Quote from: topside on February 24, 2017, 06:23:59 AM
Fair question. I was going by second-hand smoke as it's kinda time consuming to gather the support. But I like the question and want to work it a bit ... but have other things to do this morning. I'll post an update later this afternoon.

Translation: run.

Quote from: quiller on February 25, 2017, 05:02:55 AM
Translation: run.

No - I didn't run. You should have seen the data I promised earlier via the link - the link was working from my browser. I agree that I need to put a summary behind it rather than hoping the table speaks for itself.

If you would have read more carefully, you would have noted a Solar flare and then I was in the penalty box for a day. Hopefully he'll let me work my post - still have a technical issue that I can't figure - but working it.

Quote from: topside on February 25, 2017, 03:08:57 PM
No - I didn't run. You should have seen the data I promised earlier via the link - the link was working from my browser. I agree that I need to put a summary behind it rather than hoping the table speaks for itself.

If you would have read more carefully, you would have noted a Solar flare and then I was in the penalty box for a day. Hopefully he'll let me work my post - still have a technical issue that I can't figure - but working it.

  Solar is the nice one when asking a person to back up their data with facts.  Remember when you post something be set to back it up when ask.  AND people will be ask on this board.    

Quote from: Solar on February 24, 2017, 02:52:41 PM
You don't want to back up your claims? Fine, take a timeout.

Maybe when you come back, you will have an answer.
What you fail to understand, is when called on to support extreme claims, you either admit it was a stupid thing to say, or back it up, instead, you danced around and put the onus on me to do your work for you, but you see, I didn't make the ridiculous claim that Trump broke the law, you did, and it's incumbent on you to back up your claims!

So take 24 hours to think about it, then decide whether you want to continue this nonsensical BS or admit it was a stupid thing to say.

I'm just finishing my data out better Solar. I'll query you after this offline whether you want me to stay or not and will follow your advice. I understand the pecking order on this site. You seem to have the groups authority to make such decisions, so let's discuss that after this thread winds up a little.

Ok. I figured out how to post the image finally. Had to resort to a .jpg and not an .html from Fotki. There's probably a way to work the .html files, but I couldn't figure it.



So I took most of the data in this table from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Donald_Trump

There is a thirteenth Trump EO posted now, but I didn't go pick it up.

I was not claiming that Trump is doing anything illegal. He isn't doing anything different that BO did with the OEs. I mentioned the CYA in the EOs so they are not illegal by the lawyer's definition. Although the interesting question is who would make a decision if one were out of bounds since it's the executive branch that enforces such things. I guess that's where the courts come into play (judicial)? Anyway, Trumps EOs are certainly not illegal since BOs weren't. 

Now, I'm asking a different question. I'm asking whether Trump's EOs content are appropriately addressed under the executive branch - not just by the letter of the EO.

To examine the question, I created the last two columns of the table - it's my data that is only available on my FOTKI site. It's not ingenious or anything - just an opinion that I wanted to fish to see how others see it.

Here's where the discussion gets real. I made a call whether the content of each EO should be an executive action or whether another branch should lead on the topic. There are six of the twelve that are unquestionably Executive functions and one I'm unsure of (infrastructure) that is traditionally under executive influence.

Then there are four that I suggest should probably be handled by the Legislative branch. I'm not accusing Trump of doing anything illegal - again, he isn't doing anything more or less than BO. I'm just question whether the content of the EO should be handled under another branch.

There is one EO that I scanned and I have no idea what it's about: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13775 That's not the main topic, cut fill me in if you want to.

Again, I'm happy to see Trump countering BO's terrible EOs. I think he can go with this for awhile, but, as others expressed, also think the EOs should return to their (executive) lane in the future - in both word and intent.

So, the interesting discussion is whether the topics are more relevant to Executive or Legislative branches. I'm pretty sure some will not agree and I'm interested in the rationale.

Now, Solar asked me to bring up one EO as an example to support discussion - I think. So here's is one example:

13770 - Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch: Basically that no executive agency appointee will take a lobbying job within five years (among other aspects).

If you look at the entire EO (link below) you will see the CYA lawyer crap at the bottom. So this EO is legal by definition. If anything violates the executive privileged, it's disallowed by that language. But I suggest that this EO is not about enforcing the law, but rather making a law. So it more appropriately should be addressed by the Legislative branch.

So that's one example. The others follow similarly.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13770

QuoteI understand the pecking order on this site. You seem to have the groups authority to make such decisions,

Solar own this site.  IF there is a pecking order on this board then it's Solar, taxed and then the members.   

Quote from: topside on February 25, 2017, 03:56:01 PM
Now, I'm asking a different question. I'm asking whether Trump's EOs content are appropriately addressed under the executive branch - not just by the letter of the EO.

To answer that question you need to read the actual EO, so you know what orders are being given.

Remember, the original and legitimate purpose of an EO is to give instruction to the members of the executive branch of government, basically telling them how to go about enforcing the laws for which their agency is responsible for. When an EO crosses the line and loses its legitimacy under executive authority is when the EO actually changes the law itself - NOT if it merely changes how the law is enforced. After all, how the law is enforced IS an executive function. One direct example of Obama's EOs failing legitimacy were all the times his EOs changed the implementation dates of certain aspects of the ACA. Those implementation dates were written into the law, and Obama unilaterally changed those dates.

So, let's look at EO 13765, titled "Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal".

QuoteBy the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  It is the policy of my Administration to seek the prompt repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), as amended (the "Act").  In the meantime, pending such repeal, it is imperative for the executive branch to ensure that the law is being efficiently implemented, take all actions consistent with law to minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens of the Act, and prepare to afford the States more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market.

This is basically a declaratory statement stating the intent of Trump's administration to seek a repeal of the ACA.  See anything in there which even implies it might try to change the law itself?

QuoteSec. 2.  To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies (agencies) with authorities and responsibilities under the Act shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.

Sec. 3.  To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the Act, shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to provide greater flexibility to States and cooperate with them in implementing healthcare programs.

Sec. 4.  To the maximum extent permitted by law, the head of each department or agency with responsibilities relating to healthcare or health insurance shall encourage the development of a free and open market in interstate commerce for the offering of healthcare services and health insurance, with the goal of achieving and preserving maximum options for patients and consumers.

Sec. 5.  To the extent that carrying out the directives in this order would require revision of regulations issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, the heads of agencies shall comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable statutes in considering or promulgating such regulatory revisions.

Note how this section is worded. It is giving instruction to the Secretary of HHS and others who are given "authority and responsibilities" under ACA to act WITHIN THE LAW ("exercise all authority and discretion available to them") to grant whatever waivers and exemptions the law allows to minimize harmful economic impacts from the ACA and/or harm caused by repealing the ACA.  But nothing there CHANGES how the law is implemented - it just changes the focus from forcing people follow ACA mandates regardless of how it impacts people, to finding as many loopholes as possible to minimize any harmful impacts. This is well within the authority of the executive brach of government, even though it does directly address a law written by the legislative branch.  No need for examining the effect of what you describe as the "CYA" section, since nothing in the order asks any member of the executive branch to violate nor alter anything in the ACA.

Let's look at EO 13766.

QuoteBy the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. Infrastructure investment strengthens our economic platform, makes America more competitive, creates millions of jobs, increases wages for American workers, and reduces the costs of goods and services for American families and consumers. Too often, infrastructure projects in the United States have been routinely and excessively delayed by agency processes and procedures. These delays have increased project costs and blocked the American people from the full benefits of increased infrastructure investments, which are important to allowing Americans to compete and win on the world economic stage. Federal infrastructure decisions should be accomplished with maximum efficiency and effectiveness, while also respecting property rights and protecting public safety and the environment. To that end, it is the policy of the executive branch to streamline and expedite, in a manner consistent with law, environmental reviews and approvals for all infrastructure projects, especially projects that are a high priority for the Nation, such as improving the U.S. electric grid and telecommunications systems and repairing and upgrading critical port facilities, airports, pipelines, bridges, and highways.

