DHS funding bill

[Candor]

So the House apparently approved a bill today to fund the Department of Homeland Security...for one week. This emergency measure had to be implemented because a bill to fund DHS for (gasp) three whole weeks failed apparently due to disagreements about immigration.

I haven't really been following this story. However I will say that this business of debating and passing bills to fund an entire department of the government for less than a month is completely ridiculous. I don't care what the issues are. IMHO you have a bunch of elementary school children on both sides of the political spectrum whining that they can't get their way, and holding up funding for basic government functions as a result.

And folks, we as a country elected these idiots. Think about that next time you vote.

[Thondalar]

IMO DHS shouldn't even be a thing, so I guess I'm ambivalent to this. Its just more cross-aisle chest-thumping just because. Its what happens when politicians don't have a day job.

[Back]

So the House apparently approved a bill today to fund the Department of Homeland Security...for one week. This emergency measure had to be implemented because a bill to fund DHS for (gasp) three whole weeks failed apparently due to disagreements about immigration.

I haven't really been following this story. However I will say that this business of debating and passing bills to fund an entire department of the government for less than a month is completely ridiculous. I don't care what the issues are. IMHO you have a bunch of elementary school children on both sides of the political spectrum whining that they can't get their way, and holding up funding for basic government functions as a result.

And folks, we as a country elected these idiots. Think about that next time you vote.

If you accept democracy you have to accept the votes.

My opinion? I agree with you. There are a bunch of idiots in politics.

[Candor]

IMO DHS shouldn't even be a thing, so I guess I'm ambivalent to this. Its just more cross-aisle chest-thumping just because. Its what happens when politicians don't have a day job.

Wait until the next disagreement holds up funding for Health and Human Services, or the Department of Transportation, or (insert your favorite federal government function here). I doubt there is much these clowns would hold up funding for given a chance.

[Androidpk]

This withholding of funding is just childish. Now you have some republicans saying they want to defund the FCC because of their recent voting.

[Jarvan]

So the House apparently approved a bill today to fund the Department of Homeland Security...for one week. This emergency measure had to be implemented because a bill to fund DHS for (gasp) three whole weeks failed apparently due to disagreements about immigration.

I haven't really been following this story. However I will say that this business of debating and passing bills to fund an entire department of the government for less than a month is completely ridiculous. I don't care what the issues are. IMHO you have a bunch of elementary school children on both sides of the political spectrum whining that they can't get their way, and holding up funding for basic government functions as a result.

And folks, we as a country elected these idiots. Think about that next time you vote.

I agree completely. Actually, I will go a step further. Fuck this "Continuing Resolution" bullshit. Fuck it in the ear with a flanged mace.

As for electing these idiots, most people love their Senator/Rep, and complain about the others.

Sadly, every single bill is political nowadays. Every. Single. Bill.

Obama's idiotic "I can do it now, but couldn't for the last 6 years" Executive action shouldn't have been part of the bill.... except.. it's funding DHS, which Ice is part of. So it really does make sense to add something about not funding the Presidents action. Granted, no matter how anyone looks at it, it's always blamed on the Repubs. Hell, Obama could have easily resolved this by just saying "Ok, Fine, I will undo what I did". But of course he won't, who would really? Certainly not a Politician, their ego's are bigger then their noses (Pinocchio noses). Instead, they claim the other side wants to hold the DHS hostage... they are BOTH holding the DHS hostage.

Of course.. this will never end. In my opinion, the reason things are so partisan.. is because both sides have news stations, internet blogs/pages/and news, and magazines that point out and tell them exactly what they want to hear. XXX is evil, YYY wants to help you. People are bombarded with this 24/7.

[Thondalar]

Wait until the next disagreement holds up funding for Health and Human Services, or the Department of Transportation, or (insert your favorite federal government function here). I doubt there is much these clowns would hold up funding for given a chance.

Imo, most of these government agencies are bureaucracy just because. They don't actually serve any noticeable function. Department of Education being a prime example.

[Back]

Imo, most of these government agencies are bureaucracy just because. They don't actually serve any noticeable function. Department of Education being a prime example.

You have a better idea?

[Velfi]

These are also the people that are eager to tell you how they are the sober, responsible adults at the table.

[Thondalar]

You have a better idea?

Yeah, actually, I do. Get rid of the lot of them. Pull a Jesus and the moneychangers. Legislation by regulation is unconstitutional, so they serve no legal function besides wasting taxpayer funds that could be better spent on other things. Pointless bureaucratic "jobs" don't contribute to GDP, and are therefore a double loss to our nation's overall wealth.

[Back]

These are also the people that are eager to tell you how they are the sober, responsible adults at the table.

That would not be me. Though I am sober sometimes.

[Androidpk]

Yeah, actually, I do. Get rid of the lot of them. Pull a Jesus and the moneychangers. Legislation by regulation is unconstitutional, so they serve no legal function besides wasting taxpayer funds that could be better spent on other things. Pointless bureaucratic "jobs" don't contribute to GDP, and are therefore a double loss to our nation's overall wealth.


:lol:

[Warriorbird]

Yeah, actually, I do. Get rid of the lot of them. Pull a Jesus and the moneychangers. Legislation by regulation is unconstitutional, so they serve no legal function besides wasting taxpayer funds that could be better spent on other things. Pointless bureaucratic "jobs" don't contribute to GDP, and are therefore a double loss to our nation's overall wealth.

That's certainly an interpretation. While a lot of what the Department of Education does infuriates me and I think the DHS was a "feel good" agency from the Republican end, it hardly means that everybody agrees with you or regulation has no function.

[ZeP]

OH MY GOD SOMEONE MIGHT CAST 525 PLEASE PROTECT ME.

