a lawsuit. (I'm sure mari will correct any technical errors I may have made in that wording.) This is why Boehner and his lawsuit are having such trouble. I think that actions taken by department heads that technically work for Obama have done more harm than actual executive orders but either way, lines can be crossed where it becomes possible to bring a lawsuit against the government. I'm surprised and saddened it hasn't happened yet on a bigger scale as this would be a better remedy than impeachment.

As far as impeachment goes, it only take a simple majority to impeach but requires a 2/3rds majority to convict in the Senate. In 1998 the House Republicans knew going in, the Senate would never convict but they felt right was on their side and the principles outweighed the politics. The MSM was successful in convincing the public that it was all about nothing but a BJ so the Republicans lost the PR battle.  

They learned that lesson but there is a threshold that would bring about another impeachment even though they know conviction might be near impossible. I think that a lame duck Obama with a GOP House and Senate may just do everything he can think of to push the GOP into any corner he can create (maybe even begging for impeachment). It's totally clear after 6 years that Obama is nothing but an ideologue and cares far more about advancing his ideology than making any sort of incremental progress on even issues near and dear to him.    

-- Modified on 10/28/2014 12:18:44 AM

bigguy30 704 reads
posted
8 / 22
He is a constitutional lawyer and knows the law. So he can do a executive order, within the law..

Just like every other president did before him.
The problem is the repubscum congress not doing their jobs.
Since they hate him and government so much.
This is why the house lawsuit against him, will go nowhere.

-- Modified on 10/27/2014 10:15:45 PM

613spades 5 Reviews 457 reads
posted
9 / 22
so you believe the president should use EO to create laws or

Ignore existing laws because it fits their ideology? Even going so far as 180 degrees current laws (immigration)?  
     Why have congress? It would be easier to just have a president create his own laws...  
      Is BO on his own in using them? No, but it does seem like EO have been used and exploited. I am not entirely sure Lincoln can be used as an example considering the country was in the middle of the civil war.  
       EO are meant as a temporary solution until congress can act, not to unilaterally create laws. It isn't the presidents job.  

Posted By: mattradd
Sorry! I did a little of the homework for you!   ;)

anonymousfun 6 Reviews 539 reads
posted
10 / 22
He may be constitutional layer but

Repugnants are not talking about the constitution you and I are familiar with. They are talking about the Constitution of convenience created by them.

 
 
Posted By: bigguy30
Just like every other president did before him.  
 The problem is the repubscum congress not doing their jobs.  
 Since they hate him and government so much.  
 This is why the house lawsuit against him, will go nowhere.

-- Modified on 10/27/2014 10:15:45 PM

bigguy30 429 reads
posted
11 / 22
I agree with you anonymousfun, they only want to see what they believe in power not our country!


END OF MESSAGE

mattradd 40 Reviews 524 reads
posted
12 / 22
I'm not in favor in abusing anything, let alone presidential executive orders.

And, I prefer a Congress that would at least, some of the time, try to work with the president. However, if a president feels he must act without the congress' support, I'd prefer that he did it in the light of day, through and executive order vs. something like Iran/Contra, where Reagan went against congress, behind their back!  ;)

JackDunphy 536 reads
posted
13 / 22
Matt the precedent wasnt the executive order.

Did you REALLY think I wasn't aware that E.O. are legal?

I was stating that if he violates congress and thus the law with regards to immigration, where the constitution is clear that congress makes the laws, THAT would be precedent setting and give a future R president to roll back laws that liberals hold dear, like environmental law.

JackDunphy 463 reads
posted
14 / 22
I think if Obama goes through with it...

house members will demand an impeachment hearing/vote that leadership will be unable to stop. They will have cover this time by many liberal constitutional experts like Dershowitz and Turley.

Now the politics could be a major problem, thats a different matter altogether, but do you agree the house will demand impeachment hearings?

DA_Flex 521 reads
posted
15 / 22
Re: They arent supposed to create laws...

The example you sited, specifically in regards to the ACA are routine and nothing but a talking point.  Past presidents have delayed implementations of major legislation, to include Bush.  I've attached an excellent article that should explain it to you.

Posted By: 613spades
"But two things executive orders cannot do: They cannot make law, and they cannot stop laws from being carried out. This is where Obama is taking what may be unprecedented steps in violation of the Constitution.  
   
