Quote from: redsun on February 26, 2017, 05:27:56 AM
Much ado over too little. Too many bugs up too many asses.

Yep!  So where were all these Snowflakes, Judges and the MSM when b o was making all these EO'S?   

I now get up every A.M. just to see how Trump is pissed all over b o legacy.   That and seeing RINO's.

So a marginal discussion? Machiavelli - Ends justifies the means? 

I do admit that this sub-thread is / was starting to split hairs and it's time to move on. But I found the content worth considering for a little while to see how some in the group think about action and intent in the Trump context and BO context under similar actions but opposing intent.

Quote from: topside on February 26, 2017, 08:31:21 AM
So a marginal discussion? Machiavelli - Ends justifies the means? 

I do admit that this sub-thread is / was starting to split hairs and it's time to move on. But I found the content worth considering for a little while to see how some in the group think about action and intent in the Trump context and BO context under similar actions but opposing intent.

Who is it that has been splitting hairs?  You are the one who, after not finding anything that violates executive authority in the text of the EOs, still questions their legitimacy because one admits the stated goal of repealing the ACA.

The EOs which we object to from Obama are not "similar" to those of Trump. They outright violated executive authority. Orders to the DOJ to refuse to enforce written law is a violation of executive authority. Obama clearly did so several times in relation to immigration law, and the ACA. Changing the text of a law is also a direct violation of executive authority. Obama did so more than once when he used EOs to delay ACA deadlines. Increasing the scope of law to push an agenda is also a violation of executive authority. Obama's war on coal generated at least two EOs which ordered the EPA to alter the emissions standards for coal powered electrical generation plants - a move that has literally decimated entire towns whose economies were derived from the coal industry.

In contrast, every one of Trump's EOs states that his administrators are to work within the scope of the law, in some cases with the statement of intent to change the law, but never the less staying within the law UNTIL it is changed.  If you cannot see the stark contrast between those two approaches you may need to take a close and hard look at your own mindset.

Quote from: topside on February 26, 2017, 08:31:21 AM
So a marginal discussion? Machiavelli - Ends justifies the means? 

I do admit that this sub-thread is / was starting to split hairs and it's time to move on. But I found the content worth considering for a little while to see how some in the group think about action and intent in the Trump context and BO context under similar actions but opposing intent.

Translation =  When I can't BS my way through a thread it is time to move on.

Quote from: topside on February 26, 2017, 08:31:21 AM
So a marginal discussion? Machiavelli - Ends justifies the means? 

I do admit that this sub-thread is / was starting to split hairs and it's time to move on. But I found the content worth considering for a little while to see how some in the group think about action and intent in the Trump context and BO context under similar actions but opposing intent.

I took the time to address your query and expect the same courtesy in return to Reply #96, you don't call an end to a discussion simply because the answers aren't to your liking.

Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2017, 10:41:39 AM
I took the time to address your query and expect the same courtesy in return to Reply #96, you don't call an end to a discussion simply because the answers aren't to your liking.

Solar, I was saving yours until I had a little more time to respond. The other few recent posts were just easy to quick replies. 

Quote from: Solar on February 25, 2017, 05:36:19 PM
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.

I felt that my point was well-formed and summarized in the earlier post: "I found the content worth considering for a little while to see how some in the group think about action and intent in the Trump context and BO context under similar actions but opposing intent. " The right was calling fouls when the left was using the same type of logic in the EOs. Now the Left isn't calling fouls because they know they'd be admitting problem when they were kicking out EOs.

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

Yeah - I agree. It was just an easy place to pull the EO data - pretty neutral material that contained no opinion.

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

Both the misuse and CYA were my opinions and my interpretations of what I read - up to the reader to decide if they agreed or not. I hadn't defined what I meant by misuse and that was a mistake. You defined it as abuse and I was having trouble making a distinction after you did it - was a good point to think on. But, after looking at the EOs again, I decided that my opinion is that the distinction of misuse vs. abuse was valid: the misuse is in the intent of the EO but not illegal.  This aspect was well supported in the discussion on the ACA EO. There is nothing illegal in the EO but it's intent is to neutralize a law - again, my viewpoint but I would think even a moron would see it even but may not admit it. I had never intended that the EOs were illegal because they can't be illegal due to the way they are written.

