Obama, Executive Orders, HR 4183 Pulling back the reigns!

It seems that Presidents are eager to circumvent the legislative branch more and more these days. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. As we all have seen Obama has been very selective about what he enforces and what he doesn't. Representative Trey Gowdy (R–SC) to introduce H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE the Law Act, to put a procedure in place, including expedited court procedures, for Congress to initiate litigation against the executive branch for its failure to faithfully execute the laws. But while that legislation passed the House with bipartisan support, the Senate has failed to consider it. The House then considered and passed a resolution to authorize litigation by the House to restore political accountability and enforce the rule of law.

It seems to me no matter who the President is he should not be able to unilaterally legislate laws or change the enforcement of laws.

Currently the law is stuck in a jucicial committee under Reid. Hopefully under the new leadership in the senate this bill will be reviewed and passed and placed on Obama's desk for a likely veto. My hopes though niave that enough scared Democrats will vote yea to get the bill passed so possibly we can reign in Obama and future President from abusing their role in our government.

One only need look at the 24 unilateral executive actions regrding Obamacare to see this is a no brainer.

What other laws have been selectively enforced?

As we await a new EO on immigration it is clear time has come to hold the executive branch accountable to do their job, period!

www.themoralliberal.com...

a reply to: sirlancelot

It seems that Presidents are eager to circumvent the legislative branch more and more these days.

It sure does doesn't it.

Ever since Obama was elected.

But while that legislation passed the House with bipartisan support, the Senate has failed to consider it.

I bet they pass it next year.

Then Obama can veto it.

And even IF he signs it, the signing statement will be longer than the bill.

Benjamin Harrison was the last president to sign fewer executive orders than Barack Obama. He served as president during the period 1889–1893, and signed 143 orders. Considering he served only 1 term, if you double that then he’s still ahead of Obama for the count total.

A breakdown of executive orders inacted by all presidents can be found HERE for anyone interested.

So, your statement that presidents are, “eager to circumvent the legislative branch more and more these days” just isn’t factual or founded. When you speak of the need to, “reign in Obama and future President from abusing their role in our government”, I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Look, I’m not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican; I’m just saying that if you’re going to make derogatory statements about someone, at least have the facts to back it up.

PS: George H. W. Bush and Geral Ford signed fewer orders than Obama, but they only served 1 term

originally posted by: netbound
Benjamin Harrison was the last president to sign fewer executive orders than Barack Obama. He served as president during the period 1889–1893, and signed 143 orders. Considering he served only 1 term, if you double that then he’s still ahead of Obama for the count total.

A breakdown of executive orders inacted by all presidents can be found HERE for anyone interested.

So, your statement that presidents are, “eager to circumvent the legislative branch more and more these days” just isn’t factual or founded. When you speak of the need to, “reign in Obama and future President from abusing their role in our government”, I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Look, I’m not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican; I’m just saying that if you’re going to make derogatory statements about someone, at least have the facts to back it up.

If you do some research you will find no other President has passed EO (to the degree they affect AMericans) then Obama. The ACA alone has seen 24 EO that no president has a right to pen!

Just a few rather important cases of the above.

Congress rejected the DREAM Act, yet Obama proceeded to implement it anyway.

It rejected Cap and Trade (environmental emissions accountability programs), but the EPA imposed its own regulations, having the same effect as the statute.

The House and the Senate have chosen not to pass bills reducing crack coc aine sentences retroactively, but Obama is using the pardon and clemency power to do it anyway.

Despite the explicit language of the welfare reform and Affordable Care Act (ACA) statutes, delayed or canceled many of the ACA programs, overriding the clear meaning of the welfare reform law.

Obama ignored the National Defense Authorization Act, which required a 30-day notice to Congress before the release of any of the terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay, and, instead, released five of the top terrorists in exchange for American soldier Bowe Bergdahl.

a reply to: sirlancelot
Thanks for educating me, but just because you didn't approve of the order doesn't mean it was unconstitutional. If it was, I'm sure the Republicans would have been quick to impeach him.

In light of all the obstruction in Congress, I'm surprised Obama hasn't inacted more executive orders. Someone has to do something in Washington besides cook up ridiculous conspiracy theories, hold kangaroo courts, go on extended recess, and shut the government down.

originally posted by: netbound
a reply to: sirlancelot
Thanks for educating me, but just because you didn't approve of the order doesn't mean it was unconstitutional. If it was, I'm sure the Republicans would have been quick to impeach him.

In light of all the obstruction in Congress, I'm surprised Obama hasn't inacted more executive orders. Someone has to do something in Washington besides cook up ridiculous conspiracy theories, hold kangaroo courts, go on extended recess, and shut the government down.

Ok So congress not letting a imperial president do whatever he wants cause he is frustrated with the constitution which has serves us for centuries is considered obstructionist? I think they are doing their job, albiet not to well because the constitutional professor sure knows how to play the game.

I could say Obama has done his share of obstruction. His abuse of the doj, irs, epa, aca just name a few is evidenced by that.

When an EO is put in place as legislation that is illegal and we are about to see him do it some more!

Perhaps you need more education on these matters?

BTW its not just me. Republicans just won a wave election and whats more interesting is Republicans won Governor races in deep blue states most notably Illinois where Obama is from. How could that be?

Even more telling is the fact that in Texas the Republican Governor won with 40% of the hispanic vote. Im sure you know hispanics are a big part of the democratic base especially Obama's.