Sec. 2. Identification of High Priority Infrastructure Projects. With respect to infrastructure projects for which Federal reviews and approvals are required, upon request by the Governor of a State, or the head of any executive department or agency (agency), or on his or her own initiative, the Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) shall, within 30 days after a request is made, decide whether an infrastructure project qualifies as a "high priority" infrastructure project. This determination shall be made after consideration of the project's importance to the general welfare, value to the Nation, environmental benefits, and such other factors as the Chairman deems relevant.

Sec. 3. Deadlines. With respect to any project designated as a high priority under section 2 of this order, the Chairman of the CEQ shall coordinate with the head of the relevant agency to establish, in a manner consistent with law, expedited procedures and deadlines for completion of environmental reviews and approvals for such projects. All agencies shall give highest priority to completing such reviews and approvals by the established deadlines using all necessary and appropriate means. With respect to deadlines established consistent with this section that are not met, the head of the relevant agency shall provide a written explanation to the Chairman explaining the causes for the delay and providing concrete actions taken by the agency to complete such reviews and approvals as expeditiously as possible.

So, here Trump sets up a hierarchy whose purpose is to determine if an infrastructure project is to be considered "high priority". Then it requires those involved under it to expedite any and all environmental impact statements and reviews as much as possible. Again, no where does it change any law which requires environmental reviews or other bureaucratic red tape, but simply requires those involved in the process to examine those processes and make sure they delay the implementation of a "high priority" project as little as possible. Note, Trump (and his legal team) are careful to refer to perform their duties under this EO "in a manner consistent with law."

EO 13770:
While I can see the source of your confusion here, Trump is not writing a law with regard to prohibiting people from engaging in lobbying. What he wrote is the requirement for an employment CONTRACT for all who work under him in the executive branch, in which people assigned to positions within the executive branch AGREE to refrain from obtaining lobbying positions for a specified length of time after they leave their appointed office. The contract is required as a condition of their employment. Such contracts are not unusual in the business world (and Trump's IS a business man), and have been upheld as legally binding under multiple circumstances.

So your first three questioned EOs turn out to be well within the legitimate authority of the President - and WITHOUT resorting to the "CYA" sections.

Quote from: topside on February 25, 2017, 03:56:01 PM
I'm just finishing my data out better Solar. I'll query you after this offline whether you want me to stay or not and will follow your advice. I understand the pecking order on this site. You seem to have the groups authority to make such decisions, so let's discuss that after this thread winds up a little.

Ok. I figured out how to post the image finally. Had to resort to a .jpg and not an .html from Fotki. There's probably a way to work the .html files, but I couldn't figure it.

You got a timeout because you made the claim that Trump was misusing EO, in other words you claimed he was breaking the law, and this stuff you posted is in no way illegal or unconstitutional.
You should have just said you misspoke and moved on instead of doubling down on stupid.

QuoteSo I took most of the data in this table from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Donald_Trump

Just so you know, WIKI is a lousy source and generally dismissed as opinion.

QuoteI was not claiming that Trump is doing anything illegal.

Yes you did, that's why you got a timeout, you made a claim and refused to back it up.

Quote from: topside on February 23, 2017, 09:38:06 AM
Yeah - it's like a cheap sugar high that should eventually go back to how it's supposed to be used. But it's sure refreshing to see it misused as a correction -  for things that improve the republic instead of being misused to slowly auger us into the ground as happened the past eight years under BO's watch.

QuoteHe isn't doing anything different that BO did with the OEs. I mentioned the CYA in the EOs so they are not illegal by the lawyer's definition. Although the interesting question is who would make a decision if one were out of bounds since it's the executive branch that enforces such things. I guess that's where the courts come into play (judicial)? Anyway, Trumps EOs are certainly not illegal since BOs weren't. 

