Using an Executive Order to pass legislation! UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

page: 1
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Alright everyone, I want to know the Constitutionality of using an Executive Order to pass legislation in the Congress.

Here is the situation. The Senate bill has language in it that does not address representatives like Stupak. They want language to make sure that abortions are not funded by federal funds.

Here is the solution that the Dems have come up with.

They have been told that by Obama instituting an Executive Order to disallow the federal funding.

Here is the question, is there NOT a separation of the Three Branches of Government?



So by the very use of an EXECUTIVE ORDER to pass legislation in the Congress, does this not become unConstitutional?

[edit on 3/21/2010 by endisnighe]




posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Breaking on Drudge,


FLASH: Senate Republicans found a provision in the new House health care bill that likely makes it ineligible for expedited 'reconciliation' procedures in the Senate. Dems refused to meet with GOP and Parliamentarian.... Developing....




[edit on 023131p://bSunday2010 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


It is very unconstitutional though I am no scholar. Those 3 separate bodies are there to provide checks and balances. By using an executive order to suspend the rules, the constitution is overridden. It is tyranny and it is bad.




posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Is it in regards to what I just brought up?

To me, this sounds like the Executive Branch is interfering in the Legislative Branch.

Something is really wrong in Washington.

I just heard from CSPAN that Stupak is going to vote for it by a promise by Obama to execute the Executive Order.

Damn, I cannot believe they are doing this.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I am totally confused I was hoping you could explain it to me, guess we will have to wait and see what transpires on Drudge.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I was under the impression that in the case of Executive Orders, the POTUS is required to appear before Congress (within a couple of weeks(?) to 'explain' and or 'justify' his attempt at unilateral action.

At that point the supposed representatives are required to either endorse the action or nullify it. Is that wrong?

[edit on 21-3-2010 by Maxmars]



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 





Something is really wrong in Washington.


We really have been infiltrated haven't we?



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Why is it "unconstitutional" if President Obama does it, but not if former President Bush (number 43) does?

www.archives.gov...



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I don't support this bill but I support health care reform. This bill sucks terribly
But we need universal health care so I will have to settle with this crappy bill. I hope we get a public option.

Anyways back to the point, is this constitutional, I don't think so. The president is not allowed to do this without some big rules or something. But if Bush can do illegal things for war why can't Obama do illegal things for health care?



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Is it in regards to what I just brought up?

To me, this sounds like the Executive Branch is interfering in the Legislative Branch.

Something is really wrong in Washington.

I just heard from CSPAN that Stupak is going to vote for it by a promise by Obama to execute the Executive Order.

Damn, I cannot believe they are doing this.


You took the words right out of my mouth.
What's it gonna take people???



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 

OK I lifted this, this is what I was looking for, does it help?


DON STEWART, McCONNELL SPOKESMAN: “Republicans have been trying to set up a meeting with Senate Democrats since yesterday to discuss this fatal point of order but have been met with nothing but silence. We suspect Democrats are slow walking us so as to have the House vote first. Since Senate Democrats refuse to meet with us and the Parliamentarian, we’ve informed our colleagues in the House that we believe the bill they’re now considering violates the clear language of Section 310g of the Congressional Budget Act, and the entire reconciliation bill is subject to a point of order and rejection in the Senate should it pass the House.”



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Most of the tyrannical legislation comes in the form of executive orders because they are hard to trace afterwards and the blackout by major media outlets while they are being passed.

Everyone is making a huge deal over healthcare reform and other minor issues, yet the really major issues such as fema concentration camps, area 51, dulce, private federal reserve, nsa, cia and other major issues have been going completly unchallenged for nearly a century under the guise of "national security".



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by 5 oClock
 





What's it gonna take people???


Well two thirds of the country is against this monstrosity, why wait we might as well have a dictatorship.



[edit on 033131p://bSunday2010 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Oh, now I understand why this is getting so much "press" attention!

It's more of the same ole, same ole from the far-right neocon wing....like nutty Michelle Malkin:

michellemalkin.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Well, not talking about Executive Orders only.

I am talking about the President using an Executive Order to sidestep language in legislation in Congress.

The House Reps had a problem with the Senate version, so instead of it going back to the Senate, Obama promises that he will execute an EO.

Yes, everything in regards to EO's I find abhorrent.

ALL OF THEM WW! Not just Obama's everyone of them in perpetuity. ALL OF THEM.

The system of our government was the 3 branches. Sorry, I find our country to be going down the road of a dictatorship. The power is getting funneled to the Executive Branch. There is no longer the separation required.

Welcome to the new US of A.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 



I don't have health care, and I too am for reform but this bill, is a nightmare.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Sorry, I am watching CSPAN and I asked this myself.

It was not even mentioned before today!

If it is on MM's page or something, they may have gotten it from here. Check there time stamp.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


I'm just getting more disgusted EVERY SINGLE DAY. I've work hard my whole life for what I have, never sucked the Gov. tit for ANYTHING.
To see this country going where were heading, I just want to stop contributing to the system, sit on my arse and start suckling the Gov. tit.

Screw it, let them pass every piece of crap legislation and let's just get it on.

2 party system.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Misoir
 



I don't have health care, and I too am for reform but this bill, is a nightmare.


Public option bill sponsored by sen. Michael Bennet has 51 co-signers in the senate so all they need to do is introduce it when this bill makes it to the senate.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
www.christiannewswire.com...


It's quite simple actually. The U.S. Constitution declares that the legislative branch writes the laws of the land. And the law of the land supersedes any executive action. No executive order or regulatory policy can override a statutory mandate





new topics
top topics
 
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join