Quote
It's referenced under Constitutional law.
Convoluted and incomplete.
Try being a bit more specific and give reference to your question. I have no idea what you're talking about.

These were in reference to other statements. Yes, EOs are under Constitutional law - no question of that. I was trying to say that they may not be being used as intended - even though they are legitimate. I'm 99.9% sure you know what I'm saying, but you seem to want more support in some way. The example discussed on ACA is a good example. I'll take your advice on more specifics in the future. This is too broad for me to cover all the ground in the details that was identified in the ACA discussion.
.

Quote
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.

Hmm. That makes sense. I didn't put that together. It was a real-time reaction to the blocks. Interesting.

Quote
Using EO's to uddo bad EO by the previous resident is SOP, trump is not doing anything out of the ordinary.

I haven't looked at the history on this - thanks for the pointer. I'll take a look - but I believe you. It's must have been more under-the-hood in the past. It's so publicized this time - he signs the EO and it shows up in all the media.

Quote
You really need to turn off the TV and form your own opinions.
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.

Well, I don't trust any of the media at all. I do trust you guys more than most as I think you have the principles right. But sometimes you make it hard to hang in with yall.

I agree that 's very sad the GOP weren't able to do more against the Marxists.

Quote from: topside on February 26, 2017, 05:01:37 PM
I felt that my point was well-formed and summarized in the earlier post: "I found the content worth considering for a little while to see how some in the group think about action and intent in the Trump context and BO context under similar actions but opposing intent. " The right was calling fouls when the left was using the same type of logic in the EOs. Now the Left isn't calling fouls because they know they'd be admitting problem when they were kicking out EOs.
Yeah - I agree. It was just an easy place to pull the EO data - pretty neutral material that contained no opinion.

Sure they are. After Obozo told illegals he would not prosecute illegals voting, the left is in a panic over Trump's EO and calling him all kinds of names.

Quote
Both the misuse and CYA were my opinions and my interpretations of what I read - up to the reader to decide if they agreed or not.

Wherein lies the problem, you stated it as fact, and not opinion, a given conclusion.

QuoteI hadn't defined what I meant by misuse and that was a mistake.

Umm, no you did not, you used the term without qualifying it and that's why anyone that understands English, knows what Mis-use means: 'Apply to a wrong thing or person' apply badly or incorrectly' 'Improper or excessive use' 'Abuse' 'illegal use'
That's what misuse means, and you attributed that to Trump and I asked you to prove that allegation, it really is that simple.

I don't think you realize, but we're a fact based forum, so in most cases when something is stated on this forum, and someone challenges said claims, it's incumbent upon the person these claims, to back them up, or simply retract them.
To date, trump has not abused his EO privilege, so when you claimed he did, we needed to set the record straight, because this forums credibility rides on all of us taking responsibility for what's said here.

QuoteYou defined it as abuse and I was having trouble making a distinction after you did it - was a good point to think on. But, after looking at the EOs again, I decided that my opinion is that the distinction of misuse vs. abuse was valid: the misuse is in the intent of the EO but not illegal.  This aspect was well supported in the discussion on the ACA EO.

Let's try this. If a judge misuses his power, is that not abuse of the law? In other words, when dealing with any legal aspect of the law, to misuse is to abuse which always carries consequence.
So essentially you were saying Trump abused his powers as POTUS, an Impeachable offense.

QuoteThere is nothing illegal in the EO but it's intent is to neutralize a law - again, my viewpoint but I would think even a moron would see it even but may not admit it. I had never intended that the EOs were illegal because they can't be illegal due to the way they are written.

