Quantcast

Comments about ‘President should not act without Congressional checks and balance’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 11 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "How many signing statements did Bush sign?"

157. Not 1,100.

James Monroe was the first to use one, and, they're still being used -- Obama has signed 18, after making a firm campaign promise [merely one of a myriad that have not been kept] not to sign any.

Sorry, but suggesting that a few signing statements are somehow the moral equivalent of cynically and for political advantage picking and choosing which laws to enforce; not defending our borders; abandoning our military, our diplomats, and allies; using EPA, IRS, FWS, ACOE, BATFE, NSA, and DOJ bureaucrats as a club to terrorize and bloody opponents; packing the executive bureaucracy and the courts with loyal and radical cronies; and enacting literally reams of executive legislation, is simply disingenuous.

2 bit
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Mike Richards,
You are right. There's SUPPOSED to be one branch that legislates (the legislative branch). Another branch that executes those laws (the executive branch), and another independent branch that determines if any law is unconstitutional (the judicial branch).

The problem today is... All 3 branches are trying to legislate.

Judges try to create new laws the never existed (but they think SHOULD exist) by creatively interpreting existing laws. The Executive branch thinks they can create/change/delay a law any time they want (without even consulting the actual Legislative branch).

IMO this is because Congress can't DO anything (partially due to political infighting, and also because they just don't know how to get anything done). So that branch of government is quickly become completely irrelevant. Congress has lost all their power. They are just a debate club now. They talk and talk but don't really do anything.

2 bit
Cottonwood Heights, UT

IMO Executive Orders should be reserved for "Emergencies" when there's not time to convene Congress. Not as and end-around to avoid the inconvenience of needing to debate and vote on it in Congress.

There are emergencies. 9/11 for instance, natural disasters, economic crisis, etc. But you don't resort to an Executive Order just because you don't want to be bothered with Congress or any opposition to your orders.

Executive orders should be very rare. I know they are not today (regardless of party or person in the Presidency). But it's not the way it was intended to be.

Congress represents the States and the People. They should get a vote.

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

I see nothing here that are more egregious than some of the acts of the last president from Illinois.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

re:Unreconstructed Reb

Barack is in a league of his own. No other past presidents come close to the outright disregard for the law that this man has. I suspect this all comes from Barack's favorite book - Rules For Radicals.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "I see nothing here that [is] more egregious than some of the acts of the last president from Illinois."

No doubt.

That doesn't mean there's nothing to see.

Liberals are so willfully and blissfully blind!

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

I wish we actually had the socialist president the red faced screamers claim we do. We could have proper health care by now, and maybe some sort of gun control.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Cheney used more unilateral power than Obama .

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments