Published: Sunday, Aug. 25 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Imagine a world where fox creates reality. I guess we dont have to imagine
"Sadly, this president has taken upon himself the power to determine which
laws he will deign to enforce."2 things. It is not
just "this president". Signing statements have been used by may
presidents, with G W Bush being the most prolific in history. Signing
statements do Exactly what you are railing against.Delaying parts of
the ACA is what the GOP has been pushing, and continues to push.Proving once again, If the Dems want to make the GOP scream about something,
give them what they ask for. They will do an immediate 180.
The Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations refused to enforce the Sherman
Anti-Trust Act. This allowed large national corporations to drive thousands of
local firms out of business. The Bush Jr. administration did not
enforce many environmental laws, or securities laws.No
administration in the last thirty years has enforced our country's labor
laws, which has allowed Corporate America to bust all the unions and kill worker
wages.Were you complaining about these cases.
These are executive orders. They're kinda annoying. But the thing about
them is... Obama has used 157 in 4.5 years. W. Bush used 291 in 8 years (so
they're at roughly the same pace). Clinton, 364 in 8 years. Bush 166 in 4
years. Reagan 381 in 8 years. But hey, at least it's not like
Coolidge (1203 in 8 years) or FDR (3522 in 13 years). In fact Obama is using
them at a pace roughly the lowest per year in a century.
It's totally okay to be upset with this type of thing... personally I think
it's used more than it should. However, pretending this is only an Obama
thing is either wrong or dishonest, depending on whether one knows better.
Thank you Mr. Fillerup! We will now hear the Deseret News comments that
will try and dispute what you have said. I fear for this nation and for
what this president is doing to it.You can imagine if this was Pres Bush
we would hear screaming all over about this usurpation of power.I pray our
country is protected and can whether this presidency.
Delaying the ACA is not what most of American wants, getting rid of it is!
I have not seen a poll (or do not recall) that asks Americans"would you like to repeal Obamacare in favor of what we had before"I suspect that the public would be strongly opposed to that.Yet, the "repeal and replace" GOP has yet to pen replacement
legislation.If they would offer a better solution, I think most
(including me) would give it a fair look.
"We will now hear the Deseret News comments that will try and dispute what
you have said."Already done, star bright, look at the comments
above yours. They have already blown the letter writers argument out of the
water. Done. "You can imagine if this was Pres Bush we would
hear screaming all over about this usurpation of power."He did
do it. Seems like there wasn't that much screaming, you sure didn't
hear about it. Or at least you choose to ignore it in your zeal to attack this
president and fret about whether this country can weather this president. "Imagine the chaos that would ensue if individual citizens or
corporations began to pick and choose which laws they thought were just.
"But we do just that all the time. Every time you break traffic
laws, or don't follow "antiquated" laws dealing with you intimate
life, or don't follow exactly housing codes. Businesses push the law all
the time looking for tax loopholes and the like. There was a
governor that ordered the extermination of Mormons. Shoot on sight, I believe.
Should that law have been followed? Or ignored?
The Obama administration issued a new policy Friday that says immigration agents
should try not to arrest and deport illegal immigrant parents of minor children.
The move adds to the categories of people the administration is trying not to
deport.ICE agents and officers sued to block the policies, but a
federal judge in Texas last month turned down their case. The judge said they
were probably correct in arguing that the law requires them to arrest illegal
immigrants, but he said he didn’t have jurisdiction since it was a matter
for collective bargaining, not for the courts.
We have one President at a time. The time to discuss Obama is now. The time to
blame other Presidents is in the past. Those who have no possible way to
condone Obama's failure to faithfully execute the laws that his oath of
office requires of him will mimic him and try to divert his failure by blaming
others. His declaration that "The buck stops with me" is just one more
failure to perform his duty.Those who compare his rhetoric with his
actions don't waste time listening to his grad schemes; they know that he
will do what he wants regardless of the limitations imposed on him by the
Supreme Law of the Land.
Mike,What you are saying is that we should ignore history and
precedence. We should treat each occurrence as unique and reinterpret case law
to fit a definition that has been disproved many times. Stating that
the buck stops with him is a failure? Typically most people look at that
responsibility in a positive light. Would you like the President to not take
responsibility? This myopic partisan talk is a cancer that erodes at
the soul of America.
“Imagine the chaos that would ensue if individual citizens or corporations
began to pick and choose which laws they thought were just.”Sort of like what churches are doing.
"The Obama administration has relaxed mandated work requirements for welfare
despite a federal law to the contrary."And that's not true
either. He followed through on a change that doesn't relax requirements
that was requested by several governors including Governor Herbert. You might be
familiar with him.
"We have one President at a time. The time to discuss Obama is now. The time
to blame other Presidents is in the past."No, Mike Richards, I
refuse to live in the same vacuum it seems you want to. I will not pretend that
history began in Janurary, 2009. I will not try to understand events that are
happening today without an understanding of what has happened before. If you
choose to live with blinders on that is your choice; I choose to see the world
as it is. And I will not sit by while others criticize this
president for doing the exact same thing previous presidents have done. I will
not pretend that he is the first to have done it and I will not be muzzled by
you or your ilk. -So Vickie, your complaint is that this president
refuses to see young people that have only known life in this country torn up
and sent to a foreign country that they have zero ties to? Your complaint is
that this president does not think families should be torn apart?
"Obama has directed OPM to pay special subsidies for the health insurance of
congressional staff even though the law expressly forbids this."WrongCongress and Congressional Staffers are the ONLY large employer
required to buy insurance from the exchanges. Since the exchanges are for
people NOT covered by employer insuance, the law is silent on "employer
contributions." The law doesn't spell out how Congress buys insurance
through the exchanges, leaving much to interpretation.
So where is the proof? What are the crimes that have been committed by our
president? What charges have been filed to bring him to trial?All
we get from the republicans and their conservative friends are: I think, I feel,
it looks like, where was the president at night, Bengazi was Obama’s
fault. Now they want Obama to go to war because some people believe a video is
VickieBI must admit that I am rather confused. Obama announced a
policy Friday, but a judge ruled against agents trying to block the policy last
@mark "Should that law have been followed? Or ignored?"Those
aren't our only alternatives. Unjust laws may be repealed, and they may be
struck down by the courts. We have legal means available to remove them.Obama also has legal means available. If the president wants to change a
law, the Constitution gives him power to "recommend to [Congress's]
Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." It
doesn't authorize him to blatantly ignore the law, nor to unilaterally
rewrite it. In fact, it assigns him the duty to "take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed."Obama's lawlessness violates
fundamental principles. If our president is not bound by the rule of law, then
we are not citizens, but subjects.
Imagine the chaos that would ensue if individual citizens or corporations began
to pick and choose which laws they thought were just. Yet this is precisely what
our president has done, and the precedent he is setting could become fatal to
our nation.Steve Fillerup========I'll
remember that silly one-liner and LOL each and everytime these same
"Holier-than-thous" scream past me on I-15 and cutting me off for
obeying, honoring, and sustaining the laws of the land.Hypocrites...
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments