It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To Implement Policy, Bush to Turn to Administrative Orders

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

To Implement Policy, Bush to Turn to Administrative Orders


www.washingtonpost.com

The White House plans to try implementing as much new policy as it can by administrative order while stepping up its confrontational rhetoric with Congress... as he has in recent weeks on veterans' health care, air-traffic congestion, protecting endangered fish and immigration. They say they expect Bush to issue more of such orders in the next several months ...
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
It's astounding to me that this news which came out yesterday has not been picked up by the mainstream (seems to be a trend lately).

Bush is using the excuse of "not being able to get anything done" with congress because of the "democrats" blah blah blah...

The use of signing statements (used in record numbers by this administration) are bad enough, but this 'rule by decree' is a clear circumvention of the entire congressional process! This is how a dictator rules!

This is a very scary development to anybody looking in from the outside and who has been paying any kind of attention as the US slips further into fascism over these last few years. If anybody believes that you can just vote in some new administration and everything will be ok is sadly mistaken. If Bush gets away with it all future president's will use the power. That's how it works. Power gained is never given up voluntarily.

What's even more scary is the total lack of an outcry from the public, the press or anybody else about these developments.

I guess that whole separation of government, congressional oversight and due process thing means nothing to the people of the United States any more.


www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I need to clear one thing up before I comment any further.
Is an Administrative Order the same thing as an Executive Order ?
Cheers xpert11.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Is an Administrative Order the same thing as an Executive Order ?


You're asking a canuck?


Beats me.

.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Hmm I see the problem now a Kiwi asking a canuck a US political question.

Hopefully one of the US members or someone who knows the answer to my question .
Cheers xpert11.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
This was where Blair was headed until he was hounded out of commons by MPs - he and his cabinet were basically running the show.

Hopefully the same thing will happend with Bush and his cronies.

Funnily enough, there is no official story about why Blair resigned - he said he was going to go a while back, but no one knows why.

Cash-for-honours, Iraq, Gordon Brown, Dirty Dossier, You name it - this guy has some serious notoriety under his belt.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   
A horse by a different color is still a horse.

They're using "Administrative" because its less intimidating than "EXECUTIVE"...which right away implies dictatorship.

My money is on that miserable excuse of a human being (or reptile) remaining as the dictator.

I will eat my words if it doesnt happen.


apc

posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I will eat my words if it doesnt happen.


eeeewwwwwwwwwww.


I don't see what the problem is. If these are executive orders, they aren't new law. An order can only force agencies to act upon or enforce existing law. Congress can still counter an executive order by changing the law.

This Congress has done squat this year other than play games with the budget, launch wild goose investigations, and try to pass socialist legislation. It's not much of a surprise that the President is forced to order people to do their jobs.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
There's 109 of them, from 1998-2000. Just went thru all of them,
really random. I don't really get what he's up to, here's one of the recent ones:


103 01/10/2000REORGANIZING THE COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION


www.opnet.ops.gov.ph...

[edit on 1-11-2007 by anhinga]


apc

posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by anhinga prior to edit
- Place all media under FEMA control
- Put you in concentration camps
...


Only if it's already legal.

An executive order can not create nor violate law.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by apc]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
I guess that whole separation of government, congressional oversight and due process thing means nothing to the people of the United States any more.



I hate it when foreigners get mad at us (Americans)
. Although you are right, I must say that you should not blame us, as, like you stated, the news here isn't spreading this story. How could we know this was occurring if the news wasn't talking about it? Please, don't state something like this
. By the way, the only news that read is ATS
.





posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   


"take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

Source

So really unless Bush is making new laws and not enforcing current ones he isnt doing unconstitutional and this is just a case of the Washington post creating a story out of Bush comments about Congress.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc


An executive order can not create nor violate law.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by apc]
Are we talking about Bush here?
He's been creating and violating since day one in office.

Did i miss the jest of what you said?


apc

posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
If the previous Congress' have passed laws which you disagree with that is one thing, but all the President can do is either force the enforcement of those laws, or order action from other agencies within the confines of those laws.

It's no joke... the President can not make law. That's the Legislative's job. And besides possession of coc aine and drunk driving, I have yet to hear of Bush being convicted of anything. Oh you meant in office...



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
My stances are pre-established on such things but agree or disagree with the democrats, the whole purpose of our system of government and the reason we have the various branches is to keep any one branch from holding to much power.. now as states agree or disagree, the dems current hold is the will of the people.. if they won't let something pass then thats just how it is..

You cant skate around it through Executive order just because you didn't get your way, what you do is present them something everyone can agree on..

Now this applies to certain issues as stated my stances are pre established, I don't believe any party has the rights to vote on anything regarding limiting an individuals rights, on what he can say, do, own ect, unless he's violating the rights of another..



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by dgtempe
 







He's been creating and violating since day one in office.



Hey DG,

Woostah here. Could you elaborate on this statement a little more please? As far as I know GWB has not broken any laws I am aware of. Sure he might be the second worst president in my lifetime but I am troubled by this statement. Please enlighten me.

Becker





[edit on 1-11-2007 by Becker44]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Becker, you're not serious after so many years of lies and deceipt, deception, killings murdering innocents that you want me to present the entire case to you again? He's taken the Constitution of the USA and used it for toilet paper and you want me to present a case to you? I could post a thousand links starting from the theft of the presidency on down but i wont. No sense in wasting time with that nonsense even my little grandaughter is aware of.

Evidently, you see no problem at all. That's good. I dont want you to be miserable and worried like me. Live life to the fullest, it gets better everyday!!!

My humble apologies for going against anyone's grain. (or is it grein)?

G'nite.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
dgtempe, hehe Ignorance is bliss you know...



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc

If these are executive orders, they aren't new law.



Right.

Executive Orders aren't law, as per the first clause of the US Constitution.




Article 1.

Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.



Try writing your State Representatives to see if there are State laws that can be passed to protect State residents from Federal Executive Orders.

I'd be curious to hear if anybody gets a favorable reply.

I wrote a letter to my (Democrat) State Representative a month ago and haven't heard back yet. I get a more prompt reply from my representatives in the US Congress. My brother, who is a law student, said it was a good letter. I tried to keep it focused on a specific issue.

This is the body of my letter:




Many scientists are upset about Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12, due to the invasiveness of the background checks it seeks to compel. As somebody who has a long-held interest in the sciences, this particular issue caught my attention. I share the concern of these scientists.

Wired News has a more detailed discussion of the issue here:
blog.wired.com...

I wonder whether any legislative initiatives exist or might be possible on a State-level to mitigate the aforementioned concern.

I am a life-long Resident of our State. This is the first time I can recall writing a State Representative (although it's possible that I've forgotten about having done so as a Boy Scout).

I have strong feelings about the potential un-Constitutionality of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12, which I believe is not Federal law, not having issued from the US Congress.

Please write back. Thank you for your time and consideration.



[edit on 1-11-2007 by America Jones]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
DG's right. Anyone who doubts the prep/contigency of the Executive Branch doesn't read ATS Breaking News much. And I fully sympathize with her not wanting to spell the whole thing out for the thousandth time to those who simply will not accept that they are 'owned' by bankers.

The banking cartel owns this countries debt. Therefore they own 30k of your behind, or trillions that we can't pay interest on. They tell Presidents what to do plain and simple. Try to print a United States Note instead of a Federal Reserve Note like Kennedy did and see what happens to you. Yeah, Ignorance can be Bliss I guess!



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join