So let's back up then. Explain how it was misused if it was perfectly legal?
Keep in mind, as Zewazir pointed out, BO wrote illegal EO's regarding the law, and Trump using an EO to undo the damage is in no way an "Misuse" abuse of the law, in fact, what he did was to correct a serious wrong that Congress refused to address.

QuoteThese were in reference to other statements. Yes, EOs are under Constitutional law - no question of that. I was trying to say that they may not be being used as intended - even though they are legitimate.

There you go again, coming to conclusions without qualifying how it was done. Eg. "I know he abuses puppies, I just can't prove it, never even seen him with one, but I just know it, even a moron can see it".

QuoteI'm 99.9% sure you know what I'm saying, but you seem to want more support in some way. The example discussed on ACA is a good example. I'll take your advice on more specifics in the future. This is too broad for me to cover all the ground in the details that was identified in the ACA discussion.
. Hmm. That makes sense. I didn't put that together. It was a real-time reaction to the blocks. Interesting.
I haven't looked at the history on this - thanks for the pointer. I'll take a look - but I believe you. It's must have been more under-the-hood in the past. It's so publicized this time - he signs the EO and it shows up in all the media.
Well, I don't trust any of the media at all. I do trust you guys more than most as I think you have the principles right. But sometimes you make it hard to hang in with yall.

I agree that 's very sad the GOP weren't able to do more against the Marxists.

I'm simply trying to hammer on point home here, and everyone here is familiar with it.
Always be prepared to back up anything you write, so if you make a claim, be it against a Conservative or liberal, it has to be valid, or simply qualify it as unsubstantiated opinion.
Hell, and even then, you can still be called on it if it's outlandish enough.
A lot of people read this forum for truth, be it opinion or fact, they want to know everything we say won't get them in trouble when they take it to another forum and repeat it.

I'll move to use your definition of misuse:

Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2017, 06:30:54 PM

Umm, no you did not, you used the term without qualifying it and that's why anyone that understands English, knows what Mis-use means: 'Apply to a wrong thing or person' apply badly or incorrectly' 'Improper or excessive use' 'Abuse' 'illegal use'
That's what misuse means, and you attributed that to Trump and I asked you to prove that allegation, it really is that simple.

So now we agree that misuse = abuse.

Now let's look at the intent of an executive order. I'm using this source:

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2017/01/executive-orders-101-what-are-they-and-how-do-presidents-use-them/

and is says:

QuoteThe constitutional basis for the executive order is the President's broad power to issue executive directives. According to the Congressional Research Service, there is no direct "definition of executive orders, presidential memoranda, and proclamations in the U.S. Constitution, there is, likewise, no specific provision authorizing their issuance.

But Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests executive powers in the President, makes him the commander in chief, and requires that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

What I was saying is that the ACA EO is used accurately / legally but not as originally intended - so I'll say that the ACA EO used the executive authority in a manner inconsistent with original intent. Specifically, this EO is used to direct enforcement to use loopholes to circumvent the law rather than to enforce it. But, again, it is legal and, from my viewpoint, welcome to begin a counter to what BO did in ramming the ACA law in-place

Quote

I don't think you realize, but we're a fact based forum, so in most cases when something is stated on this forum, and someone challenges said claims, it's incumbent upon the person these claims, to back them up, or simply retract them.
To date, trump has not abused his EO privilege, so when you claimed he did, we needed to set the record straight, because this forums credibility rides on all of us taking responsibility for what's said here.

Let's try this. If a judge misuses his power, is that not abuse of the law? In other words, when dealing with any legal aspect of the law, to misuse is to abuse which always carries consequence.
So essentially you were saying Trump abused his powers as POTUS, an Impeachable offense.

I do not believe that any of Trump's EOs are illegal - nor am I qualified to make an actual determination. The clarification above establishes that there was no abuse = misuse. It is my opinion that the EO use in the ACA example is a stretch, i.e., inconsistent with original intent, and it would be more appropriate if the EO were not issued as it stands and, rather, that the Legislative branch would appeal or replace the ACA law.

Quote
So let's back up then. Explain how it was misused if it was perfectly legal?
Keep in mind, as Zewazir pointed out, BO wrote illegal EO's regarding the law, and Trump using an EO to undo the damage is in no way an "Misuse" abuse of the law, in fact, what he did was to correct a serious wrong that Congress refused to address.

There you go again, coming to conclusions without qualifying how it was done. Eg. "I know he abuses puppies, I just can't prove it, never even seen him with one, but I just know it, even a moron can see it".

I'm simply trying to hammer on point home here, and everyone here is familiar with it.
Always be prepared to back up anything you write, so if you make a claim, be it against a Conservative or liberal, it has to be valid, or simply qualify it as unsubstantiated opinion.
Hell, and even then, you can still be called on it if it's outlandish enough.
A lot of people read this forum for truth, be it opinion or fact, they want to know everything we say won't get them in trouble when they take it to another forum and repeat it.

I support that this forum should only support what is true to the extent possible and that opinion should be established as just that. It's a good practice and I'll work to shore up my posts.

Quote from: topside on February 26, 2017, 07:35:13 PM
I'll move to use your definition of misuse:

So now we agree that misuse = abuse.

Now let's look at the intent of an executive order. I'm using this source:

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2017/01/executive-orders-101-what-are-they-and-how-do-presidents-use-them/

and is says:

What I was saying is that the ACA EO is used accurately / legally but not as originally intended - so I'll say that the ACA EO used the executive authority in a manner inconsistent with original intent. Specifically, this EO is used to direct enforcement to use loopholes to circumvent the law rather than to enforce it. But, again, it is legal and, from my viewpoint, welcome to begin a counter to what BO did in ramming the ACA law in-place

I do not believe that any of Trump's EOs are illegal - nor am I qualified to make an actual determination. The clarification above establishes that there was no abuse = misuse. It is my opinion that the EO use in the ACA example is a stretch, i.e., inconsistent with original intent, and it would be more appropriate if the EO were not issued as it stands and, rather, that the Legislative branch would appeal or replace the ACA law.

I support that this forum should only support what is true to the extent possible and that opinion should be established as just that. It's a good practice and I'll work to shore up my posts.

It's late, I'll reply in the morning. Here's something to ponder.

VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN NAMED CHAIR OF NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER BOARD OF TRUSTEES

http://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/heros/VP_Joe_Biden_Hero_Image1.jpg

"Vice President Biden's love for the Constitution, and passion for teaching all Americans about its enduring principles, have inspired people around the world," said Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center. "From his service in the Senate to his time in the White House, Vice President Biden has devoted himself to educating all Americans about the founding principles of the Constitution and their timeless relevance today. The National Constitution Center is America's leading convening place for non-partisan constitutional education and debate, and all of us here are thrilled and honored that Vice President Biden will lead us as our Chair."

To learn more about the announcement, you can read about it on our blog, Constitution Daily, and download a PDF file of the official press release.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2017/02/biden-named-chair-of-national-constitution-center-board-of-trustees1/

Quote from: topside on February 26, 2017, 07:35:13 PM
I'll move to use your definition of misuse:

So now we agree that misuse = abuse.

Now let's look at the intent of an executive order. I'm using this source:

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2017/01/executive-orders-101-what-are-they-and-how-do-presidents-use-them/

and is says:

What I was saying is that the ACA EO is used accurately / legally but not as originally intended - so I'll say that the ACA EO used the executive authority in a manner inconsistent with original intent. Specifically, this EO is used to direct enforcement to use loopholes to circumvent the law rather than to enforce it. But, again, it is legal and, from my viewpoint, welcome to begin a counter to what BO did in ramming the ACA law in-place

I have no idea why you used a blog/opinion piece, but the actual wording of Article II, Section 1, clause 1 states as follows, so if you read what is actually written, you'll see that BO's was a total overreach on his part, when he, with the stroke of the pen, rewrote the law that Congress had mandated.
What Trump is doing is no different than his predecessors in righting wrongs by the previous administration.