[Warriorbird]

OH MY GOD SOMEONE MIGHT CAST 525 PLEASE PROTECT ME.

http://www.amazon.com/Youre-Trying-Too-Hard-Already/dp/1500123307

[ZeP]

No, I think its you with over 25 thousand posts who is trying too hard,

[Warriorbird]

No, I think its you with over 25 thousand posts who is trying too hard,

http://www.amazon.com/Edgy-Conversations-Ordinary-Achieve-Outrageous/dp/0989533107

[ZeP]

Yes, I'm way edgier than you. Are you capable of a response that isn't a link?

[Warriorbird]

Yes, I'm way edgier than you. Are you capable of a response that isn't a link?

http://www.amazon.com/Zelda-II-Adventure-nintendo-entertainment-system/dp/B00004SVYE

[ZeP]

Jacinta's Amazon Wishlist (http://www.amazon.com/Dildos-Sex-Toys-Adult-Games/b?ie=UTF8&node=676319011)

[Warriorbird]

Jacinta's Amazon Wishlist (http://www.amazon.com/Dildos-Sex-Toys-Adult-Games/b?ie=UTF8&node=676319011)

http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/amazon-sex-worker-wish-lists/

[ZeP]

You must be devastated! (http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/amazon-sex-worker-wish-lists/)

[Tgo01]

No, I think its you with over 25 thousand posts who is trying too hard,

You only have 480 posts. Let us know when you break quadruple digits.

[Warriorbird]

You must be devastated! (http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/amazon-sex-worker-wish-lists/)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxNYTqtfdXw

I do feel bad that you've lost a means of support. There's hope though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/us/after-prostitution-charges-a-rehab-course-in-self-esteem.html

[ZeP]

You only have 480 posts. Let us know when you break quadruple digits.

:( Is that what she means about means of support?

[Warriorbird]

:( Is that what she means about means of support?

It's funny that you got mixed up about what character I once played. Add onto it the fact that it's one who spent some time doing exotic dancing and it's pretty easy to declare it you, posting your "wishlist."

[ZeP]

So you played an exotic dancer in GS?

[Warriorbird]

So you played an exotic dancer in GS?

Let's take it step by step. In your attempt at an "edgy post" you got mixed up about the character I played. Your "list" had the name of somebody else's character attached to it. That somebody else spent some time as an exotic dancer.

[ZeP]

List? I substituted A for O.

[Warriorbird]

List? I substituted A for O.

"List." And somebody played pretty much every female variant...

[Fallen]

'The fuck is going on in this thread?

[Gelston]

'The fuck is going on in this thread?

Zep is trying to look cool again.

[waywardgs]

I'm always amused when someone tries to mock someone's post count. Who the hell cares?

[Tgo01]

'The fuck is going on in this thread?

http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0wr2noRXK1rpm2tqo1_500.jpg

Literally.

[Tgo01]

I'm always amused when someone tries to mock someone's post count. Who the hell cares?

Look at Mr. 6236 over here thinking he's hot shit.

[Gelston]

I'm always amused when someone tries to mock someone's post count. Who the hell cares?

Your post count is pathetic.

[Warriorbird]

'The fuck is going on in this thread?

Basically a particular poster wants attention. He mainly either tries to troll in politics threads, posts in game discussions, or makes wistful little sports posts that he wishes people would notice more. It's been going on for quite a few years now.

I decided to give him a little bit of what he dreamed of. I'm sure adult discussion will show back up... or if it's run it's course, he'll be left wondering what could have been.

EDIT:

It thankfully showed back up while I was typing.

[JackWhisper]

I feel small... My post count is turribull!

[waywardgs]

Look at Mr. 6236 over here thinking he's hot shit.



Your post count is pathetic.


You guys are fucking addicts. Get out of the basement and get a job.

[Gelston]

You guys are fucking addicts. Get out of the basement and get a job.

And be one of those corporate sheeple? No thanks.

https://badbooksgoodtimes.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/goth-name.gif

[ZeP]

Zep is trying to look cool again.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSCzDykng4g

[ZeP]

Basically a particular poster wants attention. He mainly either tries to troll in politics threads, posts in game discussions, or makes wistful little sports posts that he wishes people would notice more. It's been going on for quite a few years now.

I decided to give him a little bit of what he dreamed of. I'm sure adult discussion will show back up... or if it's run it's course, he'll be left wondering what could have been.

EDIT:

It thankfully showed back up while I was typing.

So I post in politics, game discussions, and sports. That's pretty much the entire bored.

[Warriorbird]

You guys are fucking addicts. Get out of the basement and get a job.

But, but, but I specialize in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_marketing !

[waywardgs]

So I post in politics, game discussions, and sports. That's pretty much the entire bored.

That's also how your posts make me feel.

[JackWhisper]

So I post in politics, game discussions, and sports. That's pretty much the entire board.


FTFY.

[ZeP]

But, but, but I specialize in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_marketing !

I don't see where I am projecting a genuine desire for you guys to buy anything. You tried responding with just links and no content.

[Warriorbird]

I don't see where I am projecting a genuine desire for you guys to buy anything. You tried responding with just links and no content.

http://38.media.tumblr.com/4dc7b6ec0f2567538a163460f743b920/tumblr_n5ycg5jJaK1s389oyo5_400.gif

[JackWhisper]

http://38.media.tumblr.com/4dc7b6ec0f2567538a163460f743b920/tumblr_n5ycg5jJaK1s389oyo5_400.gif

Because that was the best part of the whole movie.

[ZeP]

GIF is irrelevant and we've already been through the handle "JackWhisper"

[Warriorbird]

GIF is irrelevant and we've already been through the handle "JackWhisper"

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?94652-DHS-funding-bill&p=1749669#post1749669

[ZeP]

Is that Jack in the GIF?

[JackWhisper]

FUCK YEAH IT IS! Racing through time and shit.

[Thondalar]

That's certainly an interpretation. While a lot of what the Department of Education does infuriates me and I think the DHS was a "feel good" agency from the Republican end, it hardly means that everybody agrees with you or regulation has no function.

I don't recall any point where I said everyone should agree with me, or that regulation serves no function.

[Tgo01]

So I post in politics, game discussions, and sports. That's pretty much the entire bored.

Level up your post count and use your skill points to level up in homophones.

[Thondalar]

I feel small... My post count is turribull!

It's almost the same as mine, and I've been here for 2 years longer. There's something here about talking a lot but not saying anything, but I'll leave that be for now.

[ZeP]

Level up your post count and use your skill points to level up in homophones.

I'm trying! I wish that I could be like the cool kids!

[Warriorbird]

I don't recall any point where I said everyone should agree with me, or that regulation serves no function.

Don't get me wrong. I can see where you're coming from. I just don't see it as very likely that the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch will spontaneously give up power. I also see our Legislative Branch as not terribly effective.

Do I even need to throw an "Articles of Confederation" line in here?

What else featured no Executive or Judicial branch?

[Tgo01]

Do I even need to throw an "Articles of Confederation" line in here?

Either that or Ayn Rand

[Warriorbird]

Either that or Ayn Rand

At least he wants a government. I give him that much.

[ZeP]

O hai Warriorbitch you were the last one to respond with a link and no actual response.

[Thondalar]

Don't get me wrong. I can see where you're coming from. I just don't see it as very likely that the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch will spontaneously give up power. I also see our Legislative Branch as not terribly effective.

Do I even need to throw an "Articles of Confederation" line in here?

What else featured no Executive or Judicial branch?

What the fuck are you smoking? I want all three branches to maintain as much power as they're supposed to have.

[Thondalar]

At least he wants a government. I give him that much.

Actually, I would prefer not to have a government. It would be more correct to say I understand the majority of humanity couldn't handle not having one.

[Warriorbird]

What the fuck are you smoking? I want all three branches to maintain as much power as they're supposed to have.

I'm not smoking anything. You want the Executive Branch to lose regulatory authority and the Supreme Court to lose Marbury vs. Madison and their entire judicial history. That's what you're asking for. That and 200+ years.

[Thondalar]

I'm not smoking anything. You want the Executive Branch to lose regulatory authority and the Supreme Court to lose Marbury vs. Madison and their entire judicial history. That's what you're asking for. That and 200+ years.

lolwhut?

[Warriorbird]

lolwhut?

You don't want "legislation by regulation." Not wanting the Supreme Court to be an equal branch is from of your past posting history.

[waywardgs]

Actually, I would prefer not to have a government. It would be more correct to say I understand the majority of humanity couldn't handle not having one.

I want a unicorn.

[Thondalar]

You don't want "legislation by regulation." Not wanting the Supreme Court to be an equal branch is from of your past posting history.

I would like you to find that...imo the judicial branch is the most important part. I would posit that Marbury was superfluous in the same sense that the Bill of Rights is superfluous...the Constitution lays a strong foundation for judicial review, and it's an important, if not the most important, aspect of the "checks and balances" system we're built on.

Neither of which has anything to do with "legislation by regulation", other than that bypasses both the judicial AND legislative branches, which is precisely why it shouldn't exist.

[Warriorbird]

I would like you to find that...imo the judicial branch is the most important part. I would posit that Marbury was superfluous in the same sense that the Bill of Rights is superfluous...the Constitution lays a strong foundation for judicial review, and it's an important, if not the most important, aspect of the "checks and balances" system we're built on.

Neither of which has anything to do with "legislation by regulation", other than that bypasses both the judicial AND legislative branches, which is precisely why it shouldn't exist.

It's like you say things and they contradict other things so heavily as to just blow the mind completely.

[Parkbandit]

Either that or Ayn Rand

:rofl:

[Parkbandit]

I'm not smoking anything. You want the Executive Branch to lose regulatory authority and the Supreme Court to lose Marbury vs. Madison and their entire judicial history. That's what you're asking for. That and 200+ years.

Tell him what he wants! Tell him!

Plus he wants slavery back!

[Jarvan]

I'm not smoking anything. You want the Executive Branch to lose regulatory authority and the Supreme Court to lose Marbury vs. Madison and their entire judicial history. That's what you're asking for. That and 200+ years.

There is a slight difference between regulatory authority and "I can't get my bills passed so I will just make them Regulations and Executive Actions".

The Constitution never intended for the President to just make up/Alter laws and call them "Regulations".

[Warriorbird]

There is a slight difference between regulatory authority and "I can't get my bills passed so I will just make them Regulations and Executive Actions".

The Constitution never intended for the President to just make up/Alter laws and call them "Regulations".

It always entertains me when people don't know how the government works under both parties or have this delusion that executive orders are new. It's especially funny when somebody attempts to act like Obama is excessive in the face of stuff like the Emancipation Proclamation.

[Gelston]

I liked this thread better when ZeP was here.

[Jarvan]

It always entertains me when people don't know how the government works under both parties or have this delusion that executive orders are new. It's especially funny when somebody attempts to act like Obama is excessive in the face of stuff like the Emancipation Proclamation.

It always entertains me when the Liberals on this forum act like some of us don't like it when either party does things. I didn't like it when Bush restricted access to Presidential Papers.

Point out another Executive action that was used because Congress didn't pass a Bill the President wanted.

After the President that used it said 22 times that it was illegal for him to do so.

Go Ahead.. I'll wait. I bet Savants will be released first.

Also.. I like this line...


"Congress has the power to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it. Congress can also refuse to provide funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism."

It's funny.. that's what Congress was trying to do this week...

[Warriorbird]

It always entertains me when the Liberals on this forum act like some of us don't like it when either party does things. I didn't like it when Bush restricted access to Presidential Papers.

Point out another Executive action that was used because Congress didn't pass a Bill the President wanted.

After the President that used it said 22 times that it was illegal for him to do so.

Go Ahead.. I'll wait. I bet Savants will be released first.

