There's an easy way to solve this: Republicans need to condemn Republican
president when they overreach, and Democrats need to do the same with Democratic
presidents. We don't do that, we complain about the other guy, but keep our
mouths shut when our guy does it.
"Is Obama overreaching with executive orders?"Uh...is this a
trick question? OK, I'll bite. YES!
“When a president can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to
ignore, he is no longer a president.”Please, Mr Cruz. Tell us
when was the last time that you feel we had a president?I am not
defending Obama or executive orders, but they have been going on since
presidents were elected. Saint Ronald used them quite often.Let me
guess. That was different.
I appreciate it when the Deseret News supplies opposing viewpoints on an issue
in its opinion section. Thanks.
Facts don't seem to be a part of this discussion, just I hat ObamaExecutive OrdersJimmy Carter Total 320 Ronald Reagan Total 381 George Bush Total 166 William J.
Clinton Total 364 George W. Bush Total 291 Barack Obama Total 168
"...Cynical power-grabbing is a bipartisan exercise...".As
in...It's ok when our elected cynical power-grabbers cynically
grab power...However...It's not ok when their
elected cynical power-grabbers cynically grab power...Exactly.
@pragmatistferlifesalt lake city, utahFacts don't seem to
be a part of this discussion, just I hate Obama.======= Agreed, Their hatred blurrs and ignores, truth, facts and all
reality.Thanks for the truth and evidence, but their hatred
runs deeper than all facts and reality combined.
Way to solve this? Just pass a constitutional amendment stating the president
is not allowed to issue executive orders. Problem solved. Make it retroactive
to say 25 years ago. That way we can get rid of the Grand Staircase Escalante
National Monument, and congress can create a national monument that makes sense.
Much smaller. Obama may have issued fewer executive orders but
remember, he is early in is second term. So Pragmatistforlife's comparison
is not accurate. W. Bush's come out to 145.5 a term. Obama has beaten
that by over 20.Not all Executive Orders issued by the president are
bad ones. Some are good.
Obama is using executive orders at the lowest per year rate of any President in
over a century. (FDR highest, George W. Bush was 2nd lowest).
Obama can raise the minimum wage (for Government workers) as he pleases because
he does not need to answer to a Board of Directors or Shareholders. When you are
the Imperial Ruler you answer to no one.
My executive orders are better than your executive orders. Mine are sensible and
moderate. Yours are outrageous and unconstitutional. And my dad can beat up your
dad, too. So there.
Flashback; GWB 173 first termBHO 168 first 5 years.Even if Obama wound up with some more than GWB, which it doesn't look
like, it still wouldn't be out of line with history.
@Flashback. Grand Staircase Escalante was not an executive order. It was a power
granted to the president to change federal land designation (from BLM, National
Forest, and other federal land into a National Monument or National Park) under
the Antiquities Act of 1906, passed by Congress under a Republican President,
Its NOT the number of orders,It is the quality of the orders. It is what he is ordering. From changing laws, to completely
disregarding passed laws.Don't fall in the deception of counts.
And truth would you like to enlighten us on what the GWB orders were..bet you
don't even know.
Don't kid yourself, if Obama said we need air to breath the Republicans
would say we don't.
What if the president pays no attention to the constitution that limits his
powers? We have that problem in the US with Obama so much so that even the
SCOTUS has promised to consider this problem and rule on the question. But given
the ridiculous rulings (Obamacare is a tax) in the recent past, I doubt the high
court will reign him in. He is totally unaccountable, can do whatever he wants,
spends money with no restrictions, change laws at his discretion and make
congress irrelevant with no repercussions; classic government out of control!
We already have a "Constitutional Amendment" that prohibits the
President from signing executive orders. It's right there in the
Constitution where every American can read it. Article I, Section 1: "All
legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United
States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."An executive order is legislation. It is a new law (order). The
President cannot legislate. He is forbidden to legislate. Our Constitutional
expert, Barrack Obama, is an expert on what he would like the Constitution to
say, not on what it does say. He took an oath of office where he told us that
he would defend and uphold the Constitution. He lied. Anyone who backs his
"authority" to legislate via executive orders also backs his abuse of
the Constitution. The Constitution protects the people from an
over-reaching government. Too many people join with Obama in tromping on the
graves of those who paid the ultimate price.