 For example, refusing to prosecute a class of drug crimes is failing to enforce the law as Congress wrote it. If laws such as the different punishments for powder cocaine versus crack cocaine are unjustified, then it is up to the Congress—the lawmaking branch of government—to decide whether to change that law.  
   
 Or voter intimidation. The Black Panthers intimidated white voters in Philadelphia in 2008. The federal government under the Bush administration won a court judgment against some of those responsible. When Obama took over, he ordered the Justice Department to drop the matter by not filing the final papers, even though the case was already won.  
   
 Or Obamacare’s employer mandate, which Congress specified in the Affordable Care Act went into effect on Jan. 1, 2014. The impact was going to be politically disastrous for Democrats in the midterm elections, so Obama announced in a speech that the IRS would not enforce that provision of the ACA until 2015.  
   
 Those are three of many instances of not enforcing the law; sometimes Obama puts it in a formal executive order, other times not. (For example, he had the employer mandate suspension announced by an assistant treasury secretary in a blog post.)  
   
 Even worse, some of Obama’s executive orders actually make substantive public policy. In other words, they actually make new law without Congress.  
   
 Obama’s DACA program (not deporting “Dreamers”) is an example. He’s not just failing to enforce immigration law. Instead he’s created a new federal program, designating illegal aliens into four different categories and establishing new criteria for who can indefinitely stay in the United States and who cannot.  
   
 Another is Obama’s executive order that organizations who do not support the LGBT agenda under the rubric of “nondiscrimination” cannot receive a business contract with the federal government. As a consequence, if Hobby Lobby or any other business wholly owned and operated by observant Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, or even Muslims, denies spousal benefits to same-sex partners, or doesn’t want to bake wedding cakes for gay-marriage receptions, the federal government can refuse to do business with them."  
   
 http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/04/The-Truth-About-Obama-s-Executive-Orders-that-Republicans-Fail-to-Explain  
   
   
Posted By: mattradd
There's nothing new about presidential executive orders.
Related Link: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1403294

ed2000 31 Reviews 530 reads
posted
16 / 22
If the EO or executive action is egregious enough then of course. . . .

there will be impeachment hearings and a vote. I'm just not sure where that line is.

mattradd 40 Reviews 483 reads
posted
17 / 22
You've made the assertion that it would be precedent sitting...

yet have not proved it. Check alias012541's post on "logical fallacy."

mattradd 40 Reviews 593 reads
posted
18 / 22
Yes, there would or will be a massive partisan exercise, so what!

It will be all smoke and little fire; most citizen's will not understand what the big deal is, and it will hurt the Republican's more than the Democrats in 2016. The Republican leader knows this, and dreads it. Well, the last part is my speculation. I have no references to back it up.

marikod 1 Reviews 615 reads
posted
19 / 22
Remember Spades that EVERY ONE of those executive orders is vetted

by a team of constitutional lawyers in the White House and EVERY ONE begins with a preamble that cites the constitutional or statutory authority for the order. You can’t list a single one where this is not true. Check every EO cited in your article and you will find this is true.

         Republicans may disagree but all we are left with is a dispute between the branches. Judicial review is available to solve the dispute.  But unless and until a court says the orders are illegal, they are legal and enforceabl

613spades 5 Reviews 487 reads
posted
20 / 22
I'm not enitrely sure there has been an executive order approaching the scape of

the dream act... why have congress if the president can just enact any law he feels like, countering existing immigration laws.  
     I'm not saying I am against the premise behind the dream act, but there s no way in hell a president should enact something like that on his own. I cant think of an EO that would compare outside of war time....  
         

Posted By: mattradd
And, I prefer a Congress that would at least, some of the time, try to work with the president. However, if a president feels he must act without the congress' support, I'd prefer that he did it in the light of day, through and executive order vs. something like Iran/Contra, where Reagan went against congress, behind their back!  ;)

613spades 5 Reviews 494 reads
posted
21 / 22
I still maintain this isnt the presidents job... eom


END OF MESSAGE

613spades 5 Reviews 661 reads
posted
22 / 22
you know as well as I do ask 10 lawyers about the legality of something thats marginal and

they'll split 6-4. Well maybe not technically illegal, or unchallenged or overturned in the courts doesn't mean it's legal or right.  
      Enacting the dream act through an EO is different, it's fundamentally different.

Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!