Obama Unveils National ObamaLaw Plan

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you saying that you think the Office of the President of the United States would be rendered neutered if executive orders didn't exist? I sincerely hope not--the (generic) president could do the job just fine without executive orders, but if you feel so strongly about them, then would you support a constitutional amendment specifying them as part of the president's authorities? I sure wouldn't.

Did I say that? Nope.

Does the Constitution strictly outline the President's powers? Yep.

Again, a valid EO does one of two things: 1) operates on an enumerated power of the President or 2) operates on a delegated power of the President (from the Legislative.) emphasis per responder

Every President has used Executive Orders. Here's a loaded question for you ... do you think the Emancipation Proclamation should be reversed?

The Right's current obsession with Mr. Obama's is obviously and plainly political.

However, if any Order of Mr. Obama is truly out-of-line, then the matter should be taken to the Supreme Court, which you may remember is the arbiter in our system of government as to the Constitutionality of actions.

I submit that the Republicans don't carry the courage of their convictions. If they believe Obama is acting tyrannically, take it to Court. Why wouldn't they do that?

Because then, if the Court didn't agree, they could no longer wail and cry about every Executive Order.

The system ALREADY has checks and balances. There is no need for new law.

There in your response is maybe the hugest and maybe most dangerous
grey area enumerated to the Article 1 as "strictly". The system of checks
and balances has been effectively hijacked for armwrestling money and
subsequent power to a large part, if not completely. The obvious maturity
of the process can be manifested as popularizing the inherent and unlawful
manipulation of that power.

One glaring example:
You may agree or not that the Congress 'delegating' its strictly stipulated
power to coin money has had a far-reaching impact on the well being
of the population. Whether the Supreme Court has ruled on, in this example
the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act is relevant only to how
strictly that delegation is interpreted per intent of the Article-- as
opposed to the results.
The latter was never a consideration, and per the rule of law should not be.
But as history shows the fallout of the interpretation has had also some
disastrous consequences.

Moreover, where politics steer interpretation, constitutionality itself can
get uncomfortably subjective. As nominations/appointments of Supremes
Justices can be steered (and unfortunately influenced) by politics, that
interpretation of the law can also be colored. Decisions throughout our
history reflect this influence... and to the original intent of the founding
document often repugnant but 'popular' decisions become increasingly
common.

Have we a recent SCOTUS decision on a far-reaching bill that many have
disparaged as unrealistic: or analyzed by outsiders as indeed inaccurate
to even the letter of the law? One pops up lately.

To your last post-- The Emancipation Proclamation became nothing but a
love letter after the 14th Amendment got ratified. On the other hand,
we can look a little earlier on to potentially the most massive manufactured
conflict of interests ever... and the disappearing original 13th.
Have we in fact descended to a caste system where the lawmakers have
self-positioned to rulers?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Gryphon66
Are you saying that you think the Office of the President of the United States would be rendered neutered if executive orders didn't exist? I sincerely hope not--the (generic) president could do the job just fine without executive orders, but if you feel so strongly about them, then would you support a constitutional amendment specifying them as part of the president's authorities? I sure wouldn't.

Did I say that? Nope.

Reading between the lines is not hard to do. Just because you may not have specifically stated it does not mean the point is not contained within your comment.

Again, a valid EO does one of two things: 1) operates on an enumerated power of the President or 2) operates on a delegated power of the President (from the Legislative.)

Every President has used Executive Orders. Here's a loaded question for you ... do you think the Emancipation Proclamation should be reversed?

The key word (and emphasis mine) is "valid." Just because is too nervous about election results to call the president out for his inappropriate EOs does not mean that it, by default, makes them valid.

And you shouldn't ask asinine questions about the Emancipation Proclamation--but to be honest, it shouldn't have had to exist in the first place bacause slavery, while a semi-accepted institution in colonial America, should never have been allowed once the Constitution was drafted and ratified. The founding fathers failed in that regard, so it's not a matter of an unjust EO, in this instance, but an injustice that it corrected. Altering the dates contained within laws is not an acceptable EO (for a simple example), especially since the executive branch does not have the authority to alter laws passed by congress without congressional approval. It is for that very reason that dictatorship is the antithesis of the design of America's government, regardless of if it has shifted that way over the centuries. In fact, a dictatorial monarchy is exactly the 'why' behind the founding of America. I'm sure you understand that, but I felt a need to say it.

The Right's current obsession with Mr. Obama's is obviously and plainly political.

However, if any Order of Mr. Obama is truly out-of-line, then the matter should be taken to the Supreme Court, which you may remember is the arbiter in our system of government as to the Constitutionality of actions.

I submit that the Republicans don't carry the courage of their convictions. If they believe Obama is acting tyrannically, take it to Court. Why wouldn't they do that?

Agreed, although all wailing and moaning about presidential EOs is generally political, and both sides do it. They're politicians...that's a given.

The system ALREADY has checks and balances. There is no need for new law.

That was an argument that was used by pro-slavery people, as well...or the issue concerning presidential term limits. Yet, here we are, with laws addressing both of them. The "need" for a new law is subjective, so we can agree to disagree with that. However, I must continue to assert that EOs' pros do not outweigh the cons when it comes to your checks and balances that you assert already exist--on the contrary, I would say that EOs are a cancer to them.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

...
especially since the executive branch does not have the authority to
alter laws passed by congress without congressional approval.

Game show ding_ding_DING and a pheasant under glass for the winner!
The line item Vito (deliberate godfather typo) was already declared un-
lawful--- and then we get a rash of legislation from Pennsylvania Ave.
because somebody thinks they can get away with it as a 'constitutional
law professor' ?
I don't want to kick the spurs too far into this horse, because after this
many pages he's tired as am I.

But where EO's are written to institute task force(s) to investigate and
propose legislation, where is the fat grey line drawn.. and where should
it be ignored or respected? How Pavlovian does the step perceptibly far
over the however fat line get the ignorance treatment...?
My personal constitutional muster yardstick is simple...
Who authored it? Is it lawful? Is it not repugnant to the Constitution?
Is it moral? Finally, and a tough one--does it benefit everyone affected
equally?
And here's a nasty outcropping... climb over it carefully, everyone.
Can you recall any law written that actually solved the problem the
law was written for.. but instead
do nothing else but punish the lawbreaker?

a reply to: Gryphon66 My comment was supposed to be a reply. I have no idea way it didn't pick it up, but thank you for the rant. lol

a reply to: Gryphon66 May I answer your question about the emancipation proclamation? Actually, there were two. The first saying that if the South didn't cave by a certain date then all of the slaves in the Southern states would be free and the second to say exactly what states those would be. It did NOT free the slaves. It, as an executive order by the president of the United States not recognizing secession of the South, SHOULD actually be repealed because it doesn't include ALL states. Constitutionally, it should. It would be the same as a current president stating that there can be gay marriage in one state and naming it, but not in another, and naming it. It should apply to all states equally, or does that not sit well with those who claim that 'all men are created equal' and that the 14th Amendment is all about equality? Yes, Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment, but one has to wonder how much weight the emancipation proclamation really had to do with the passage of the 14th.
Yes, this is a bit off topic, and for that I apologize, but it was brought up. Oh.. and if you think Lincoln was such a great president, how about his commitment to have all blacks moved to Africa? (search: colonization).
Ok, I'm done now. Thank you.

originally posted by: chiefsmom
I don't know about this source:
Older interview

But there is some info in there that could be check out, and it is from December, talking about this plan.


If true?
We are done.
If we don't do something.

I was about scream, until I saw your last line.

If it is true or not, it is our duty to use due diligence in protecting our country from foreign and domestic destruction. We should not know more about entertainers than we do about the elected officials that are writing checks that our behinds and the arses of our children will have to cash.

We have finally reached the point where we have more to fear from doing nothing than from doing something and we have much more to lose by doing nothing than doing something.

From this point on, it "will" be your fault. We have completely run out of excuses.

I'm sure I'll catch some flak for this, but,

COULD THE LAW ENFORCEMENT SITUATION IN THIS COUNTRY ACTUALLY GET WORSE??

I'm no fan of Obama. I never voted for him, and I'm absolutely appalled at how terrible of a job he's done.

But seriously, when the Police in this country can shoot you in the head for anything at any time, turn off body cams, intimidate witnesses, threaten the family of people who charge them with brutality....


You know the story about the frog who just sits in the water as it eventually starts boiling ??

Well for all the hyperbole about the Nazi brownshirts, what most of you people don't realize is WE ARE LIVING IT.

This is the exact level of power they had, it's just we have a hard time believing it because stories of the Nazi party are hugely exaggerated so that we always have something to point at and say "we it's not like we're living in Nazi Germany"

Bullsh1t! WE ARE.

I don't think it matters.

These are actions that can only perpetuate "the end" of the system, all of this nonsense is based on a belief that you can achieve a degree of "control" which of course you can the problem is it's short term.