Also.. I like this line...



It's funny.. that's what Congress was trying to do this week...

Eisenhower desgregating the military would be an easy example.

[Thondalar]

Eisenhower desgregating the military would be an easy example.

That was Truman, although I guess technically the last all-black unit was disbanded under Eisenhower's reign, he didn't really have much to do with it.

Brown vs. The Board of education wasn't too many years after this, imo Truman was just getting ahead of what he knew was already going to happen anyway to get a historical feather in his cap. But that's just the cynic in me I suppose.

[Fallen]

Point out another Executive action that was used because Congress didn't pass a Bill the President wanted.

Wouldn't the recent excessive use of the filibuster (and other procedural measures) to block legislation play a factor in this discussion? Couldn't the level of obstruction also be seen as exceptional?

[Warriorbird]

That was Truman, although I guess technically the last all-black unit was disbanded under Eisenhower's reign, he didn't really have much to do with it.

You're right. Neither would've been approved by Congress though.

[Thondalar]

It's like you say things and they contradict other things so heavily as to just blow the mind completely.

If you would care to provide examples, I'd be happy to explain to you the parts you aren't comprehending.

[Jarvan]

Eisenhower desgregating the military would be an easy example.

Not really no. Specially since it was Truman in 1948. Eisenhower was Public schools.

[Thondalar]

You're right. Neither would've been approved by Congress though.

Well, it's not a matter that should have ever had anything to do with congress. The Constitution was already in place, it's the judicial branch's responsibility to properly interpret the constitution, which they did in Brown vs. The board of education in 1954.

[Jarvan]

Wouldn't the recent excessive use of the filibuster (and other procedural measures) to block legislation play a factor in this discussion? Couldn't the level of obstruction also be seen as exceptional?

Or maybe The Leader of the Senate refusing to bring any bill of the House's to vote on the Floor?

We could really play this game all day.

[Jarvan]

Eisenhower desgregating the military would be an easy example.

Also.. There were no Laws made by Congress in regards to Segregation of Military or Public schools. Those were state and local laws for school and such. Truman, as Commander and Chief, had the right to desegregate the Armed Forces.

Secondly.. Eisenhower's Executive action ENFORCED a Supreme Court Ruling. He didn't make up new law, he was enforcing existing rulings. (Note the Executive action was in 1957, Supreme Court Ruling in 1954)

So really.. you failed in this case in more then one way.


Keep trying to find an example. My Bet is on Savants.

[Warriorbird]

Also.. There were no Laws made by Congress in regards to Segregation of Military or Public schools. Those were state and local laws for school and such. Truman, as Commander and Chief, had the right to desegregate the Armed Forces.

Secondly.. Eisenhower's Executive action ENFORCED a Supreme Court Ruling. He didn't make up new law, he was enforcing existing rulings. (Note the Executive action was in 1957, Supreme Court Ruling in 1954)

So really.. you failed in this case in more then one way.


Keep trying to find an example. My Bet is on Savants.

What branch of the states made those laws? With what police power? Wait for it...

I don't even have to go to the Roosevelts or Youngstown or Clinton bragging about how he used the orders to do what Congress wouldn't.

[Fallen]

Or maybe The Leader of the Senate refusing to bring any bill of the House's to vote on the Floor?

We could really play this game all day.

To be clear, is this article describing what you're talking about? http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368369/harry-reids-obstructionism-andrew-stiles

[Jarvan]

What branch of the states made those laws? With what police power? Wait for it...

I don't even have to go to the Roosevelts or Youngstown or Clinton bragging about how he used the orders to do what Congress wouldn't.

To be Clear. It could have been a goat that made the Jim Crow Laws, it doesn't matter. One the Supreme court ruled them Unconstitutional, The President's Executive Order didn't do shit really. He ~Ordered~ something that was already an order by the Supreme Court.

Now... if Eisenhower had issued an Executive Order ~SEGREGATING~ a school, then yes. You would be correct. Sadly, you are not.

As to who made the Laws, it would have been the states legislative Branch. As for the Police power used, local cops really. The State Military certainly didn't drive around enforcing them.
So no, you fail.

[Jarvan]

To be clear, is this article describing what you're talking about? http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368369/harry-reids-obstructionism-andrew-stiles

Pretty much.

Also.. Dems were for the Filibuster... before they were against it.

Go figure.

(Note.. BOTH sides do it. Harry did take it to extremes tho recently when he changed the rules on it for judiciary appointees, that will come back to bite the Dems in the ass)

The funny thing is... wait for it...

I am sure you agree with Reid.. most of the Repub bills from the House were DOA... and didn't need a vote. But sure as damned well.. you wanted the House to vote on Bills passed by the Dems in the Senate.

See... ~YOU~ are the Partisan person here.

I want Congress and the President to act within bounds of the Constitution. You seem to want The Repubs to do the bidding of the Dems when they have power. Frankly.. ~I~ want BOTH sides to limit what the other does when in power. Purely Repub bills are just as bad as Purely Dem ones.

[Fallen]

Pretty much.

Also.. Dems were for the Filibuster... before they were against it.

Go figure.

(Note.. BOTH sides do it. Harry did take it to extremes tho recently when he changed the rules on it for judiciary appointees, that will come back to bite the Dems in the ass)

The funny thing is... wait for it...

I am sure you agree with Reid.. most of the Repub bills from the House were DOA... and didn't need a vote. But sure as damned well.. you wanted the House to vote on Bills passed by the Dems in the Senate.

See... ~YOU~ are the Partisan person here.

I want Congress and the President to act within bounds of the Constitution. You seem to want The Repubs to do the bidding of the Dems when they have power. Frankly.. ~I~ want BOTH sides to limit what the other does when in power. Purely Repub bills are just as bad as Purely Dem ones.

?

I was pointing out the fact that the president may have had to rely upon executive order because of the overall disfunction of congress. It was a possible explanation, not a justification. You pointed out that Democrats too contribute to this disfunction. I fail to see how this suddenly means i'm partisan and you're not.

[Warriorbird]

To be Clear. It could have been a goat that made the Jim Crow Laws, it doesn't matter. One the Supreme court ruled them Unconstitutional, The President's Executive Order didn't do shit really. He ~Ordered~ something that was already an order by the Supreme Court.

Now... if Eisenhower had issued an Executive Order ~SEGREGATING~ a school, then yes. You would be correct. Sadly, you are not.

As to who made the Laws, it would have been the states legislative Branch. As for the Police power used, local cops really. The State Military certainly didn't drive around enforcing them.
So no, you fail.

They were made by legislatures. The legislature would not have passed his idea. It's fine if you don't get it. You can go on and check the other examples.

There's a telling quote from Paul Begala about Clinton's executive orders plan.


''Stroke of the pen,'' Paul Begala, an aide to Mr. Clinton, said in summarizing the approach. ''Law of the land. Kind of cool.'

Clinton planned on executive orders to achieve all of his goals that year.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/05/us/true-to-form-clinton-shifts-energies-back-to-us-focus.html

[Thondalar]

Bill Clinton issued 364 executive orders in total. Which ones are we talking about?




edit: hrmm...apparently only Reagan issued more (381) going all the way back to Eisenhower (486)

[Jarvan]

They were made by legislatures. The legislature would not have passed his idea. It's fine if you don't get it. You can go on and check the other examples.

There's a telling quote from Paul Begala about Clinton's executive orders plan.



Clinton planned on executive orders to achieve all of his goals that year.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/05/us/true-to-form-clinton-shifts-energies-back-to-us-focus.html

Planned.. and did. two Different things.

Also.. did Clinton tell the World 22 times that it was illegal for him to do so, then did it anyway?

Also.. Don't get what? That you are grasping at straws? Jim Crow Laws had been passed DECADES before Eisenhower. The SUPREME COURT ruled them unconstitutional. The schools HAD TO DESEGREGATE. Eisenhower ENFORCED the law. (The Law being that the Supreme Court ruled that the laws were invalid, therefore there could BE no Segregation)

STATE Legislatures have NOTHING to do with it. Zip, Zilch, Nada. The US Congress didn't HAVE to pass a law at the time.. maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't have.. but.. THEY. DID. NOT. NEED. TO.

The Supreme Court ruled. End of Story.

Thank you for trying SOOOOOOOOOO fucking hard to do a gotcha on me. Sadly.. you have now failed 3 times. But please.. go thru those Executive orders he "Planned" and find me one that he signed, that not only bypassed congress, but that he said was illegal in the first place.

I hear Savants are RSN.

[Jarvan]

Bill Clinton issued 364 executive orders in total. Which ones are we talking about?




edit: hrmm...apparently only Reagan issued more (381) going all the way back to Eisenhower (486)

Quantity is meaningless. Some of those orders are things like.. national holidays and such.


or this whopper of an EO from Clinton that he "Planned" to bypass congress....

Executive Order 13109
Half-Day Closing of Executive Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government on Thursday, December 24, 1998

[Tgo01]

Technically Truman's executive order that desegregated the military was expanding upon an executive order that Roosevelt signed which made it illegal to discriminate based on race in the national defense industry.

That's sort of how executive orders are supposed to work; they are designed to expand upon existing laws or existing executive orders to make the president's job easier in enforcing said laws/executive orders.

Never mind the fact that Roosevelt created that executive order out of thin air and didn't base it on existing laws/EOs...shut up!

[Warriorbird]

Quantity is meaningless. Some of those orders are things like.. national holidays and such.


or this whopper of an EO from Clinton that he "Planned" to bypass congress....

Executive Order 13109
Half-Day Closing of Executive Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government on Thursday, December 24, 1998


In 1993, President Clinton urged Congress to enact a statute that would prohibit employers from hiring permanent replacements for workers who are on strike. The right to hire such permanent replacement workers was firmly established in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and in decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress refused to authorize the change in law in 1993-1994. Shortly after Republicans gained control of Congress in 1995, the President issued Executive Order 12954 in an attempt to achieve through executive fiat what he could not achieve through legislation. Clinton claimed authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (the "Procurement Act")32 to require all large government contractors, which employed roughly 22 percent of the Labor force, to agree not to hire permanent replacements for lawfully striking employees.

President Clinton's most significant departure from President Reagan and President George H. W. Bush was his use (and abuse) of his powers under the Antiquities Act of 1906 to designate millions of acres of federal land as protected national monuments. The most controversial was Proclamation 6920, which established the 1.7 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah, but other designations are equally outrageous.

President Clinton's proclamations have been highly controversial particularly with respect to the monuments' size, the process used to establish them, and restrictions on the use of the land. The Antiquities Act requires that monuments be "the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected."48 With only a few exceptions, including the 10,950,000-acre Wrangell-St. Elias National Monument created by President Carter in 1978, most monuments are relatively small (less than 5,000 acres). All of President Clinton's proclamations, however, cover very large areas of land.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives

And we can't forget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13087

[Jarvan]

Technically Truman's executive order that desegregated the military was expanding upon an executive order that Roosevelt signed which made it illegal to discriminate based on race in the national defense industry.

That's sort of how executive orders are supposed to work; they are designed to expand upon existing laws or existing executive orders to make the president's job easier in enforcing said laws/executive orders.

Never mind the fact that Roosevelt created that executive order out of thin air and didn't base it on existing laws/EOs...shut up!

True and not true. As President, he is the highest ranking person in the Military, and the entire defense department in a sense. Call him the CEO of the Defense Industry. He can decide who is hired and fired really, he chose to determine who could be hired.

There was no Law in Congress that said the Defense Industry HAD to Discriminate, or even COULD discriminate. It didn't make it illegal either, since only a law can make something illegal.

