Using an Executive Order to pass legislation! UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
Hey, just asking questions right?!


Yes, questions like "Is this proof that Ron Paul molested his daughter"???

Totally innocent question, right? Yeah, right.

You clearly don't understand what an executive order is and specifically what this one is about. And even after someone explains it clearly and concisely, you perpetrate the lie.

That's OK. ATS is about denying Ignorance. I only hope people are smart enough to do just that.



Might just as well leave.


I don't say this kind of thing often, but don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.


[edit on 3/21/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]




posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 



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?



Refute what??? Your wild speculation???

Burden of proof is on YOU to prove this is correct...I'm not required to disprove every baseless opinion you have.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

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?


Actually, this doesn't sound like an enforcement action as much as an INTERPRETATION action. Reiterating, up front how the new law should be interpreted. Interpretation actions should be left to the 3rd branch, the judicial branch.

Your words here:


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.


My words here:

If there is ANY question on if this new bill could use federal funds to fund abortion... either the legislature should clarify this point within the new legislation OR it is THE JUDICIAL BRANCH'S JOB to interpret the new law in light of the existing law.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 





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.


according to the patriot room,

the President announced that he will be issuing an executive order after the passage of the health insurance reform law

patriotroom.com...

calling it a useless executive order.

Deal made with the devil?



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


The EO will say nothing about the "new" law...so it will not be interpreting the "new" law.

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.


Go google "Obama Executive Order Unconstitutional" THIS thread is the 6th result...kind of shows you how off base this thread is. NO ONE is talking about this being unconstitutional. Only thing they are talking about is that it won't hold, it will be over turned, or that he won't keep his promise of issuing the EO.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



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.


From what you say above, it seems Obama would be interpreting the law. Who is he to say that the old law supersedes the new law? Is this not a decision lawmakers or the courts should make?



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


BH, did I get your goat?

Do you think I will be as disingenuous as Rush or Beck?

I am in this for the long haul, I do not back down, I do not give up.

And hell, I will not allow MY country to tank!

If the Dems could actually get their heads out of their asses, I might actually back them.

But LO and BEHOLD, they do EXACTLY the same things as the Repubs.

Continue war. Check!
Continue Patriot Act. Check!
Continue Bail outs of fraudsters. Check!
Continue Tax increases of the middle class. Check!
Continue the increased control by the Federal Reserve. Check!


How many more things do you need to see? Hmmmm? Yeah, your party and candidate is different than the Repubs.

Sorry to say this, but you have been SCAMMED and just cannot admit the problem.

Welcome to my realization of 10 years ago!

Maybe you will actually help us turn this country around. More that likely not though, you are still blinded by that OBAMA sun in your eyes!



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Here's the Executive Order containing the Hyde Language. I'm not interested in arguing this any further.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



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.



And the Hyde Ammendment, which is what the EO will be reiterating, prohibits federal funding for abortions.

So again...what you are saying is just not true. The EO is not overriding ANYTHING...it is REITERATING CURRENT LAW.


Why is this so hard to understand?



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   

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.


And why do they feel the need to reiterate the current law? Maybe because the new law is ambiguous on this? Correcting ambiguousness after the fact through the use of executive order is INTERPRETATION.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


No matter how many times you say it...reiterating current law does not interpret anything about a new law.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


No matter how many times you say it...reiterating current law does not interpret anything about a new law.



Does it clarify the new law?



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
If he is not interpreting law, then why does he have a pending executive order that talks about the new bill and nonetheless awaits passage of the new bill?



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


No matter how many times you say it...reiterating current law does not interpret anything about a new law.



They write the laws as they go along,"doncha know?"



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), who you might remember as a disgraced former judge who was impeached (by a Democrat Congress) for taking bribes:

There ain’t no rules here, we’re trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make ‘em up as we go along.

www.youtube.com...



I'm losing my mind, help,






posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Alright folks, you guys could be Supreme Court Justices in my eyes!

Star for EVERYONE, even thoughs that disagree with my stance!

Here is the thing, you are going down a road that I am not paving.

Thanks for all of your interpretations.

Here is the thing, just as I laid it out in the beginning. If the Executive Branch interferes in anyway with the Legislative Branch with anything, does this not cause the problem of the Seperation of the Three Branches!

Sorry, in my eyes this is a FUNDAMENTAL problem. If the E B in anyway shape or form interferes in any shape or form of the L B it is a DIRECT contradiction of the Constitution.

Sorry, if you do not see this, you are believing that the E B can do anything to foment Legislation.

That is a direct violation of the Constitution. Even if you want to argue precedent. Meaning prior precedent.

Just because precedent has been done, does that mean something unlawful is law? NO!

If you dispute this, look up numerous previous SC decisions. If something is unlawful, even if precedent has been set, does not mean it is LEGAL or LAWFUL.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
About a hundred years ago, people interpreted the Constitution as calling for a strict separation of powers. Only Congress could make laws, only the courts could interpret laws and only the executive branch could enforce laws. As the modern administrative state grew, the Supreme court began to soften the walls that separated powers. It allowed the Executive branch to make rules having the force of law so long as Congress it guided by an "intelligible principle."

Ever since a case called Chevron, the Executive branch has a fair amount of latitude to make rules. In fact, under the doctrine of Chevron deference, courts will generally defer to any interpretations of the law the Executive branch makes.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Are we, as Supreme court judges, supposed to follow Supreme court precedents? Or are we just supposed to rule as if no precedent existed.

There is a rich body of Administrative law that gives the Executive branch a fair amount of latitude to make regulations that have the force of law, provided those regulations do not conflict with Congressional statutes.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


The Chevron two step when laws written by Congress are ambiguous.


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


en.wikipedia.org...





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join