I believe it is important to differentiate between the of EO's overall, and like the OP said the number of EO's that were put forward as legislation. An EO can pardon a prisoner, declare a holiday, honor people, or any number of trivial things I believe. But when they work AS a law, an not simply a particular action is when we have problems. I will rad that link though listing all the different executive orders.

here is some examples from the Wikipedia article cited

Prior to 1932, uncontested Presidential Executive Orders had determined such issues as national mourning on the death of a president, and the lowering of flags to half-mast. President Franklin Roosevelt began to issue the first of his more than 3,500 Executive Orders on March 6, 1933, declaring a bank holiday, with banks forbidden from paying out gold coin or bullion. Executive Order 6102 forbid the hoarding of gold coin, bullion and gold certificates. A further Executive Order instructed that all newly mined domestic gold would be delivered to the Treasury.[13] By Executive Order 6581, the President created the Export-Import Bank. On March 7, 1934, President Roosevelt created the National Industrial Recovery Act (Executive Order 6632). On June 29, the President issued Executive Order 6763 "under the authority vested in me by the Constitution", thereby creating the National Labor Relations Board. The Hughes Court of the 1934 term would find the N.I.R.A. unconstitutional. The President then issued Executive Order 7073 "by virtue of the authority vested in me under the said Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935", reestablishing the National Emergency Council to administer the functions of the N.I.R.A. in carrying out the provisions of the Emergency Relief Appropriations Act." On June 15, he issued Executive Order 7075, which terminated the N.I.R.A. and replaced it with the Office of Administration of the National Recovery Administration.[14] The appointments of the President to the Supreme Court of Justices Hugo Black, Stanley Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William Douglas, Frank Murphy and James Byrnes, created a Court obedient to the choices made by the President. Only George Washington had had such power of appointment, choosing all the original members of the Court.

While President Theodore Roosevelt issued l,803 executive orders, none were overruled, and not until President Franklin Roosevelt were any declared invalid. President Truman's Executive Order 10340 in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) placed all steel mills in the country under federal control. This was found invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders. President Obama states "under the authority vested in me by the Constitution."

Hell with some of the things Roosevelt signed, I would think he may have been a NAZI plant himself. Bank Holiday barring banks from paying out gold and other bullion?? Seems like some treacherous acts indeed.

a reply to: sirlancelot

Congress rejected the DREAM Act, yet Obama proceeded to implement it anyway.

The DREAM act was introduced to congress back in 2001 also 15 states have their own version of the DREAM act already.

It rejected Cap and Trade (environmental emissions accountability programs), but the EPA imposed its own regulations, having the same effect as the statute.

It is the job of the EPA to try and get companies to control how much pollution they are dumping into our environment.

Obama ignored the National Defense Authorization Act, which required a 30-day notice to Congress before the release of any of the terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay, and, instead, released five of the top terrorists in exchange for American soldier Bowe Bergdahl.

That law is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers principal. Also it is the Secretary of Defense that has to notify Congress not the President.

Regardless of how you cut it...the governance by executive order has to have a legally enforceable limit.....
Everything they want to do these days seems to abrogate the constitutional boundaries somehow....

a reply to: netbound

...not a republican or democrat... "Famous disclaimer"

However, voted for big O and can't stand republicans so blame them... That's a true independant... NOT

a reply to: bkfd54
1) You wouldn’t know how I voted
2) I place the blame where I think it belongs

I have my gripes against the Democrats, as well. I think they’re weak, complacent and often lack the spine to stand up for their beliefs. They’re also not immuned to being bought and paid for by questionable outside interests.

I guess I’d consider myself a democratic socialist, but I vote as an Independent. Senator Bernie Sanders is someone I find myself most often agreeing with.

There was a time when I was more open to Republican values, and would agree with them as often as I agreed with Democrats. But that was then, and this is now. The Republican Party has changed a lot over the past 20 years. It’s not what it once was. And today I find their agenda to be way out of line with my own beliefs. Therefore, yes, I find myself siding with Democrats most of the time, instead of supporting ideals and policies I’m vehemently opposed to. Something wrong with that?

When it all comes down to it, I’m not that political. For the most part I hate politics. That doesn’t mean, however, that I don’t have strong views.

When the Republicans start looking out for the well-being of the American people, as opposed to the profit margin of big oil, I’ll begin to listen. When the Republicans reshuffle their priorities and place growing of the middle class and regulating consumer fraud above reducing taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, I’ll begin to listen. When the Republicans re-learn the art of negotiation and compromise, instead of jeopardizing the country’s economy by defaulting on it’s debt or threatening to shut the government down if it doesn’t get it’s way, I’ll begin to listen.

Just because you swept the midterms, don’t be mistaken into thinking you got a mandate. You won largely because of gerrymandered districts and because of Democratic complacency. But, now that you have both Houses, show us something and get something done for America. Pass a jobs bill, pass a minimum wage, get to work on immigration reform, work on a tax reform package that benifits everyone and not just Exxon-Mobil. Just do something besides holding kangaroo court, kissing NRA’s ass, and trying to destroy Obama at all costs.

I’m making no disclaimers here, as you put it. I’m not a closet Democrat, if that’s what you mean. If I had to chose between the 2 major parties, though, believe me I wouldn’t be aligned with the Republicans.