Obama's Executive Order Restraint Debunked

[Rustycage]

Although one of his executive actions was to imprison an entire race of people on the west coast, so you could argue that executive action allows the president power to do some pretty messed up stuff

That is why we must always evolve with our system and not to be shackled to old rules for dead people.

Agreed. I would suggest though that stricter regulations be made on how, why, and when executive action can take place and how much power congress can grant the POTUS.

I heard aother interesting executive action story the other day on Radiolab, where they discuss the 'Authorize Military Use Against Terrorists' Act, which is quite literally the foundation that started the war on terror. It was a 60 word document that essentially granted W the power to use any and all appropriate force against anyone we believe is associated with the perpetrators of 9/11. It passed unanimously in both the House and Senate except for one senator, Debra Lee(D) of California.

It seems like retrospectively, the wording of the act was incredibly vague and essentially allowed W and Obama the power to use drone strikes, torture, indefinite imprisonment, and invasions against anyone even remotely associated with Bin Laden.

So I think that executive action can definitely get out of hand, and that there should be better ways of enforcing their use to avoid things like Japanese Internment or The War on Terror

I think to address the negatives of both, we need more direct democracy, not more constitutional restrictions. I say that because those men and women are not going to close their own loopholes. They're not going to write themselves out of a job. They're not going to represent anyone except for those paying them the big dollars. They're not going to care what voters truly want because in general, they seem stupid and are unable to do anything in response.

[downzy]

FDR? You mean when we extensively profiteered off of WW2 before joining? Yes, that did cause us to prosper.

You mean the President who was openly hostile to the neutrality acts prior to the attack on Pearl Harbour? The guy who begged Congressional legislators to include a "cash-in-carry" provision into the 1937 neutrality act so as to support allies the only way he was allowed? You mean that one?

Seriously, learn your own history.

[downzy]

Besides, you're misconstruing the legal basis for executive orders, which is part of the problem once you start doing shit unilaterally like this. The legal basis, if I recall correctly, is that executive orders are to be used by the president to carry out powers given to him by Congress, not to act in place of Congress when they cannot act.

Yes, but where exactly is the President usurping more power than Congress is giving him? Congress gives the executive branch a limited amount of resources to carry out and execute laws that are within the office's preview. Executive discretion, exercised through executive orders or memorandums, are simply instructing the agencies which the executive directly manages how to prioritize those limited resources. That is the legal basis, and that is how Obama, like other Presidents, have for the most part used them.

Although one of his executive actions was to imprison an entire race of people on the west coast, so you could argue that executive action allows the president power to do some pretty messed up stuff

That is why we must always evolve with our system and not to be shackled to old rules for dead people.

Agreed. I would suggest though that stricter regulations be made on how, why, and when executive action can take place and how much power congress can grant the POTUS.

I heard aother interesting executive action story the other day on Radiolab, where they discuss the 'Authorize Military Use Against Terrorists' Act, which is quite literally the foundation that started the war on terror. It was a 60 word document that essentially granted W the power to use any and all appropriate force against anyone we believe is associated with the perpetrators of 9/11. It passed unanimously in both the House and Senate except for one senator, Debra Lee(D) of California.(who argued the conditions for military action were too vague and that the executive power should have a time limit)

It seems like retrospectively, the wording of the act was incredibly vague and essentially allowed W and Obama the power to use drone strikes, torture, indefinite imprisonment, and invasions against anyone even remotely associated with Bin Laden.

So I think that executive action can definitely get out of hand, and that there should be better ways of enforcing their use to avoid things like Japanese Internment or The War on Terror

And at any time Congress can amend that act. It's not as though executive action is absolute and permanent. It can all be repealed by the will of Congress.

This is why I don't have a lot of sympathy for arguments that suggest the President is usurping power. It still rests with Congress. If Congress does nothing, it only has itself (and those who elected said Congressmen) to blame.

[Val22]

I really hope there's a candidate out there who can be tough and fair as our next President.

Since Obama our enemies are doing whatever the hell they want to. The wars in the Middle East are out of control. North Korea has another crazy bastard as their leader and he's doing whatever the hell he wants to and no one seems to try to stop him.

Putin of Russia seems to be doing whatever he wants and his people are suffering for it. Their economy is failing big time.

The only good thing is the gas prices are lowered, but that's only because OPEC stepped up their production because they wanted to. I'm sure by the summer the gas prices will be up again and we will complain and pay it because we need our cars to get around.

It's a sad time we live in.

America needs to gain the respect back and put the fear back into those who oppose us.

[Rustycage]

Nah, let's just repeat this biased crap about how EO's are some new thing and we'll conduct the segue into the next entertaining episode of Boehner versus Obama. This packaged outrage will fuel ratings.

Followed by another Benghazi witch-hunt. After all, there needs to be preparation and ammo for the possibility of Hillary in '16. Oh, what an entertaining election that will be, right?!

Then what?

Then let's talk about what's really undemocratic about our democracy.

Too much talk.

Too many people wearing their rebellious opinions as a flavor of the week fashion statement. So very punk and so very keen. We can sell t-shirts.

Too many people thinking that they aren't a part of the problem by using the current headlines of today as the focus of their outrage only to turn their back on the more relevant and outrageous headlines of yesterday. Repeating yourself does indeed get boring after a while so let's keep it fresh. Next headline please!

Too many people turning a discussion about war crimes into whether or not the tactics work. Nevermind that it has been a problem brewing for 60+ years.

Too many people seeking safety in firearms while the threat isn't necessarily physical. I'll pull out my pistol at high noon to get back at the hand that is wastefully pissing away our money on themselves.

No, let's keep polishing the brass.

I really hope there's a candidate out there who can be tough and fair as our next President.

Since Obama our enemies are doing whatever the hell they want to. The wars in the Middle East are out of control. North Korea has another crazy bastard as their leader and he's doing whatever the hell he wants to and no one seems to try to stop him.

Putin of Russia seems to be doing whatever he wants and his people are suffering for it. Their economy is failing big time.

The only good thing is the gas prices are lowered, but that's only because OPEC stepped up their production because they wanted to. I'm sure by the summer the gas prices will be up again and we will complain and pay it because we need our cars to get around.

It's a sad time we live in.

America needs to gain the respect back and put the fear back into those who oppose us.

Oh, FFS.

/outfortoday

[downzy]

I really hope there's a candidate out there who can be tough and fair as our next President.

Since Obama our enemies are doing whatever the hell they want to. The wars in the Middle East are out of control. North Korea has another crazy bastard as their leader and he's doing whatever the hell he wants to and no one seems to try to stop him.

Putin of Russia seems to be doing whatever he wants and his people are suffering for it. Their economy is failing big time.

The only good thing is the gas prices are lowered, but that's only because OPEC stepped up their production because they wanted to. I'm sure by the summer the gas prices will be up again and we will complain and pay it because we need our cars to get around.

It's a sad time we live in.

America needs to gain the respect back and put the fear back into those who oppose us.

Sorry, but a lot of what you write here is just factually wrong or a bad example of hyperbole. Putin invaded Georgia when Bush was in power, were you thinking the same of Putin then? North Korea has acted this way for fifty years. Having Obama as President hasn't changed anything. In what ways is Kim Jong-Un doing whatever he wants? Blocking a movie? That's on Sony and the theatre chains, not the President.

OPEC didn't increase production and that's not why gas prices are lower. American oil production is skyrocketing right now; next year America will be the world's largest oil producer. OPEC kept production levels flat while other oil producing regions are coming back online (Iraq and Libya).

Looking at just the last forty years, America was arguably at its mightiest in the late 90s and early 2000s. Did that stop people from bombing its embassies in 1998, or its military operations in Yemen in 2000, or the twin towers and the Pentagon in 2001? It's a fantasy to believe that there was ever a time when American had the strength, respect, and prestige to suppress all opposing forces or threats.

[Ace Nova]

Barrack Obama has been a very good president. Of course, he's lost some popularity over the last few years, thanks to an all out Republican propaganda blitz campaign, that has attempted to disparage his every move and mislead the populace. I believe history will show the truth....and history will make him one of the better presidents of our era.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Kasanova King

[AxlisOld]

FDR? You mean when we extensively profiteered off of WW2 before joining? Yes, that did cause us to prosper.

You mean the President who was openly hostile to the neutrality acts prior to the attack on Pearl Harbour? The guy who begged Congressional legislators to include a "cash-in-carry" provision into the 1937 neutrality act so as to support allies the only way he was allowed? You mean that one?

Seriously, learn your own history.

"A war profiteer is any person or organization that profits from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to parties at war."

Is my knowledge incorrect that the United States' main factor coming out of the depression was WW2? We made bank off of that shit. War is great for an economy when you aren't involved.

I don't like FDR, he is far closer to a socialist than any moron claims Obama is, and I think his intervention into the economy stalled our recovery from the depression.

I know my history, asshole.

[Ace Nova]

Not sure the system should be saved. Many of the principles, yes, but I'm undecided at best about the system.

So, in your opinion, what system should take over, once this one is "thrown out"?

[downzy]

FDR? You mean when we extensively profiteered off of WW2 before joining? Yes, that did cause us to prosper.

You mean the President who was openly hostile to the neutrality acts prior to the attack on Pearl Harbour? The guy who begged Congressional legislators to include a "cash-in-carry" provision into the 1937 neutrality act so as to support allies the only way he was allowed? You mean that one?

Seriously, learn your own history.

"A war profiteer is any person or organization that profits from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to parties at war."

Is my knowledge incorrect that the United States' main factor coming out of the depression was WW2? We made bank off of that shit. War is great for an economy when you aren't involved.

I don't like FDR, he is far closer to a socialist than any moron claims Obama is, and I think his intervention into the economy stalled our recovery from the depression.

I know my history, asshole.

Headshake. I'm really confused what your issue is here. Are you upset with the U.S. selling arms to the U.K. and France while it stayed out of the war? Do you think the primary goal of FDR was to make money off the war? Do honestly think that if the decision was solely his he wouldn't have given the weaponry to the Allies (as he did when the U.S. entered the war after the Pearl Harbour attack)? Because that's exactly what FDR wanted to do prior to Pearl Harbour; he greatly wanted to increase financial and military support to the Allied powers but was repeatedly rebuffed by Congress. Unless you're contention is that the U.S. should not have sold a weapon to anyone and stayed out of it all together?

Again, FDR wanted no part of the neutrality acts that kept the U.S. out of the war. You clearly don't know what you're talking about if you think war profiteering was FDR's doing or intention. To blame FDR for war profiteering is absolute nonsense.

So again, please save your judgements of a President when you really don't know much about him or his policies.

[AxlisOld]

I don't blame him for war profiteering, I give credit to war profiteering for doing what FDR couldn't, pull us out of the depression.

[downzy]

I don't blame him for war profiteering, I give credit to war profiteering for doing what FDR couldn't, pull us out of the depression.

You do realize that it wasn't "war profiteering" that pulled the U.S. out of a depression, right? Most of the industrial output that the U.S. produced during WW2 went to furnish its own army, and that the weaponry provided to its allies were generally provided free of charge or paid for by the U.S. government.

[downzy]

I realize this is somewhat off topic, in that it doesn't relate directly with Obama's use of executive orders/memorandums, but I read this tonight and thought it was interesting:

"In the 40 days between [the post mid-term] press conference and the one he gave Friday, the president has worked that same seam—unburdened and loose from having no more elections to face. First, he announced his support for strong net neutrality, then he announced a climate deal with China—secret and long in the making—that helped jump-start progress in global talks, then he issued the [memorandum] protecting as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants. After that came an EPA ruling on ozone emissions, a budget deal to keep the government open, and the historic deal opening diplomatic relations with Cuba.

That's a pretty good 40 day stretch, especially considering the beating his administration and the Democrats took in the mid-terms. One has to wonder had they rolled out some of these developments prior to the mid-terms maybe the Democrats would have faired a bit better.

Anyway, on topic, this is where I feel like executive action is most needed and justified. Granted, some of these developments will require Congressional approval eventually, but it's nice to see some action coming from the White House.

[AxlisOld]

I actually like his recent stance on immigration, and applaud his willingness as of late to put partisan bullshit aside and work with the Republican Congress, despite what that crazy cunt Nancy Pelosi says.

That being said, I think that the ACA is one of the worst pieces of legislation in history (the way it passed).