Has Obama crossed the line? Abuse of presidential powers through executive actions.

[Valjean]

Damme! What's with the compression at the end?
Source: Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Simple question. Many answers.

Simple answer...NO!

http://heathenrepublican.blogspot.com/2012/10/on-unprecedented-use-of-executive-orders.html

Anyone claiming that Obama’s use of the executive order is unprecedented is clearly wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Incidentally, Clinton had quite a few more than Bush. ;0)

The number of executive orders is a red herring that some cling to because it's a measure which makes Obama look like just any other prez. The real issue is the legality & effect of the orders given. Certainly, Obama isn't the only one to flout the Constitution, but the real question is the danger posed by the extent to which he's doing it. But that discussion won't gain any traction....Democratic partisans would rather allow erosion of power of the other branches than allow erosion of Obama's image. (I'm hoping that last sentence sounds bi***y.)

 

[Twilight Hue]

Obama hasn't finished his term. We will find the total upon the completion of his presidency the extent of his use of executive orders.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The number of executive orders is a red herring that some cling to because it's a measure which makes Obama look like just any other prez. The real issue is the legality & effect of the orders given. Certainly, Obama isn't the only one to flout the Constitution, but the real question is the danger posed by the extent to which he's doing it. But that discussion won't gain any traction....Democratic partisans would rather allow erosion of power of the other branches than allow erosion of Obama's image. (I'm hoping that last sentence sounds bi***y.)

Exactly. How and to what extent Obama is willing to go seems the issue atm. Im not aware of any other president in his state of the union address who put forth
" ultimatums" like that.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The number of executive orders is a red herring that some cling to because it's a measure which makes Obama look like just any other prez. The real issue is the legality & effect of the orders given.

Then what are the Executive Orders that he's given that's suspect "legally"..?

Democratic partisans would rather allow erosion of power of the other branches than allow erosion of Obama's image.

You've got your "Overly Gross Generalization" hat on again. Many of us don't want ANY President to erode the Constitution. This President already has to deal with issues like the Intelligence Community. Many of us have our issues with the NSA snooping and collecting. I don't care much for the Prison Industrial Complex, the Military Industrial Complex as well as other big brother issues...It doesn't matter if the President's is a dem or a pub.

 

[Alceste]

Incidentally, Clinton had quite a few more than Bush. ;0)

Maybe I'm thinking of line item vetoes?

 

[Tarheeler]

Exactly. How and to what extent Obama is willing to go seems the issue atm. Im not aware of any other president in his state of the union address who put forth
" ultimatums" like that.

I guess the clearest thing to do would be for you to list specific things Obama has done that you feel fall outside the tradition of presidential power (not just executive orders) established by those who came before him or that have been determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm pretty sure Obamas plan is to gather and harvest millions of babies to put into his line of canned soups and sauces.

 

[Tarheeler]

I'm pretty sure Obamas plan is to gather and harvest millions of babies to put into his line of canned soups and sauces.

Hmmm, interesting.



But certainly not kosher. :no:

 

[Revoltingest]

Then what are the Executive Orders that he's given that's suspect "legally"..?

Now you're delving into the real meat of the issue.
Some of the things I see people bringing up:
- Altering Obamacare (over a dozen times).
- Political speech disclosure by federal contractors.
- National Defense Resources Preparedness.

You've got your "Overly Gross Generalization" hat on again.

Well, spluh! I said so in the part of my post you didn't quote.

Many of us don't want ANY President to erode the Constitution.

Of course. But those who don't want that are not so partisan.

This President already has to deal with issues like the Intelligence Community. Many of us have our issues with the NSA snooping and collecting. I don't care much for the Prison Industrial Complex, the Military Industrial Complex as well as other big brother issues...It doesn't matter if the President's is a dem or a pub.

That is a reasonable attitude. But there is less protest of these things than I'd like to see. Perhaps if Obama became a Republican, opposition would liven up, eh.

 

[Valjean]

Members of both parties are dependent on the largess of their corporate sponsors and the banks for their job security. They'll fight over manufactured issues like god, guns and abortion, but I wouldn't expect either to address real issues or effect actual, substantive change. They're not likely to bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Members of both parties are dependent on the largess of their corporate sponsors and the banks for their job security. They'll fight over manufactured issues like god, guns and abortion, but I wouldn't expect either to address real issues or effect actual, substantive change. They're not likely to bite the hand that feeds them.

Those issues are real to me.
But I don't disagree on the other stuff.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Now you're delving into the real meat of the issue.
Some of the things I see people bringing up:

So you, yourself don't actually have an executive order that is legally suspect....only the ones you think might be but that you've heard from others....?

- Altering Obamacare (over a dozen times).

Delaying Parts of Obamacare: 'Blatantly Illegal' or Routine Adjustment? - Simon Lazarus - The Atlantic

Mostly, the heated rhetoric of the past few weeks ignores what the Administration has actually decided and how it has delimited the scope and purpose of that decision. The Treasury Department's announcement provides for one year of "transition relief," to continue working through 2014 with "employers, insurers, and other reporting entities" to revise and engage in "real-world testing" of the reporting requirements, simplify forms, coordinate requisite public and private sector information technology arrangements, and engineer a "smoother transition to full implementation in 2015." The announcement describes the postponed requirements as "ACA mandatory" -- i.e., not discretionary or subject to indefinite waiver. On July 9, Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Mazur added, in a letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton, that the Department expects to publish proposed rules implementing the relevant provisions "this summer, after a dialogue with stakeholders." In effect, the Administration explains the delay as a sensible adjustment to phase-in enforcement, not a refusal to enforce.

In Sunday's Washington Post, Bush II Health & Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt concurred that "The [Obama] Administration's decision to delay the employer mandate was wise," in light of the Bush Administration's initially bumpy but ultimately successful phase-in of the 2004 prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Though "wise," is the current postponement "illegal"? On the contrary, Treasury's Mazur wrote to Chair Upton, such temporary postponements of tax reporting and payment requirements are routine, citing numerous examples of such postponements by Republican and Democratic administrations when statutory deadlines proved unworkable.

It continues on to cite this is a non issue. And this here describes how much this is a non issue (The White House keeps changing Obamacare. Is that legal?).

- Political speech disclosure by federal contractors.

Another non issue. To my knowledge they initiated a "draft" Executive Order but he never initiated and signed an actual order.

National Defense Resources Preparedness.

Well there was a fake story that was being passed around on the "right" (see here: snopes.com: Executive Order 13603 -- National Defense Resources Preparedness) that was quickly dispelled and clarified. The Executive Order itself is nothing more than an update to an Executive Order issued 18 years prior.

“National Defense Resources Preparedness” executive order: Power grab or mere update? « Hot Air

Why the update? If one takes a look at EO 12919, the big change is in the Cabinet itself. In 1994, we didn’t have a Department of Homeland Security, for instance, and some of these functions would naturally fall to DHS. In EO 12919, the FEMA director had those responsibilities, and the biggest change between the two is the removal of several references to FEMA (ten in all). Otherwise, there aren’t a lot of changes between the two EOs, which looks mainly like boilerplate.

In fact, that’s almost entirely what it is. The original EO dealing with national defense resources preparedness was issued in 1939 (EO 8248) according to the National Archives. It has been superseded a number of times, starting in 1951 by nearly every President through Bill Clinton, and amended twice by George W. Bush.

Update: It’s worth noting, too, that the second change by Bush to EO 12919 came through an amendment to EO 11858 that eliminated requirements of Cabinet officials to report on attempts by foreigners to invest in “critical technologies” in the US or “industrial espionage activities” targeting defense contractors (Section 801). Obama’s new EO doesn’t reverse that action, either.

And that article continues to show this non issue over something routinely done.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you, yourself don't actually have an executive order that is legally suspect....only the ones you think might be but that you've heard from others....?

Incorrect inference.
Let me stop you here. Any executive order I mention which I or someone else finds dangerous & unconstitutional can be challenged. Obama fans will find each benign. I'm going to avoid arguing that because I don't think that conversation is going anywhere except bickeristan. At this point I was just dismissing the executive order volume comparison as significant. Tis not the number but the nature of the orders which should concern us.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The recess appointment by Obama is clearly suspect. Already the Supreme Court has called him out on it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Incorrect inference.
Let me stop you here. Any executive order I mention which I or someone else finds dangerous & unconstitutional can be challenged. Obama fans will find each benign. I'm going to avoid arguing that because I don't think that conversation is going anywhere except bickeristan. At this point I was just dismissing the executive order volume comparison as significant. Tis not the number but the nature of the orders which should concern us.

I know you were which is why I asked if you were familiar with any of the 168 that you or others felt were going too far. I have the list right here and the vast majority of them are run of the mill. Many are boring EO not even worth dealing with because the content isn't anything suspect or seen as pushing the envelope of executive power....one would think that if they had a case for the substance of these EOs themselves (all in total) we'd see the administration in court over them. But then again, if you're familiar with them, you quickly come to the conclusion not much is in them to squawk about.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The recess appointment by Obama is clearly suspect. Already the Supreme Court has called him out on it.

If they smack him on the hand then I'm fine with that. But so far I haven't seen any real merit to the talking point that the President is abusing the Executive Order process....or that "the significance" of them are pushing the envelope. If Recess Appointments, and he's not alone in this endeavour, is all there is out of the 168 signed by him then you (generally speaking) have a long way to go to make him out to be a dictator....

 

[Reverend Rick]

If they smack him on the hand then I'm fine with that. But so far I haven't seen any real merit to the talking point that the President is abusing the Executive Order process....or that "the significance" of them are pushing the envelope. If Recess Appointments, and he's not alone in this endeavour, is all there is out of the 168 signed by him then you (generally speaking) have a long way to go to make him out to be a dictator....

This is the camel's nose in the tent. One day a Republican will take the ball and run with it all thanks to that trail blazer Obama.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This is the camel's nose in the tent. One day a Republican will take the ball and run with it all thanks to that trail blazer Obama.

What are you going on about....?

Republicans...HAVE...They have their own skeletons in the closet unless you want us all to forget the sweeping reforms Bush and his administration made giving rise to the Patriot Act among other decisions they made....

I heard your cry from Republicans in the Senate over Harry Reid's change to the Senate rule...but these same Republicans said nothing, encouraged and went along with Boehner in the House when "he did the exact same thing"......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/house-republicans-rules-change_n_4095129.html

"The Rules Committee, under the rules of the House, changed the standing rules of the House to take away the right of any member to move to vote to open the government, and gave that right exclusively to the Republican Leader," said Van Hollen. "Is that right?"