Quote from: walkstall on February 18, 2017, 12:33:58 PM
The MSM is starting to be cheap entertainment.   

I started back in the mid-60s. It's been dark-humor giggles ever since.

*snork!*

Quote from: topside on February 18, 2017, 09:30:10 PM
snip

...It's another topic probably, but how did the Executive Orders slip in. It seems against the ideas of the republic - change things one way or the other with the swipe of a pen by one person. Is it that the EOs were introduced by some trying to undermine the republic and continue to be misused by all involved. Shouldn't that instrument be shut down by our leadership who claim to defend the republic ... not just use it for their own purposes? Don't answer that if you don't want to ... I should do a little digging on that topic.

Executive orders have become a hot topic in the last decade or so.  But the thing is, EOs have technically existed from day one. The central job of the executive branch of government is to enforce the laws passed by congress. So, for example, congress passes a law which restricts the use of left handed blivets. In the law, there is a section which places the FBI in charge of making sure all left handed blivets are used accoridng to the safety protocols outlined in the law. So now it is up to the President to tell the FBI how he wants them to distribute their resources in order to comply with the enforcement part of that law. That set of instructions given the FBI from the President (usually routed through the appropriate cabinet member) are executive orders. In fact, technically, any time the president tells a staff member, cabinet head, or other person working under the executive department, to do something, he is issuing and executive order. Some orders, due to their complexity or importance, will be carefully drafted in proper language by the president's legal staff and then signed for verification. Those orders are the ones the media loves to play "misinformation week" with. (with the type of misinformation distributed depending on whether the order is good for, or contrary to their agenda....)

The vast majority of EOs (or XOs as some people use) are perfectly legitimate: a redistribution of manpower, authority to purchase materials as outlined in the relevant law, etc.  Even the O, for all his tendency to act more like an emperor than a president isues far, far more legitimate EOs and otherwise.

Where EOs run off the track intended for their use is when an EO issues an order to a federal agency that goes beyond any established law.  When O ordered the EPA to issue new regulations on use of coal in energy production, he was usurping power from the congress by bypassing the laws the EPA is working under. Under the environmental law, as written, congress did allow the EPA authority to issue such regulations as it needed to address the law. (Meaning congress got lazy and unconstitutionally handed off part of their own authority to the executive branch.)  The O used that (unconstitutional) loophole to attack the use of coal in a way that would never have flown if it had to go through congress. When the O used EOs to alter the deadlines for certain aspects of the ACA, he was in direct violation of the very law he championed, as well as the constitution. But, of course, the media, congress, and many others turned a blind eye to that particular fact because they knew if the deadlines were enforced as written, O-care would have blown up before the O could secure his second term. Another instance of misuse of EO's came when the O decided to issue his bathroom mandate to public schools.  WAY over the line with that one (even while the media praised it and didn't bother to question the level of authority being usurped.) And I'll just mention in passing his use of EOs to refuse to enforce immigration law.

The kinds of actions taken by "I have a pen!" Barrack Hussein Obama - tyrant wannabe - have given EOs a black eye as no president preceding him every dreamed of doing.  But we need to keep in mind that the president could literally do nothing if he could not issue ANY EOs.

Bottom line: EOs are simply the label placed on actions taken by the President when he issues commands to his staff in order to carry out the functions of the executive branch. The vast majority of EOs issued, even by progs, are perfectly legitimate.  The problem arises when an EO issued changes any aspect of the law, or adds authority to the law, or refuses to enforce the law. Then they are bypassing the role of Congress, which is, by definition, unconstitutional.

Quote from: zewazir on February 19, 2017, 09:44:06 AM
Executive orders have become a hot topic in the last decade or so.  But the thing is ...

Thank you for this explanation.