[Thondalar]

True and not true. As President, he is the highest ranking person in the Military, and the entire defense department in a sense. Call him the CEO of the Defense Industry. He can decide who is hired and fired really, he chose to determine who could be hired.

There was no Law in Congress that said the Defense Industry HAD to Discriminate, or even COULD discriminate. It didn't make it illegal either, since only a law can make something illegal.

The Constitution doesn't give anyone the legal power to discriminate, so there was no need to make a law saying it was illegal. State and Local laws allowed it in various iterations, which is why it eventually came to the Supreme Court, where they ruled (correctly) in Brown vs. The Board. The process worked as intended. It never had anything to do with executive orders or Federal legislation, nor should it have.

[Jarvan]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives

And we can't forget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13087

Proclamations are not EO's. But even still... He had the right due to an Act of Congress. He may have abused said right.. but Congress padded a law allowing him to.. well.. 1906 Congress did, but still.

Interesting tho... You are pointing out how OTHER Democrats also abused EO's. Maybe it's a Dem thing. I do also find it funny that you have to look for a "Right wing Nut Job" groups opinion to determine it was an unlawful act.

The fact that Congress instilled contract powers with the President means he COULD enact it for HIS workers. He just couldn't for ALL workers.

Hmm.. oddly enough.. notice he did it for FEDERAL workers and large Contractors ~ONLY~. He didn't say to congress.. "Fuck you I am doing it for everyone".

So no.. you ~STILL~ fail.

I would also like to note.. that was 3 years ~BEFORE~ you claimed Clinton "planned" to do lots of stuff.

[Jarvan]

The Constitution doesn't give anyone the legal power to discriminate, so there was no need to make a law saying it was illegal. State and Local laws allowed it in various iterations, which is why it eventually came to the Supreme Court, where they ruled (correctly) in Brown vs. The Board. The process worked as intended. It never had anything to do with executive orders or Federal legislation, nor should it have.

Exactly my point.

WB was just grasping at straws, because he really can't find something similar to Obama.

[Warriorbird]

Proclamations are not EO's. But even still... He had the right due to an Act of Congress. He may have abused said right.. but Congress padded a law allowing him to.. well.. 1906 Congress did, but still.

Interesting tho... You are pointing out how OTHER Democrats also abused EO's. Maybe it's a Dem thing. I do also find it funny that you have to look for a "Right wing Nut Job" groups opinion to determine it was an unlawful act.

The fact that Congress instilled contract powers with the President means he COULD enact it for HIS workers. He just couldn't for ALL workers.

Hmm.. oddly enough.. notice he did it for FEDERAL workers and large Contractors ~ONLY~. He didn't say to congress.. "Fuck you I am doing it for everyone".

So no.. you ~STILL~ fail.

I would also like to note.. that was 3 years ~BEFORE~ you claimed Clinton "planned" to do lots of stuff.

Still didn't read the second link, did you? It's okay. Also note... we started with a Republican.

[Jarvan]

Still didn't read the second link, did you? It's okay. Also note... we started with a Republican.

Eisenhower? Sorry, that was debunked. Not even remotely close, and there was ZERO overreach with that one.


"The Executive Order states Administration policy but does not and cannot create any new enforcement rights (such as the ability to proceed before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Those rights can be granted only by legislation passed by the Congress, such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act."

Semi Meaningless act by Clinton really. At the time, it had no teeth and really didn't do anything.

Sorry.. but you are seriously losing here. I thought you were better then this, I mean, you always claim to be SOOO much better then me. Yet you still can't find a SINGLE occurrence where a President bypassed Congress and created basically a new law.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-consequences-ice-officials-who-dont-follow-executive-amnesty_866479.html

He plans to PUNISH people for following the law. Go Fucking Figure.

[Warriorbird]

Eisenhower? Sorry, that was debunked. Not even remotely close, and there was ZERO overreach with that one.



Semi Meaningless act by Clinton really. At the time, it had no teeth and really didn't do anything.

Sorry.. but you are seriously losing here. I thought you were better then this, I mean, you always claim to be SOOO much better then me. Yet you still can't find a SINGLE occurrence where a President bypassed Congress and created basically a new law.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-consequences-ice-officials-who-dont-follow-executive-amnesty_866479.html

He plans to PUNISH people for following the law. Go Fucking Figure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

I can find a ton of incidences. You're just pulling a Latrin and whining about them even when the Supreme Court struck them down. Unsurprising.

And a President controlling an agency of his? Not exactly all that groundbreaking. I thought you were whining about him changing an already established law (far more of a valid claim).

All I was showing is the President acting in ways that Congress wouldn't. Not a very high bar. Neither is the President creating new laws or rules. If that's your standard, you can look to either Roosevelt or hell, even Bush.

[Tgo01]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

I can find a ton of incidences.

Incidents.

It's also debated on whether or not the Emancipation Proclamation was legal. It never reached the Supreme Court because laws were passed and such that basically made it legal.

Also the south had seceded and therefore they were not afforded the rights under our constitution.

[Androidpk]

Incidents.



You sure about that?

[Tgo01]

You sure about that?

Incidents or instances, yes.

...shut up!

[Candor]

Incidents or instances, yes.

...shut up!

Miss Manners is now in shock. Please apologize at once.

[Androidpk]

Or incidences.

[Tgo01]

Or incidences.

No.

[Jarvan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

I can find a ton of incidences. You're just pulling a Latrin and whining about them even when the Supreme Court struck them down. Unsurprising.

And a President controlling an agency of his? Not exactly all that groundbreaking. I thought you were whining about him changing an already established law (far more of a valid claim).

All I was showing is the President acting in ways that Congress wouldn't. Not a very high bar. Neither is the President creating new laws or rules. If that's your standard, you can look to either Roosevelt or hell, even Bush.


