Quote from: topside on February 27, 2017, 09:46:43 AM
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.

Blatantly usurping the powers delegated to the congress by the Constitution is an Impeachable offense. How hard is that to understand?
Trump used Executive Power to right a wrong by the previous administration.
So how is trump wrong?

QuoteSo 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.

What he did was in direct opposition to the constitution, resulting in a traitorous offense punishable by hanging or firing squad.
Problem is, half the GOP are Marxists and had no issue with what he did.

Quote from: topside on February 26, 2017, 07:35:13 PM
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.

How, exactly, is Trump's EO "inconsistent with original intent?"  The advertised "intent" of ACA was to make health care coverage more affordable for everyone - was it not?  Why did Obama change the deadlines? Because he knew the EFFECT (as opposed to INTENT) of the ACA would result in dramatic, disastrous increases in health care premiums across the board - something that would also be disastrous for democrats if allowed to occur before the election. So Obama (illegally) usurped authority for the executive branch and rewrote the law to change the deadlines.

Now Trump issues an EO which tells the executives in charge of implementing the ACA to use whatever means they have available UNDER THE LAW to make sure as little harm as possible is caused by the current version of the ACA, as well as the unavoidable bumps that will occur when they repeal (and/or replace) ACA legislation.  Seems to me that making sure people are harmed as little as possible by the mandates of ACA is doing far more to follow the "original intent" of ACA - specifically to make health care insurance more affordable.

Quote from: zewazir on February 27, 2017, 12:37:14 PM
How, exactly, is Trump's EO "inconsistent with original intent?"  The advertised "intent" of ACA was to make health care coverage more affordable for everyone - was it not?  Why did Obama change the deadlines? Because he knew the EFFECT (as opposed to INTENT) of the ACA would result in dramatic, disastrous increases in health care premiums across the board - something that would also be disastrous for democrats if allowed to occur before the election. So Obama (illegally) usurped authority for the executive branch and rewrote the law to change the deadlines.

Now Trump issues an EO which tells the executives in charge of implementing the ACA to use whatever means they have available UNDER THE LAW to make sure as little harm as possible is caused by the current version of the ACA, as well as the unavoidable bumps that will occur when they repeal (and/or replace) ACA legislation.  Seems to me that making sure people are harmed as little as possible by the mandates of ACA is doing far more to follow the "original intent" of ACA - specifically to make health care insurance more affordable.

who knows you may even get to keep your own doctor. 

Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2017, 10:44:12 AM
Blatantly usurping the powers delegated to the congress by the Constitution is an Impeachable offense. How hard is that to understand?
Trump used Executive Power to right a wrong by the previous administration.
So how is trump wrong?
What he did was in direct opposition to the constitution, resulting in a traitorous offense punishable by hanging or firing squad.
Problem is, half the GOP are Marxists and had no issue with what he did.

Not hard to understand - but apparently it isn't cut-and-dry since BO wasn't impeached, hanged, or given the firing squad due to those you cited. It didn't happen so it must not be that simple - although not hard to understand. Pragmatics vs. principles.

Quote from: zewazir on February 27, 2017, 12:37:14 PM
How, exactly, is Trump's EO "inconsistent with original intent?"  The advertised "intent" of ACA was to make health care coverage more affordable for everyone - was it not?  Why did Obama change the deadlines? Because he knew the EFFECT (as opposed to INTENT) of the ACA would result in dramatic, disastrous increases in health care premiums across the board - something that would also be disastrous for democrats if allowed to occur before the election. So Obama (illegally) usurped authority for the executive branch and rewrote the law to change the deadlines.

Now Trump issues an EO which tells the executives in charge of implementing the ACA to use whatever means they have available UNDER THE LAW to make sure as little harm as possible is caused by the current version of the ACA, as well as the unavoidable bumps that will occur when they repeal (and/or replace) ACA legislation.  Seems to me that making sure people are harmed as little as possible by the mandates of ACA is doing far more to follow the "original intent" of ACA - specifically to make health care insurance more affordable.

You don't find that argument a little contrived even in trying to state it accurately (you did a good job by the way). It's certainly a roundabout way of enforcing a law and I call that an unfaithful to the original intent of an EO - but still legal. It's interesting that Solar pointed:

QuoteExecutive 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.

This certainly isn't that kind of a priority needed urgently to protect the people. Congress can (and is) taking action. From what I heard today on the radio (Fox, Hannity ... yeah, I know), a proposal for ACA replacement may be on the table in the next couple weeks.

Quote from: topside on February 27, 2017, 02:38:33 PM


Not hard to understand - but apparently it isn't cut-and-dry since BO wasn't impeached, hanged, or given the firing squad due to those you cited. It didn't happen so it must not be that simple - although not hard to understand. Pragmatics vs. principles.

But it was that simple, he was traitorous, he did not uphold his oath of office, he did not protect the Constitution, it was cut and dry.
What was sad was the GOP enabling the Marxist the ability to trash the Constitution and break the law by giving him a pass.
It's for all these reasons Trump won, the people are sick to death of both party's being leftists.

Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2017, 04:48:45 PM
But it was that simple, he was traitorous, he did not uphold his oath of office, he did not protect the Constitution, it was cut and dry.
What was sad was the GOP enabling the Marxist the ability to trash the Constitution and break the law by giving him a pass.
It's for all these reasons Trump won, the people are sick to death of both party's being leftists.

So we're back to the fact that the GOP had no backbone during BO's reign. The funny thing is that we still have the same GOP who are now feeling their oats because of the miracle last November 8. I hope to see some strength added into the GOP / House / Senate seats in the coming elections - but we'll probably just get more of the same via incumbents ... unless term limits get through. That could help - I haven't examined the implication yet.

I'm also hopeful, but unjustifiably so, that the Dims will eventually realize what just happened and put more moderates in the blue states. .

Quote from: topside on February 27, 2017, 05:07:28 PM
So we're back to the fact that the GOP had no backbone during BO's reign. The funny thing is that we still have the same GOP who are now feeling their oats because of the miracle last November 8. I hope to see some strength added into the GOP / House / Senate seats in the coming elections - but we'll probably just get more of the same via incumbents ... unless term limits get through. That could help - I haven't examined the implication yet.

I'm also hopeful, but unjustifiably so, that the Dims will eventually realize what just happened and put more moderates in the blue states. .

Actually, they're cowering just as they did when the Dims had the office, only this time, they're scared shitless of Trump.
This is a good thing...

Quote from: topside on February 27, 2017, 02:51:38 PM
You don't find that argument a little contrived even in trying to state it accurately (you did a good job by the way). It's certainly a roundabout way of enforcing a law and I call that an unfaithful to the original intent of an EO - but still legal. It's interesting that Solar pointed:

This certainly isn't that kind of a priority needed urgently to protect the people. Congress can (and is) taking action. From what I heard today on the radio (Fox, Hannity ... yeah, I know), a proposal for ACA replacement may be on the table in the next couple weeks.

No more "contrived" than your continued suggestion that Trump's EO regarding the ACA, even while staying well within the bounds of executive authority and in no way violating any law, is somehow problematic because it "does not follow original intent." You define "intent" according to your opinion, and I define "original intent" according to the advertising of the demoncrap party. Frankly, it appears you WANT to find a problem with at least one of Trump's EOs, whether there is a genuine problem or not.

And, yes there IS an urgency to protect people from ACA mandates. ONE: the people being punished by the IRS for not being able to afford insurance due to 80-500% increases in premiums.  TWO: Organizations and employers being fined into oblivion for refusing to give up their religious beliefs with respect to ACA demands they provide abortion and/or abortifacient birth control coverage.  THREE: People who have lost their coverage because their policy was too good to meet Bronze level mandates, but not good enough to meet Silver level mandates (or too good for Silver, but not good enough for Gold.)  ACA (deliberately, IMO) hurt a hell of a lot of people. (one of the major factors in who is in the WH now!)

Trump is doing what he can to mitigate that harm while moving Congress to get rid of the piece of shit, and genuinely address the problems which the ACA was SUPPOSED to address, but made worse (deliberately, IMO) instead. AND he is doing so in a manner fully consistent with the authority of the executive branch. Why do you have a problem with that? It makes you seem intent on finding fault with his use of EOs, as opposed to making an unbiased assessment.

Quote from: Solar on February 27, 2017, 05:16:28 PM
Actually, they're cowering just as they did when the Dims had the office, only this time, they're scared shitless of Trump.
This is a good thing...

And the voters that put Trump in office.  They know they will have to be reelected and their ass will be on the line just like Hillary.

Quote from: walkstall on February 27, 2017, 05:55:43 PM
And the voters that put Trump in office.  They know they will have to be reelected and their ass will be on the line just like Hillary.

Yep, they know the country is pissed at them, so they're doing what they can to stay out of the spotlight.

topside, specify one EO order that is abuse.  Not a bunch.  Not a list.  Just one single one.

