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...
ENOUGH! I say with all the "Obama is the worst President in History",
malarkey.If Obama sent in Federal Troops, under "Executive
Order" like James Buchanan did in 1857 - then you might have something to be
afraid other than your own boogieman under the bed shadows.BTW -
Buchanan felt the Mormons in Utah were starting a Rebellion.Perhaps the
current President might be closing than I'm willing to admit?...
Joe Blow, repealing Obama care to have what we did before? Just what did we
have before? I don't need Obama care to determine what my doctor does for
me. If I don't want insurance, I shouldn't be forced to buy it. If
I'm young and only want a catastrophic policy, it should be my choice to
purchase it or not. The company that I work for has offered me great coverage
at a reasonable price over the last many years. The problem? The last two
years since ObamaCare was passed, the cost of my coverage has gone up and my
coverage options have gone down. I never used to have a deductible. Now I do.
I used to have 100% coverage. No more. In talking to my doctor, he states that
due to the mandates of the new law, he spends as much time on Federally mandated
paperwork as he does seeing patients.You want to improve health
care? Go to a fee for service system where insurance is not involved meaning
allowing me to negotiate with my doctor. Get the lawyers out of the way. Let
them sue when it is actually warranted and appropriate.
Ok LDS Liberal. I'll agree with you. Obama isn't the worst president
in history but he is in the top two. His incompetence is only overshadowed by
his ego which doesn't allow him to admit that he doesn't have a clue
what he is going. His constant campaign tours is proof that it is all about
him. He ought to stay in the White House and actually try to work with people
from both sides of the aisle to try to accomplish something instead of ruling by
fiat.By the way, the worst president? Carter of course. But Barry
is not far behind.
Too many people think that an oath means nothing. They think that giving your
word no longer means anything. They think that being responsible is something
that died with their grandparents. They, just like Obama, look for someone or
something to blame.Obama told us, "The buck stops with me"
and then he told us that the Republicans were the cause of all our problems.
There is no excuse for the CEO of America to ever pass the buck. Those who have taken an oath have no excuse to not keep that oath. Failure is
not an option when your title is "Mr. President".
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahThose who have taken an oath
have no excuse to not keep that oath. Failure is not an option when your title
is "Mr. President".5:14 p.m. Aug. 25, 2013=====I took my oath. Dec. 03, 1978and I take it very seriously.It's why I fight guys like you who seek to force righteousness and push
to take away Freedom of Choice, Free Agency, and trample everything the
Constitution stands for.And you?When did you take the
"@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."This is true, Nate. But in the specific example I mention,
should have that law been followed, or ignored? Remember, executive order 44 was
a legal order issued by Boggs. The state legislator would not hear an appeal by
Mormon leaders, therefore the order stood. Militia leaders followed the order.
Are you saying they were right to follow the order? One non-mormon militia
leader, General David Atchison, a militia general as well as well known
legislator refused to follow the law and would not take part in any actions
against Mormons. Are you saying he was in the wrong? Or how about
Rosa Parks, or the Greensboro Four who sat at a whites only lunch counter in a
woolsworth in Selma. These people were ignoring the law. Are you saying they
MarkChildren at 18 are adults, they are responsibility if they
don't follow the law, and correct things. Demanding we change the laws so
they don't have to take responsibility is wrong. They are citizens of their
parents country, and if the family is deported, their ties are still with them.
Their parents came here without ties, why can't they do the same thing? The
majorities culture followed them here. MoliterManusObama
gave the adults here, brought by their parents as children, a two year waiver.
He told ICE not to arrest or deport anyone who fit the criteria. ICE sued, the
law tells them to deport people, and Obama is telling them to ignore the law.
The judge ruled they were probably correct, but it was not a legal issue, but a
collective bargaining issue. I think his reason is very questionable. Then last Friday, Obama added parents of children, to the list of people he
doesn't want deported. Obama making decisions that belong to Congress on
such a hot button issue does not help the cause. He is showing he is ignoring
all enforcement laws. Immigration reform won't change that.
L Liberal,Obama used his "free choice" to run for office.
He used his "free choice"to to take the oath of office. He is now under
oath to execute the laws. If he believes that his "law" is superior to
the Supreme Law of the Land then he has the free choice to leave office. He
cannot break his oath without rejecting everything that is required of those who
hold that office.Do think that a President of YOUR church would ever
break his oath? Why would you excuse Obama for breaking his oath?
@mark "But in the specific example I mention, should have that law been
followed, or ignored?"In the specific example you mention, the
right thing to do was to ignore the law. But an important distinction lies in
the reasons for ignoring it. This is where your comparison breaks down.The Extermination Order was not only unconstitutional, it was downright evil.
Contrast this with Obama's reasons for disobeying the law. In the case of
Obamacare, he can't say it's unconstitutional or evil. He was the one
who pushed for it, and signed it into law. Obama's disobedience to
Obamacare has nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with politics.
It's his best shot at avoiding embarrassment to himself and to his party
before the next midterm elections.It's the same with other laws
he ignores. He never explain his disobedience by citing any constitutional
objections. He simply does what he wants, and defies anyone to hold him
You know, I get really tired of all the hate I see aimed at the president of the
nation by those whose only desire, apparently, is to destroy the man rather than
offer solutions to our problems. Let's hear something constructive,
conservatives. Whining is so ineffective.