Lincoln understood that the Federal government's power to end slavery in peacetime was limited by the Constitution, which before 1865, committed the issue to individual states.[14] Against the background of the American Civil War, however, Lincoln issued the Proclamation under his authority as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.[15] As such, he claimed to have the martial power to free persons held as slaves in those states that were in rebellion "as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion".[16] He did not have Commander-in-Chief authority over the four slave-holding states that were not in rebellion: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware, and so those states were not named in the Proclamation.[18] The fifth border jurisdiction, West Virginia, where slavery remained legal but was in the process of being abolished, was, in January 1863, still part of the legally recognized "reorganized" state of Virginia, based in Alexandria, which was in the Union (as opposed to the Confederate state of Virginia, based in Richmond).

The Emancipation Proclamation was never challenged in court.

It was never brought before Congress, it was a war Powers act. It only applied to states in rebellion.

Notice.. he didn't make all slaves free.

CONGRESS did that.

Controlling an agency is one thing... firing someone for following the law.. I'd LOVE to see that held up in court. And.. Immigration ~IS~ an already established law. Go figure. Also.. The massive changes he personally "mandated" into being in regards to the ACA.

It's funny how hard you fight this, I can't wait till a Republican is in office and you yell and scream how evil he is for using EO's to do things congress won't do.

Face it.. when it comes to EO's you are wrong, frankly.. the Constitutions really doesn't give the president EO powers really. It's just one of those things that the Supreme Court never gets involved in. It's just one of those.. "accepted" things.. you know... kinda like racism. Maybe we should nip it in the bud now, so it's not abused in the future... good luck tho.. because Every Politician wants it there for when their person is in office.

[Warriorbird]

It was never brought before Congress, it was a war Powers act. It only applied to states in rebellion.

Notice.. he didn't make all slaves free.

CONGRESS did that.

Controlling an agency is one thing... firing someone for following the law.. I'd LOVE to see that held up in court. And.. Immigration ~IS~ an already established law. Go figure. Also.. The massive changes he personally "mandated" into being in regards to the ACA.

It's funny how hard you fight this, I can't wait till a Republican is in office and you yell and scream how evil he is for using EO's to do things congress won't do.

Face it.. when it comes to EO's you are wrong, frankly.. the Constitutions really doesn't give the president EO powers really. It's just one of those things that the Supreme Court never gets involved in. It's just one of those.. "accepted" things.. you know... kinda like racism. Maybe we should nip it in the bud now, so it's not abused in the future... good luck tho.. because Every Politician wants it there for when their person is in office.

Let's see. Given as I was on this board for 4 years of a Republican President, let me know if I ever once complained about him using executive orders... Yep, that's right. You can't.

I'll give you the ACA. I think he's going to get overturned on that. Controlling his own agencies? Not gonna happen.

All I was illustrating were new laws created that Congress wouldn't have approved of. That's happened countless times.

Executive Departments were messed with by Presidents from the very beginning.

[Thondalar]

Face it.. when it comes to EO's you are wrong, frankly.. the Constitutions really doesn't give the president EO powers really. It's just one of those things that the Supreme Court never gets involved in. It's just one of those.. "accepted" things.. you know... kinda like racism. Maybe we should nip it in the bud now, so it's not abused in the future... good luck tho.. because Every Politician wants it there for when their person is in office.

Not only that, but if you'll read the actual text of most executive orders going back to Truman, you'll find that almost all of them of this nature reference laws already passed by congress that the executive order is modifying or clarifying...it's entirely unconstitutional for an executive order to create a new law. Roosevelt got away with the most overreaching EOs mainly because he pretty much appointed the entire Supreme Court and they were generally sympathetic to his causes, and gave him much greater leeway than any modern president would get. Any EO that actually had any teeth would almost certainly get shot down by either the SCOTUS or congress.

[Warriorbird]

Not only that, but if you'll read the actual text of most executive orders going back to Truman, you'll find that almost all of them of this nature reference laws already passed by congress that the executive order is modifying or clarifying...it's entirely unconstitutional for an executive order to create a new law. Roosevelt got away with the most overreaching EOs mainly because he pretty much appointed the entire Supreme Court and they were generally sympathetic to his causes, and gave him much greater leeway than any modern president would get. Any EO that actually had any teeth would almost certainly get shot down by either the SCOTUS or congress.

This is hardly true of all of them. Like you mentioned, Roosevelt and his cousin did some extraordinary things with them. It's almost impossible for Congress to shoot them down.

[Tgo01]

All I was illustrating were new laws created that Congress wouldn't have approved of. That's happened countless times.

Emancipation Proclamation is an example of something congress wouldn't have approved of? Didn't congress abolish slavery less than 2 years later? :/

[Warriorbird]

Emancipation Proclamation is an example of something congress wouldn't have approved of? Didn't congress abolish slavery less than 2 years later? :/

Lincoln had a lot of political ground to cover before that point. He realigned the entire political spectrum of the US.

[Thondalar]

This is hardly true of all of them. Like you mentioned, Roosevelt and his cousin did some extraordinary things with them. It's almost impossible for Congress to shoot them down.

H.R. 6726.

[Androidpk]

Emancipation Proclamation is an example of something congress wouldn't have approved of? Didn't congress abolish slavery less than 2 years later? :/

They evolved.

[Warriorbird]

H.R. 6726.

2/3rds is achievable, just rare.

[Jarvan]

Let's see. Given as I was on this board for 4 years of a Republican President, let me know if I ever once complained about him using executive orders... Yep, that's right. You can't.

I'll give you the ACA. I think he's going to get overturned on that. Controlling his own agencies? Not gonna happen.

All I was illustrating were new laws created that Congress wouldn't have approved of. That's happened countless times.

Executive Departments were messed with by Presidents from the very beginning.