You can be draconian in control of a state in the way China is... In other words 1.5 Billion people, less arrests than the USA, what they do is focus almost solely on anti govt, territorial issues, ones that sort of mainly are "good for the state" and the mindest of the people doesn't mind so much if the State is draconian in that regard, the State does after all "keep things running" and in reality the layman anywhere never actually has much control of these things and anyone with half a brain knows that, you know as if anyone believes are votes are much use when in reality the candidates and parties are all but locked

But this stuff... guys with military weapons controlling bs like what you smoke and speak about in social regards, crossing the street.... daily life? As it comes to pass if it affects "everyman" "everyman" begins to react, be it by being non participatory, the crazier folk who outright take a stand and make a spectacle, the simple lethargy of NOT BEING HAPPY... that's where a nation falls apart, ceases to be productive (which is already underway)

I view this as dumb and mainly we are way to into "Utopian-ism for example... lets take away guns because there are too many murders" ... Reality: There are too many murders. Other Reality: People like guns and feel secure and wont trust or cooperate with Govt if they don't have them and society becomes Lethargic and unproductive which is worse than gun murders long term...

Numbers don't tell the whole picture... in theory, showering causes a lot of deaths by slipping and hitting your head, if they took our showers away people will be mad for a century...

For a nation to thrive the people have to WANT to excel, feel a part of something they believe in otherwise your working for "the man" this is why communism failed, no perception of what your doing being worthwhile, the only revolution Russia had was...all it's males getting drunk and no one having kids...

Obama has "Ideals" but they aren't based in human reality, the US just continues to decline until we get to "start over" when it fails under such thoughts so I say "have at it old boys" Destroy the system for us go right ahead because it simply wont "work" under a thumb

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
I love the conservative strategy to call anything proposed by Obama "Obama(Noun/Verb)" and that AUTOMATICALLY gives it a bad connotation. The Affordable Healthcare Act? Well that's just ObamaCare (nevermind it was orignally RomneyCare) Title II Common Carrier proposal for the internet? Why that's ObamaNet. Helping poor families get cell service? Just give them ObamaPhones!

It would be hilarious if it weren't so damn effective.

I think it is logical. If Obama put it in place, it is likely crap so why not give him credit for his turd?

originally posted by: nullafides
-- snip --
What's worse? The idea that the above may be untrue, or the idea that this kind of BS has become so common place from Obama that it sounds far from suspicious at all to consider it could be true...

I hope this doesn't get blown away by the mods, because it fits right in with this post yet shows how we're only now becoming so used to it that we're like the abused wife that no longer bothers to try do dodge that first slap...

I'm finishing up Doug Horne's five volume book about his time at the Assassinations Records Review Board. THAT was way back in the '90s and Horne mentions how the first two weeks after he started hi job the General Counsel, Jeremy Gunn and one of the board members were locking horns big-time with the Secret Service.

The JFK Assassination Records act was intended to make EVERY document in EVERY department that was deemed an assassination record available. The ARRB had subpoena power and was to have records at their disposal with NO redactions!!!!

During his first two weeks there was a bitter battle over six boxes of records. Finally, the Secret Service admitted that boxes #1 and #6 had been destroyed shortly after they were requested. This was months after the fact.

Among the records lost with box #6 were all Secret Service records for the Chicago trip that was aborted because of a known assassination plot.

One of the few times that Horne has confused me is the paragraph following these facts. It mentions that box #2 also meant that all records regarding the Texas trip were gone forever. I'm not sure which box he meant.

It took the threat of public hearings on PBS to chasten those in charge of the Secret Service.

I get it... Its just NOT RIGHT that "Unbelievable" has just become a pointer on a slide-able scale.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Reading between the lines is not hard to do. Just because you may not have specifically stated it does not mean the point is not contained within your comment.

So, you can read minds, interpret occulted meanings, etc. in what I say regardless of what I say?

Give me a break. That's called good ol' fashioned "reading into something that's not there."

Also "making it up as you go along."

I don't doubt that you believe you can change my words into whatever you want them to be, but your belief is still incorrect.

As far as the rest ...

I'm not sure who is nervous over election results, but a thing in the world is either valid or it isn't. It doesn't really matter what you think about it.

If an Executive Order made by a President is invalid, the Congress can take the matter before the Supreme Court.

THAT is where the ultimate validity would be determined, not any individual's opinion, and certainly not in the various media echo chambers that have sprouted up today.

Asinine? Right it's your idea that every EO would expire at the end of a President's term. The Proclamation is an Presidential Executive Order. So, you can point that asinine finger right back at yourself.

Slavery shouldn't have existed when the Constitution was ratified? Slavery was hard-coded INTO the Constitution whatever your estimation of the Founding Fathers from your Olympian vantage point of history!

A Presidential Executive Order corrected a previous injustice? Well, then, it sounds like you agree that there are reasonable and justifiable circumstances for EOs to exist (are you intentionally arguing against yourself or did you just get confused?)

When and how a law is introduced is part of the purview of the President, either real or implied in the legislation itself. The Executive is responsible for implementing the laws passed by the Legislative, and there is no way that a law can be complex enough at the time of it's drafting to adjust to future conditions. Besides that, since you're speaking of ACA, Congress had ASKED THE PRESIDENT to delay certain implementation schedules and then backed out of those requests.

And further, finally, and again, if the President's actions are deemed inappropriate in the eyes of the Congress, they have redress in the court system, and specifically the SCOTUS, and the Speaker is trying to shepherd that case through the system right now, even though his first two law firms told him to drop it.

So, I guess we'll get a ruling on whether the measured implementation of the ACA was Constitutional or not.

You're free to rattle on about dictators all you need to; in fact, I'd be surprised if you didn't. The American President is not a dictator for the very limitations on their powers that I have highlighted, and the very nature of Executive Orders -- the powers are either granted the Executive in the Constitution, in made law, or the actions are Unconstitutional.

Disagree with you on this point: there is no dictator on these shores.

Agree with you about the political wailing and moaning about EOs, although, it seems that the Republicans (and their associated rightstream media machine) have been more frustrated with the current President because he didn't bow down and accede to their intention to "shut him down and make him a one-term President."

The American People didn't agree with the Republicans on that point, either, as it turns out.

I believe that we should have exactly the number of laws we need and no more.

It's not a matter of "my" checks and balances; it is a matter of the system of government established in the US Constitution, a system which I still believe is among the best ever conceived by humans.

Executive Orders are a logical and traditional means to move the work of government along, in light of the powers of all three Branches ... the authority of the Executive, the assignment of the Legislative, and the ultimate discernment of the Judicial.

I appreciate your opinion and concerns, I just happen to disagree with you.

a reply to: derfreebie

The Congress holds the Legislative power and can (and must) delegate some authority to the Executive for implementation.

You're going to have to be a lot more specific about what you think is abuse of that power for me to effectively comment.

The Federal Reserve Act could deserve a series of threads of discussion all on its own. In this context, however, whatever else it is, it is standing law that has not been successfully challenged in the Supreme Court and is a vital part of the world's economic system (for good or ill).

But, again, in line with your very important topic (btw thank you for starting it; if this is your first you saved up for a good one! LOL) that is an Act of Congress not an Executive Order and I personally haven't addressed bad laws.

I realize one of the primal saws in our system is the strict constructional interpretation of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson himself (and interestingly enough, in regard to your previous comment about a national bank) originally was in favor of interpreting only what the document said, but realized, particularly after assuming the Presidency, that it was necessary to interpret our founding document to fit changing times. I know the "living" Constitution is anathema to many, but even Justice Scalia, who is about as strict as they come has said after years of practical experience on the Court that such interpretation is a "degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute."

But what a momentous love-letter President Lincoln sent his country in declaring an official end to slavery, eh!

Yes, our laws continue to evolve, and the Fourteenth probably has as much seminal significance as any structure in American history.

Ah, the "missing" 13th amendment. Another excellent post idea, no? Have we descended to a caste system?

Perhaps you should ask Sir Rudy Giuliani or Sir Colin Powell?

Best,

a reply to: tadlem43

You're always welcome for a rant.

Your evaluation of the Emancipation Proclamation notwithstanding, for millions of Americans, that document represents a critically significant turning point in the history of our nation.

I don't remember commenting on "how great a President" Mr. Lincoln was.

However, I would note that he has been regularly considered either the best or in the top three best Presidents in polls stretching back to the late 1940s, so whatever your impression of the man was, many think he was a great President.

(Of course, Franklin Roosevelt is also enumerated in those same polls in the same positions, and I'd bet you wouldn't agree with that popular opinion either.)

Best,

I respectfully submit that many of you should actually read the report of the Task Force as provided previously in several links.

Your concerns and opinions may be reasonable, but you simply aren't referring to the contents of that document or the efforts of this Task Force.