Funny how Bush's executive orders, that amend previous orders, or interject
in union/management labor negotiations etc., some how equate to Obama's
orders to not follow deportation laws, and and change healthcare law
implementation so his party is more favorable in next election!As
for the GOP coming up with a "more favorable legislation" on healthcare,
they have done it. It's called repeal obamacare! Funny how democrats were
not held to the same standard when they forced this legislation down the
Actually nate, my comment wasn't comparing President Obama's actions
to those involving the general. I was responding to this comment: "Imagine the chaos that would ensue if individual citizens or corporations
began to pick and choose which laws they thought were just. "I
was pointing out that most people do already choose to ignore the law, and
sometimes it is the right thing to do. But to the discussion of
President Obama, you mention Obamacare implementation and you apply motives to
why you think he is not implementing a part of it. But you are just guessing
that politics is the reason. You are making it up. I understand that it is
because there are some bugs that are needing to be worked out in that area. But
whatever the reason, if the Republicans want it implemented right away, why
don't they force the issue in court? As far as immigration,
perhaps Obama sees an unjust law that tears families apart and uproots young
people that have never known anything other then this country. It seems he is
standing on principle, quite like General Atchison when he refused to
participate in the expulsion of a people.
Wanda, is it "hate" to tell the President that he needs to understand
his job description? His job is very simple. He is to execute the laws passed
by Congress. If he thinks that a law should not be enforced, he should have his
attorney general file a suit against that law and then let the Court determine
whether that law is constitutional. Unless the Court rules against that law,
the President is required by his oath of office to fully execute that law.
Politics must not be part of his decision on which laws or what parts of laws he
executes.He is trying to ignore parts of the law that he wanted
passed. His administration used fraud and deceit to get ObamaCare passed.
Bribes were offered (Louisiana purchase, Nebraska exemption, union exemption).
Rules were broken. Debate was restricted.He wanted ObamaCare. His
DUTY is to enforce that law completely or to ask the Court to declare that it is
unconstitutional. The Court said that it is a tax. Obama can remind the Court
that health-care is not on the enumerated list of taxes that can be levied.
Holy moley...what are D news readers going to do when Hillary is elected our
To "LDS Liberal" but what James Buchanan did in 1857 was constitutional.
Yes it was stupid, but it is constitutional.Where in the
Constitution does it allow the Federal Government to spy on its citizens without
a warrent?Where in the Constitution does it allow the President or
other officials to indefinately detain its citizens?Where does the
constitution allow the Federal Government to purchase businesses?Obama has been trampling the Constitution and our liberties without little
resisitance from the media and your ilk. How much longer until you wake up and
realize that liberal politicians in both parties have sold the US for their own
gain?You should also realize that Obama and all of the policies that
you love the most from him are exactly what you say you fight against. They are
forcing you to be good. They take away your agency.
@mark "I understand that it is because there are some bugs that are needing
to be worked out in that area."Yes. Bugs that would be --1) embarrassing2) to Obama3) and his party4) just
before midterm elections.Those are political considerations, and
none of them are made up. If Obama is basing his multiple delays on any high
principle, he has not articulated it."But whatever the reason,
if the Republicans want it implemented right away, why don't they force the
issue in court?You'll have to ask them. I'm not a
Republican. The question I have is, why has Obama not gone to Congress to ask
them to amend the law, and why has he chosen instead to act outside his
I make a distinction in my mind between Presidential "Signing
Statements" and Executive Orders. Signing statements allow the President to
discuss his misgivings about a bill before signing it, and even stating his/her
intentions for executing it. Executive Orders that literally change existing
law are usurping Legislative privilege, and should be considered
unconstitutional. Most of the examples supplied in this article or
in the comments deal with instructions for executing or ignoring laws, and I
think that this is a perogative of the Executive Branch. In the same way that
Congress can unfund a President's power to conduct a declared war, a
President can choose not to execute a law passed by Congress. In such
instances, separation of powers continue to exist. However, Ccongress cannot
stop the President from using the military to protect the country, and the
President cannot rewrite legislation that is the law of the land.
Gmlewis made an interesting observation by writing, "a President can choose
not to execute a law passed by Congress." That statement caused
me to spend several hours Googling the thoughts of others about whether the
President has the right to refuse to enforce laws passed by Congress. There is a
paper written by Abner J. Mikva, who was council to President Clinton, entitled
"PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO DECLINE TO EXECUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
STATUTES".In that paper, he explained that the President has no
obligation to enforce laws that the President believes are unconstitutional.
(Mr. Mikva was Chief Judge on the D.C. Circuit. Mikva became Obama's
political advisor and suggested he learn more effective public speaking from
observing preachers.)So, when a Chief Judge, who is a staunch
Democrat and an advisor to Obama, tells us that the only time a President has
the right to refuse to enforce a law passed by Congress is when that President
thinks that the law is unconstitutional, what does that mean when Obama refuses
to enforce ObamaCare? Does Obama think that ObamaCare is unconstitutional?
Steve:"Imagine the chaos that would ensue if individual citizens
or corporations began to pick and choose which laws they thought were
just."Isn't that exactly what the photographer in NM did?
That Hobby Lobby is doing? That the bakers and florists who are refusing to
provide their services to gay couples are doing did?Ah, the view you
printed is only half the story.
To "RanchHand" tell us which you are to obey when laws conflict with the
Constitution?Civil rights laws say that you cannot discriminate in
who you serve, but the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof".Tell us which law you obey when US law says that you
must do something that goes against the way you exercise your religion.Which is the Supreme law of the land?