Quote from: zewazir on February 27, 2017, 05:50:59 PM
No more "contrived" than your continued suggestion that Trump's EO regarding the ACA, even while staying well within the bounds of executive authority and in no way violating any law, is somehow problematic because it "does not follow original intent." You define "intent" according to your opinion, and I define "original intent" according to the advertising of the demoncrap party. Frankly, it appears you WANT to find a problem with at least one of Trump's EOs, whether there is a genuine problem or not.

And, yes there IS an urgency to protect people from ACA mandates. ONE: the people being punished by the IRS for not being able to afford insurance due to 80-500% increases in premiums.  TWO: Organizations and employers being fined into oblivion for refusing to give up their religious beliefs with respect to ACA demands they provide abortion and/or abortifacient birth control coverage.  THREE: People who have lost their coverage because their policy was too good to meet Bronze level mandates, but not good enough to meet Silver level mandates (or too good for Silver, but not good enough for Gold.)  ACA (deliberately, IMO) hurt a hell of a lot of people. (one of the major factors in who is in the WH now!)

Trump is doing what he can to mitigate that harm while moving Congress to get rid of the piece of shit, and genuinely address the problems which the ACA was SUPPOSED to address, but made worse (deliberately, IMO) instead. AND he is doing so in a manner fully consistent with the authority of the executive branch. Why do you have a problem with that? It makes you seem intent on finding fault with his use of EOs, as opposed to making an unbiased assessment.

We agree that ACA is a mess and that it hurt some people in some way. But this sub-post is ultimately about the use of EOs use in relation to law. The most simple point of this is that the ACA is best addressed via legistlative action - repeal or replace. And that the intent of an EO is stretched in some cases, like when it orders people to circumvent the ACA law (loopholes) to work around the law. There is nothing illegal - - but this use is not a faithful use as originally intended by the EOs. That is explored and clarified throughout this thread. I have to leave it here.

Quote from: taxed on February 27, 2017, 09:14:54 PM
topside, specify one EO order that is abuse.  Not a bunch.  Not a list.  Just one single one.

Taxed - you missed a turn somewhere. Solar and I worked this down. I should just yell at you to go re-read the thread on your own - I get that alot. But I'll give you the cliff notes.

Main points were:

1. In post #95, Zewazir cited the ACA example EO and did a great job of stating what the EO was working to do.
2. In post #113, after thinking through many of the previous comments, I agreed to Solar's position between us that misuse = abuse and indicated that I was not claiming any of Trump's EOs were abuse (illegal).  Then re-baseline my statement to say that it is my opinion (as reflected in the table) that a few of Trump's EO's, like the ACA EO, are not faithful to the original intent for use of EOs.
3. Solar pointed to where the EOs originated from in Post #115 via Constitutional reference and how the EOs were inferred (are not explicit). In Post #117, Solar provided even more clarity that "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."
4. There was also discussion of how BO did abuse the EOs - prime example of how he did not uphold immigration law. There was some discussion also on why BO did not get impeached for such blatant abuse and I think (my interpretation) that the fact no impeachement proceedings were even filed on BO was ascribed to his support by the Dims and weakness of the Pubs to proceed to impeach in the face of popularity.
5. Some on the forum, possibly even everyone except for me as far as I can tell, do not agree with my claim of unfaithful us of some EOs. For example, some believe that the ACA was a faitfhul use of the EO instrument.

So, to your question, I can't give you an example because POTUS is not abusing the EOs. But I believe the thread shows that some of the EO have been being used unfaithful to original intent of the executive function for a long time by different administrations - including some of Trumps EOs. Again, nothing is illegal but some of the matters are better handled by congress than by the EO. In the case of ACA, the EO started the journey in an attempt to mitigate gaps in ACA and congress will (hopefully) deliver the fatal blow to ACA.

Some seem to think this sub-thread wasn't very important. But I disagree. The underlying point is even stronger. So why does this matter? 

I believe that direct Constitutional action to the intent of the architecture is sufficient to govern our country well. We should use the tools provided faithfully. I believe that a Machiavellian approach to use instruments by any legal means to get what we want is a slippery slope - and that Conservatives don't have to play those games because the Constitutional system (Republic's foundation) works without them. In fact, the more we play games with the tools, it will invite the same for others and issues will escalate and magnify. If there is a true issue with the Constitutional tools, then there should be consideration for a new article to the Constitution.

I am not a fan of EO, past present or future. I think Trump should of went to congress and said here fix this by next week and I'll sign it. Those who balked then folks can work on replacing them in the next election.