We can't go with what our media-stream of choice tells us anymore; we need to read it for ourselves.

a reply to: derfreebie

Can we please get someone who speaks English to redo this thread? In normal, non confusing, prose and organization? I have no #ing clue what this guy is attempting to convey. It's not cute, it's annoying and I think this could be an important issue.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Come on, Gryphon--reading between the lines is a taught and coveted form of reading comprehension (a subject in which I performed at a 12th-grade level in 5th grade...I'm decent at it). If I misinterpreted your point, my apologies, but what I inferred from your comment is not a stretch from what you said--nor is it mind-reading, or making stuff up.

But I digress--I think the main thing that we differ on in this entire discussion is the necessity of the Executive Order. You claim that it is necessary to keep the wheels of government spinning, and I claim that this is what the language contained within laws passed by congress are for.

And I'm not talking about EOs that tell an executive-branch agency to change an internal policy or to take a day off, I'm talking about how presidents tend to use them to re-write laws that they already signed and were passed by Congress. The Constitution strictly forbids that and prescribes the solution--go back to Congress and try and get the law re-written.

As for dictators, I don't claim that Obama is one, I claim that he is acting like one with the unconstitutional usage his almighty pen. He can't go around rewriting laws as he sees fit--that is dictatorial in nature, and not how our government works.

The Republicans' issues with Obama are probably similar to mine--it's not because he "didn't bow down and accede to their intention to 'shut him down and make him a one-term President,'" it's because he has an inability to even consider any sort of compromise on ideological issues. But in turn, the Repubs are at the same point now, as were the Democrats at the end of Bush's presidency (unless it was something ridiculous, like TARP).

Our politics have devolved into petty bickering with too many arrogant, stubborn chiefs leading a small amount of yes-man indians. As such, our presidents do not need to have the power to make any EO that they deem fit and then 'let the SCOTUS sort it out,' because we both know that any party that calls a president on that in this political climate will be demonized in order to gain more support for 'the other side,' regardless of the fact that the EO is actually unconstitutional (like what is currently going on with the spineless GOP-controlled congress). Although, we do have a few gems--my current favorite is Thomas Massie, who just happens to be my congressman.

Anyhoo, I'll agree with a few others on here and say that this has probably been beaten to death at this point, and this Pong volley must end at some point. I welcome a response, but doubt I will continue on my end.

Best regards, and thanks for the back and forth, disagreements and all. At least you bring some substance to the discussion instead of a bunch of emoticons and logical fallacies, which is an increasing trend on this site.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Right, reading comprehension. Which you utilized to ask leading questions that had nothing to do with my statement.

But, c'est la vie.

You're right, we have a disagreement.

If your only exception is "how presidents tend to use them to re-write laws that they already signed and were passed by Congress" then the remedy is already there and has been used many times ... Congress takes the matter to court, and ultimately, the Supreme Court.

We have another disagreement. If anything, Obama has tried too long and too hard to "work with our friends across the aisle." That's what engendered this Heritage Foundation inspired-POS-ACA ... trying to find something Republicans would support since the individual mandate, state level exchanges, tax penalty et. al. had been part and parcel of every Republican "plan" since the 80s.

Obama's "pen" refers to the veto a power designated in the US Constitution.

What other options are available to work with a Congress dominated by folks who claimed that their "number one priority was to make Obama a one-term President"? Not legislation, not jobs bills, not immigration, not the economy, ... no ... just pure partisan political BS.

I don't expect to agree with everyone, and I must say, in general, you're a much more civil debater than most.

Best to you and yours,

a reply to: Gryphon66 Thanks. I'm not saying the emancipation procamation wasn't a turning point, only that it isn't what many of us are taught in school...that it freed the slaves (and most have no idea it was only applied to just Southern states).
The 'you' in 'if you think Lincoln was a great president', was generic, not specifically YOU. Sorry. I should have made that clear.
He is consistantly thought of as a great president because the truth isn't taught...another of my points. They don't teach how he hated blacks, owned slaves himself (even after the emanciptation procamation under another name), and wanted every black taken to Africa. If people knew how he really felt, I doubt that they would embrace him the way they do. It isn't so much that I dislike him. I dislike the worship of a guy who did everything that he could to cause division in the country and who claimed publically to want to free slaves but at the same time was meeting with others to see how he could get them all deported. The hypocracy is sickening to me. When I see people idolize him, I see them idolizing the hypocracy out of sheer ignornace.
lol Don't get me started on FDR.
BTW, this is topic...the one really being discussed... is very interesting and I'm enjoying reading the different perspectives, even those of which I disagee. Good job!

AND it will tied to federal funding...
personalliberty.com...
www.cops.usdoj.gov...

Sounds like an OBAMACARE style trojan horse.