You really need to check yourself when you state an opinion in conclusion of fact, as in "CYA", much in the way you used "Misuse' as a claim of fact and got called on it.
Let this be a learning moment.

QuoteNow, I'm asking a different question. I'm asking whether Trump's EOs content are appropriately addressed under the executive branch - not just by the letter of the EO.

It's referenced under Constitutional law.

QuoteTo examine the question, I created the last two columns of the table - it's my data that is only available on my FOTKI site. It's not ingenious or anything - just an opinion that I wanted to fish to see how others see it.

Convoluted and incomplete.

QuoteHere's where the discussion gets real. I made a call whether the content of each EO should be an executive action or whether another branch should lead on the topic. There are six of the twelve that are unquestionably Executive functions and one I'm unsure of (infrastructure) that is traditionally under executive influence.

Then there are four that I suggest should probably be handled by the Legislative branch. I'm not accusing Trump of doing anything illegal - again, he isn't doing anything more or less than BO. I'm just question whether the content of the EO should be handled under another branch.

Try being a bit more specific and give reference to your question. I have no idea what you're talking about.

QuoteThere is one EO that I scanned and I have no idea what it's about: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13775 That's not the main topic, cut fill me in if you want to

.
Isn't this when the Dims were blocking his AG selection, so Trump gave full authority to the acting AG to fulfill their duties just as if they had been appointed.

QuoteAgain, I'm happy to see Trump countering BO's terrible EOs. I think he can go with this for awhile, but, as others expressed, also think the EOs should return to their (executive) lane in the future - in both word and intent.

Using EO's to uddo bad EO by the previous resident is SOP, trump is not doing anything out of the ordinary.
You really need to turn off the TV and form your own opinions.

QuoteSo, the interesting discussion is whether the topics are more relevant to Executive or Legislative branches. I'm pretty sure some will not agree and I'm interested in the rationale.

It's a sad commentary that the GOP did nothing to stop the Marxist when they had the power, which is why TRump is stuck undoing all this bull shit.

Now, Solar asked me to bring up one EO as an example to support discussion - I think. So here's is one example:

13770 - Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch: Basically that no executive agency appointee will take a lobbying job within five years (among other aspects).

QuoteIf you look at the entire EO (link below) you will see the CYA lawyer crap at the bottom. So this EO is legal by definition. If anything violates the executive privileged, it's disallowed by that language. But I suggest that this EO is not about enforcing the law, but rather making a law. So it more appropriately should be addressed by the Legislative branch.

So that's one example. The others follow similarly.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13770

Bad title
The requested page title contains invalid characters: "]".

Return to Main Page.

Quote from: walkstall on February 25, 2017, 04:03:56 PM
Solar own this site.  IF there is a pecking order on this board then it's Solar, taxed and then the members.   

There's Solar, Taxed, and then who resizes Solar's images. 

Quote from: quiller on February 25, 2017, 05:55:47 PM
There's Solar, Taxed, and then who resizes Solar's images. 

Quote from: Solar on February 25, 2017, 06:12:09 PM

Quote from: zewazir on February 25, 2017, 05:12:50 PM

...

Remember, the original and legitimate purpose of an EO is to give instruction to the members of the executive branch of government, basically telling them how to go about enforcing the laws for which their agency is responsible for.

...

So, let's look at EO 13765, titled "Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal".
This is basically a declaratory statement stating the intent of Trump's administration to seek a repeal of the ACA.  See anything in there which even implies it might try to change the law itself?
Note how this section is worded. It is giving instruction to the Secretary of HHS and others who are given "authority and responsibilities" under ACA to act WITHIN THE LAW ("exercise all authority and discretion available to them") to grant whatever waivers and exemptions the law allows to minimize harmful economic impacts from the ACA and/or harm caused by repealing the ACA.  But nothing there CHANGES how the law is implemented - it just changes the focus from forcing people follow ACA mandates regardless of how it impacts people, to finding as many loopholes as possible to minimize any harmful impacts. This is well within the authority of the executive brach of government, even though it does directly address a law written by the legislative branch. 

You chose a great example as to why this isn't so obvious - there's more to it.

As you well defined, EOs are "basically telling them how to go about enforcing the laws for which their agency is responsible for." In the case of the ACA EO example, you point out that Trump is telling them to treat the ACA laws by finding whatever loopholes they can to mitigate damage to those under that law. So part of your point seems to be that as long as the EO doesn't define or change a law, it's within their rights. But I hope you will agree that what is being done with this EO is a pretty sketchy interpretation of enforcing a law - ACA in this case. Don't get me wrong - I welcome the EO, but believe it's message is counter to enforcing ACA - rather to passively circumvent it which is tantamount to removing the law. The administration's ultimate goal is obviously to repeal or replace ACA and it seems obvious that this EO is a limited step toward that objective.

I actually don't agree with replacing the ACA - let's just remove the law. I much more would enjoy seeing Congress repeals ACA and allows the free market to govern the health insurance industry (among other things) throughout our country. But I doubt that the Reps have the kahunas - there would be popular backlash.

Quote from: quiller on February 25, 2017, 05:55:47 PM
There's Solar, Taxed, and then who resizes Solar's images. 

Hmm...  Nautical Underpants 

Quote from: topside on February 25, 2017, 06:53:20 PM
You chose a great example as to why this isn't so obvious - there's more to it.

As you well defined, EOs are "basically telling them how to go about enforcing the laws for which their agency is responsible for." In the case of the ACA EO example, you point out that Trump is telling them to treat the ACA laws by finding whatever loopholes they can to mitigate damage to those under that law. So part of your point seems to be that as long as the EO doesn't define or change a law, it's within their rights. But I hope you will agree that what is being done with this EO is a pretty sketchy interpretation of enforcing a law - ACA in this case. Don't get me wrong - I welcome the EO, but believe it's message is counter to enforcing ACA - rather to passively circumvent it which is tantamount to removing the law. The administration's ultimate goal is obviously to repeal or replace ACA and it seems obvious that this EO is a limited step toward that objective.

I actually don't agree with replacing the ACA - let's just remove the law. I much more would enjoy seeing Congress repeals ACA and allows the free market to govern the health insurance industry (among other things) throughout our country. But I doubt that the Reps have the kahunas - there would be popular backlash.

If the ACA had no intention of allowing for exemptions and waivers, why were they written into the law? But they WERE written into it and Trump is telling his people to take advantage of those in order to minimize the damage being done by the ACA.

There is nothing in the EO that implies in the least that he is refusing to enforce the law (unlike Obama's EOs with regard to immigration), nor is there anything in the EO which changes the implementation, dates, deadlines, or any other aspect of the law. In fact they are careful to emphasize that all actions taken under this EO are to be compliant with the law. They are enforcing the law AS WRITTEN. Trump just placed a focus on finding the LEAST HARMFUL manner to enforce the law. There is nothing illegitimate in an EO that takes such an approach to enforcement - with or without the ultimate goal of repealing ACA.

In fact it is rather nice having a President who understands the need to mitigate the damage ACA is doing to our healthcare system and take steps to alleviate that damage while he works with congress to get that horrendous piece of shit legislation off the books. Whether it should be just repealed, or in some manner replaced with something else is an entirely different topic. This is about the legitimacy of Trump's EOs. So far, as far as I can tell, he is being quite cautious in making sure they are within the scope of executive authority - even if they had not include the "CYA" sections.

Quote from: walkstall on February 25, 2017, 07:33:58 PM

Hmm...  Nautical Underpants 

Much ado over too little. Too many bugs up too many asses.