Under the Constitution, the president is vested with the executive power of the government (Article II, Section 1, clause 1), the power to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" (Article II, Section 1, clause 7), and the power to see that the laws are faithfully executed (Article II, Section 3). From these powers is implied the authority to issue "executive orders."

QuoteI do not believe that any of Trump's EOs are illegal - nor am I qualified to make an actual determination. The clarification above establishes that there was no abuse = misuse. It is my opinion that the EO use in the ACA example is a stretch, i.e., inconsistent with original intent, and it would be more appropriate if the EO were not issued as it stands and, rather, that the Legislative branch would appeal or replace the ACA law.

I support that this forum should only support what is true to the extent possible and that opinion should be established as just that. It's a good practice and I'll work to shore up my posts.

With that understanding, you would agree that what BO did was beyond the realm and reach of an EO and his abuse of it's original intent.
So Trump undoing an illegal act via EO is within the order of Article II, Section 1, clause 1.

Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2017, 05:21:10 AM
I have no idea why you used a blog/opinion piece, but the actual wording of Article II, Section 1, clause 1 states as follows, so if you read what is actually written, you'll see that BO's was a total overreach on his part, when he, with the stroke of the pen, rewrote the law that Congress had mandated.
What Trump is doing is no different than his predecessors in righting wrongs by the previous administration.

Under the Constitution, the president is vested with the executive power of the government (Article II, Section 1, clause 1), the power to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" (Article II, Section 1, clause 7), and the power to see that the laws are faithfully executed (Article II, Section 3). From these powers is implied the authority to issue "executive orders."


[\quote]

Nicely pieced together - just to keep the record correct, the second reference is Clause 8 instead of Clause 7.

The blog did similar work - although not as well as you did with reference. The aspect that I didn't realize is that the EO is not called out explicitly but rather inferred from Article II. I used the Blog because it identified the inference of the EO and you confirmed it here. I wasn't comfortable inferring the reference as it could have been part of some other document as far as I knew.

Quote
With that understanding, you would agree that what BO did was beyond the realm and reach of an EO and his abuse of it's original intent.
So Trump undoing an illegal act via EO is within the order of Article II, Section 1, clause 1.

You seem to be trying to make the idea of not applying original intent equal to abuse. If this were true, the EOs would still be legal because of the lawyer's CYA clauses. The word "faithfully" is written in for a reason - maybe because the originators wanted those setting and upholding the law to avoid such games.

Here are two viewpoints:

1) If an EO is written but does not apply the original intent, then it is an illegal action and can be negated by executive authority.

2) EO's that are guaranteed to be under executive authority (via CYA language) are legal but may not meet the original intention of EO use (not faithful).

You are more aligned with 1). I claim (my opinion) that if that's true then we have a problem with the ACA EO. It is not faithful to original intent (my opinion) and is directing to use loopholes to mitigate a law. That's why I don't agree with position 1).

I believe 2) is more accurate because BO got away with his EOs and Trump is counter punching with his EOs ... and you tell me that others have done similar in the past. You taught me that it's traditional to use EOs in this way. So some of these, as we have seen, are legal but not faithful to original intent of the executive position.

BTW - if BO's EOs were illegal, why wasn't he impeached? Seems like he should have been. Why didn't it happen? That's probably beyond the scope of this sub-thread. Couldn't help asking though because I though you'd have some grounded incite.

Quote from: topside on February 27, 2017, 06:35:57 AM
You seem to be trying to make the idea of not applying original intent equal to abuse. If this were true, the EOs would still be legal because of the lawyer's CYA clauses. The word "faithfully" is written in for a reason - maybe because the originators wanted those setting and upholding the law to avoid such games.

As I stated in my reply:
"With that understanding, you would agree that what BO did was beyond the realm and reach of an EO and his abuse of its original intent.
So Trump undoing an illegal act via EO is within the order of Article II, Section 1, clause 1."

So let us break it down, shall we?
(Article II, Section 1, clause 1), the power to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" (Article II, Section 1, clause 7), and the power to see that the laws are faithfully executed (Article II, Section 3). From these powers is implied the authority to issue "executive orders."

In what manner was BO protecting and defending the constitution when he overstepped his authority by rewriting law?
With that in mind, was trump not holding to the original intent of the law when he undid BO's illegal act?
Yeah, why wasn't he impeached?

QuoteHere are two viewpoints:

1) If an EO is written but does not apply the original intent, then it is an illegal action and can be negated by executive authority.

2) EO's that are guaranteed to be under executive authority (via CYA language) are legal but may not meet the original intention of EO use (not faithful).

Whose viewpoint? The first one is what I've been saying all along, that BO's was an illegal action, and trump followed the letter of the law by undoing it.
(two) You keep referring to CYA, yet never defined what it is.

QuoteYou are more aligned with 1). I claim (my opinion) that if that's true then we have a problem with the ACA EO. It is not faithful to original intent (my opinion) and is directing to use loopholes to mitigate a law. That's why I don't agree with position 1).

Whose EO are you referring to, Trump or BO?

QuoteI believe 2) is more accurate because BO got away with his EOs and Trump is counter punching with his EOs ... and you tell me that others have done similar in the past. You taught me that it's traditional to use EOs in this way. So some of these, as we have seen, are legal but not faithful to original intent of the executive position.

Trump's EO is righting a wrong, so it is clearly within the parameters of the law.

QuoteBTW - if BO's EOs were illegal, why wasn't he impeached? Seems like he should have been. Why didn't it happen? That's probably beyond the scope of this sub-thread. Couldn't help asking though because I though you'd have some grounded incite.

The million dollar question. There were so many things he could have been impeached for, this was minuscule compared to most of his bull shit.

Oh and just a side note, Executive Order has yet to be defined by Congress but was recognized as a power strictly delegated to POTUS in times of war, as in the event of instituting Martial Law, an emergency act.
So if keeping in the original intent of the law, how are BO's rewriting and change of a date/time limit of the ACA law, not an illegal act?

Remember how he realized his original time limit ran out right before the elections? Knowing full well the fees would kick in and libs would reflect their disdain for the Dim party through their vote. So he used an EO to change the law, that was an illegal move, only congress can change the wording of a law.

Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2017, 08:59:38 AM

...

Oh and just a side note, Executive Order has yet to be defined by Congress but was recognized as a power strictly delegated to POTUS in times of war, as in the event of instituting Martial Law, an emergency act.
So if keeping in the original intent of the law, how are BO's rewriting and change of a date/time limit of the ACA law, not an illegal act?

Remember how he realized his original time limit ran out right before the elections? Knowing full well the fees would kick in and libs would reflect their disdain for the Dim party through their vote. So he used an EO to change the law, that was an illegal move, only congress can change the wording of a law.

You clearly demonstrate that BO broke the law which you imply is grounds for impeachment. I'm not informed enough in the law to understand which offenses are bad enough to warrant impeachment. The ACA case you mention above seems a little weak to impeach the leader of the free world over - but I might be wrong on that; just seems that way. However, it is my opinion that failure to enforce immigration law is a very obvious impeachment offense. Moreover, we are experiencing the consequence of the illegal action - when families are broken apart because some are sent back, that should be on BO. But the sentiment gets pinned on this administration.

So it seems pretty straight forward to me that BO should have been impeached irrespective of his EOs. He didn't enforce this immigration law in a very obvious way - he allowed individuals and even entire cities (sanctuary) to violate the law. I did a search but didn't see where the Reps started impeachment proceeding - guess they didn't. I know there was talk, but there always seems to be talk of impeaching any president from those who don't like him. I am guessing (opinion) that the defense of the Dim party of BO and popular opinion among the liberals and those getting the handouts held him in despite his illegal acts. Then the Reps backed down.

Is there an end to this ?