There is a Major Difference between deciding what you are going to pay people under you, if there is discrimination allowed based on sexual choice or color, and saying 3 million people that came here illegally are legally allowed to be here. THEN give them money, driver's licenses, and health Insurance.. paid for by the LEGAL Residents.

Yeah.. TECHNICALLY Obama can tell his ICE people.. "Look the other way"... tho like I said.. I'd LOVE to see him fire someone for upholding the law.

He CAN'T tell states.. "Oh, those people are legal, I say so".

[Warriorbird]

There is a Major Difference between deciding what you are going to pay people under you, if there is discrimination allowed based on sexual choice or color, and saying 3 million people that came here illegally are legally allowed to be here. THEN give them money, driver's licenses, and health Insurance.. paid for by the LEGAL Residents.

Yeah.. TECHNICALLY Obama can tell his ICE people.. "Look the other way"... tho like I said.. I'd LOVE to see him fire someone for upholding the law.

He CAN'T tell states.. "Oh, those people are legal, I say so".

He can certainly direct ICE. I don't even think it'd even get struck down in this Republican court. The states are a different story, but that's what he has Federalism for.

[Jarvan]

He can certainly direct ICE. I don't even think it'd even get struck down in this Republican court. The states are a different story, but that's what he has Federalism for.

Yes, he can tell ICE agents to not deport people. Of course if they DO deport people, I doubt he could get away with firing them. Specially since right now.. his policy is not enforceable.

Btw... I am not sure....

Did Bush do an EO privatizing SS? I mean... He wanted Congress to pass the law, and they wouldn't. And Bush was Evil... right?

[Fallen]

Doesn't this already happen with other enforcement issues, like medical and recreational MJ laws? The president sets the tone on enforcement of those laws, or lack of them?

[Thondalar]

Did Bush do an EO privatizing SS? I mean... He wanted Congress to pass the law, and they wouldn't. And Bush was Evil... right?

He wouldn't have been able to. It would have been overturned just like Truman trying to Nationalize steel mills with an EO.

[ClydeR]

Republicans have decided to keep the homeland secure for one more week. That will give Obama time to reconsider and start deporting illegal Mexicans. If he doesn't, then whatever happens will be on him.

[Jarvan]

Doesn't this already happen with other enforcement issues, like medical and recreational MJ laws? The president sets the tone on enforcement of those laws, or lack of them?

Not deporting them.. yes. Giving them rights.. no. Altho the President is required to enforce the Laws of the Country. The fact that he, and other Presidents, feel they can ignore laws they don't like.. is rather insane.

What happens if the Next President decides he won't enforce any Drug laws at all? Or he thinks it's ok to dump toxic waste into lakes and rivers? The president can only choose to ignore laws as long as Congress, and to a greater extent the Supreme Court allow.

Also.. I don't know about you.. but I doubt a DEA agent will get fired if he busts someone on MJ charges in Colorado/Washington.(Hint DEA have Busted some MJ dispensaries https://www.vice.com/read/dea-ignores-state-laws-in-washington-raids-dispensaries ) BUT OH NO... Don't interfere with Obama's Amnesty.

Actually, the President is only legally allowed to not enforce laws he finds unconstitutional. Otherwise, Obama could ignore every single law if he wanted. If Congress passes a law, and he signs it, he is required to faithfully uphold it. if he doesn't want to, he has to Veto it, if the Veto is overruled, he is SOL. He can't just ignore it because he doesn't like it. That's not how the law works.

What Obama can do.. is say that ICE doesn't have the funding to deport everyone, so they will focus on individuals that are higher risk. Of course, Congress could try to give them more funding to deport more people, which Obama could just veto, or ignore as well. ~BUT~ Once again.. Obama can't then say that the people that came here Illegally are Legal. That is not part of his powers. He doesn't have the power to grant de facto citizenship on people at whim.

[Thondalar]

Not deporting them.. yes. Giving them rights.. no. Altho the President is required to enforce the Laws of the Country. The fact that he, and other Presidents, feel they can ignore laws they don't like.. is rather insane.

Hypothetically, according to the Constitution, purposely not upholding the laws of the Country is grounds for impeachment.

[Warriorbird]

Hypothetically, according to the Constitution, purposely not upholding the laws of the Country is grounds for impeachment.

All he needs to avoid it is words.

[Jarvan]

Hypothetically, according to the Constitution, purposely not upholding the laws of the Country is grounds for impeachment.

Which is pretty much impossible with the way our politics is so partisan.

He would have to be caught in a bed with 3 dead hookers, 1 of which is a 9 year old Asian boy, right after being filmed giving nuclear material to Iran, for Dems to vote to impeach him. Even then I wouldn't bet on it.

The ONLY time he can not uphold the laws is if the law is unconstitutional. I don't care how WB tries to spin it, he can't say that deporting illegals is unconstitutional, nor the immigration law itself.

Like.. you know.. Slavery.

[Warriorbird]

Which is pretty much impossible with the way our politics is so partisan.

He would have to be caught in a bed with 3 dead hookers, 1 of which is a 9 year old Asian boy, right after being filmed giving nuclear material to Iran, for Dems to vote to impeach him. Even then I wouldn't bet on it.

The ONLY time he can not uphold the laws is if the law is unconstitutional. I don't care how WB tries to spin it, he can't say that deporting illegals is unconstitutional, nor the immigration law itself.

Like.. you know.. Slavery.

I think it's stupid. I also think he'll get away with it.

[Jarvan]

All he needs to avoid it is words.

Yeah.. he can say his views have.... evolved. From when he claimed he didn't have the power to do what he says he can now.

[Wrathbringer]

I think it's stupid. I also think he'll get away with it.

Of course he will. We don't even prosecute war criminals in this country, let alone this mickey mouse kind of thing.

[Jarvan]

Of course he will. We don't even prosecute war criminals in this country, let alone this mickey mouse kind of thing.

Frankly, I think there is a decent chance the courts will overturn it.