It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by endisnighe
Hey, just asking questions right?!
Might just as well leave.
But it seems this is going to become another federal MANDATE that the states are NOT going to be able to afford without increasing TAXES again.
Please refute this! Cannot?
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by endisnighe
And he isn't interfering in the legislative process. The EO won't be executed until AFTER the legislative process.
There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about this. It is in fact his JOB. If there is ANY question on if this new bill could use federal funds to fund abortion...it is OBAMA'S JOB to issue an EO to ENFORCE the CURRENT LAW. That is all it does...it doesn't create new law, it doesn't interfere with anything...it REITERATES that CURRENT LAW will be ENFORCED.
If you don't understand this simple concept...then I can't help you. There is nothing complicated or ambiguous about this.
Exactly what problem do you have with enforcing current law?
If there is ANY question on if this new bill could use federal funds to fund abortion...it is OBAMA'S JOB to issue an EO to ENFORCE the CURRENT LAW.
In this case, it really does depend if the EO is officially declared before or after the signing as to if it was symbolic or has meaning.
He is issuing an Executive Order that will say that CURRENT LAW that prohibits federal funding of abortion shall still be the law of the land regardless of language in the Health Care bill.
WASHINGTON, DC – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on a potential Executive Order from the White House on abortion:
“The law of the land trumps any Executive Order, which can be reversed or altered at the stroke of a pen by this or any subsequent President without any congressional approval or notice. Moreover, while an Executive Order can direct members of the executive branch, it cannot direct the private sector.
“Because of Roe v. Wade, courts have interpreted the decision as a statutory mandate that the government must provide federal funding for elective abortion in through federal programs. In other words, no Executive Order or regulation can override a statutory mandate unless Congress passes a law that prohibits federal funding from being used in this manner. Legal experts at the US Catholic Conference of Bishops, National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, and Family Research Council have confirmed this view that if the Senate bill is signed into law, it is a statutory mandate for the new health plans to include federal funding of elective abortion. The need for an Executive Order is evidence that this is true, and Congressional Democrats know it. Make no mistake, a ‘yes’ vote on the Democrats’ health care bill is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortions.”
Because of Roe v. Wade, courts have interpreted the decision as a statutory mandate that the government must provide federal funding for elective abortion in through federal programs. In other words, no Executive Order or regulation can override a statutory mandate unless Congress passes a law that prohibits federal funding from being used in this manner.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
All it does is reiterate the current law that prohibits federal funding of abortion. This is not passing new legislation through an EO. This is not interpreting the "new" law. This is not interfering with the legislation process.
The Court, in an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, upheld the EPA's interpretation. A two-part analysis was born from the Chevron decision (called the "Chevron two-step test"), where a reviewing court determines:
(1) Whether the statute is ambiguous or there is a gap that Congress intended the agency to fill. (If the statute is unambiguous, and the interpretation runs contrary to the statute, then the interpretation is considered unreasonable as the text of the statute prevails.)
(2) If so, whether the agency's interpretation of a statute is reasonable or permissible. If an agency's interpretation is reasonable, then the court will defer to the agency's reading of the statute