When George W. Bush pulled stuff, at least he typically got the Democrats in on
it first. Obama's been pushing for his own agenda since day one, labeling
anyone who doesn't think the same way he does as "obstructionist",
"backwards" or whatever other labels.If an analogy to
breathing is desireable, he's among those trying to tax the air, while
people won't listen to Republicans explain why taxing air is a bad idea.
@mike richards "The Constitution protects the people from an
over-reaching government. Too many people join with Obama in tromping on the
graves of those who paid the ultimate price."So then you condemn
both the bushes and reagan who all issued as many or more such orders?
Finally I agree with Roland Kayser on something (his first comment of the
day).I have no doubt things will devolve into partisan sniping and
just complaining only about the transgressions of the OTHER side eventually...
but I'm glad to see that it at least got off on the right foot.The problem is... the partisan-practice of letting our OWN guy get away with
anything, but complaining bitterly ONLY when the other side does it.We can now look at Bush in retrospective (and I think many Conservatives now
see his mistakes). The question is... how long will it take for Progressives
to see and acknowledge Obama's mistakes? Will it have to wait
till it's too late and he's out of office (like with Bush)? Or are
they smart enough to see it earlier than that? And even if they see it... will
they just play the usual partisan games with everything?Now on
reading the rest of the comments.
The thing is that it isn't necessarily the executive orders that are the
most damaging to the US economy. Through the Executive office the President can
influence regulation in their creation and their enforcement. This can be done
without an executive order.For example, a few years ago it was
reported that in 1 month Obama and his administration added enough regulations
that $9 billion was being sucked out of the economy just to meet the
It is a temptation for a strong personality to bypass opposition, even when it
avoids due Governmental process such as the Congress of the United States, the
Roman Senate, the Bundestag, etc.. History will judge whether we get a Lincoln,
a Caesar, or a Hitler. In any event, the danger is in the precedent. BTW, some
of the figures above are in disagreement.
The Person who issued the most executive orders was FDR, which included
concentration camps. Putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps. I feel
concentration camps will be coming again.
Anti Bush-ObamaChihuahua, 00The Person who issued the most executive
orders was FDR, which included concentration camps. Putting Japanese Americans
in concentration camps. I feel concentration camps will be coming again.12:23 p.m. Feb. 3, 2014========= If so, it will
be by those who are intolerant or disagree with others.With the
exception of FDR during WWII, History has shown them to be mostly from the
Well, given the obstructionist ideological partisan bought and paid for congress
that we now suffer with, this is one of a very few times when I believe that the
"end justifies the means".
Bush may have overused his Executive Orders too... but in the words of Hillary
Clinton... "What the HECK does that matter at this point"??I
don't remember the nature of Bush's executive orders. But it's
not the count that's important (IMO). It's the NATURE of the
executive orders.-IF they are for something urgent and acute and not
legislating... that's what Executive Orders are for. -IF it's
not legislation, and it's something that's in the Executive
branch's purview (not Congresses)... that's what the executive order
is for. -IF it's an emergency that needs emergency-action before
Congress will has time to address it... that's what the executive order is
for.But it's NOT for one man to pass his agenda over the
protests of Congress (even if they are just obstructing).The
Founding Fathers didn't want that. They wanted the Executive Branch to
have to work and compromise with Congress... not have power to run over them
with un-checked power for one man to overrule and legislate over Congressional
objections or just disregard or wipe aside their laws with Executive-Fiat power.
Reagan's executive orders? Good.Obama's executive orders? Bad.
LDS Liberal: "If so, it will be by those who are intolerant or disagree
with others"Just curious, but whose definition of
"intolerant" would be used? Which side of the arguments gets
interred?Seems to me that they way the courts are so rapidly
"legislating" changes in morality, the right are not the ones to worry