Well I've made that point umpteen times, but I am still told the SOLUTION is support the spineless jokers as they do the same thing over and over and over...
-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
So is ODT Done?
- Thread starter Thomas Eeyore
- Start date
Well I've made that point umpteen times, but I am still told the SOLUTION is support the spineless jokers as they do the same thing over and over and over...
I haven't read the Exact wording but in a Nutshell, From Constitution Watch and Several other websites, Wiki etc:
Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.....
So your sources are What?
And Congress can shut down things with the Power of the PURSE, HA HA HA HA HA, since when have these Spinless Politicians done that. They have Caved on EVERY CHANCE and Oh by the way, Power of the Purse has Nothing to Do with Reversing a EO. They would be attempting to Circumvent it. Nothing to do with Congressional Approval.
Last edited:
To be fair, without being able to get a super majority in the Senate to over ride a veto there is not much that can be done.
Works both ways. Dems had it and that is how Obamacare got passed and that is why they lost it.
My source is the original intent of the EO and the scope in which it can be used. There is no explicit wording in the Constitution allowing for an EO, it is vague wording and it has slowly been abused more and more because Congress has allowed it. This really isn't a debatable topic.
What you are essentially saying is that a president can make any law he wishes and congress be damned. Sorry but that ain't how it works. We are not a dictatorship.
They have the weight of law because Presidential EO/EAs are intended to be guidance in the specific execution of the intent of the laws passed by Congress. They are not intended and have traditionally not been used to subvert or exceed those laws. When it does happen, it is Congress' duty to be the check on the Executive by controlling funding, just as it is the Supreme Court's duty to judge if Congress' laws are Constitutional or not. As is painfully obvious. None of that is working very well. Nothing is fool proof if you gather enough fools in one place.
Believe what you will, Intent VS what is Real can be 2 entirely different things. This has been Part the ongoing argument over the 2nd Ammedment. Luckily so far the SCOTUS has kind of upheld for us.
Well not too drag this out but SCOTUS has no say on 2A other than to say "shall not be infringed" - technically and Constitutionally speaking of course.
Well not too drag this out but SCOTUS has no say on 2A other than to say "shall not be infringed" - technically and Constitutionally speaking of course.
Ever heard of a Constitutional amendment?
Like maybe taking something legal and declaring it illegal?=18th amendment
or
taking something now illegal and making it legal(again)?=21st amendment
Last edited:
