http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/trump-to-sign-orders-reviving-pipeline-projects-sources-say.html
Liberal heads are now exploding. Another good move by Trump.
Are we going to have anything left for greenies to chain themselves to?
:thumbup:
The Trump administration has imposed a freeze on grants and contracts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a move that could affect a significant part of the agency's budget allocations and even threaten to disrupt core operations ranging from toxic cleanups to water quality testing, according to records and interviews.
In one email exchange obtained by ProPublica on Monday, an EPA contracting officer concluded a note to a storm water management employee this way:
"Right now we are in a holding pattern. The new EPA administration has asked that all contract and grant awards be temporarily suspended, effective immediately. Until we receive further clarification, this includes task orders and work assignments."
Asked about any possible freeze and its implications, EPA officials did not provide an answer.
One EPA employee aware of the freeze said he had never seen anything like it in nearly a decade with the agency. Hiring freezes happened, he said, but freezes on grants and contracts seemed extraordinary. The employee said the freeze appeared to be nationwide, and as of Monday night it was not clear for how long it would be in place.
The substance of the email exchange was confirmed by one senior EPA employee with over 20 years at the agency. An EPA lawyer also said that earlier communications had described such a freeze.
Monday night, Myron Ebell, who ran the EPA transition for the incoming administration, confirmed the basics of the freeze, but said the actions were not unprecedented.
"They're trying to freeze things to make sure nothing happens they don't want to have happen, so any regulations going forward, contracts, grants, hires, they want to make sure to look at them first," said Ebell, who returned over the weekend to his position directing energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market, industry-aligned group that has long fought the EPA's growth and influence.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-administration-imposes-freeze-on-epa-grants-and-contracts
I bet this just ruined obama's golf game.
Quote from: Solar on January 24, 2017, 11:57:42 AM
:thumbup:
The Trump administration has imposed a freeze on grants and contracts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a move that could affect a significant part of the agency's budget allocations and even threaten to disrupt core operations ranging from toxic cleanups to water quality testing, according to records and interviews.
In one email exchange obtained by ProPublica on Monday, an EPA contracting officer concluded a note to a storm water management employee this way:
"Right now we are in a holding pattern. The new EPA administration has asked that all contract and grant awards be temporarily suspended, effective immediately. Until we receive further clarification, this includes task orders and work assignments."
Asked about any possible freeze and its implications, EPA officials did not provide an answer.
One EPA employee aware of the freeze said he had never seen anything like it in nearly a decade with the agency. Hiring freezes happened, he said, but freezes on grants and contracts seemed extraordinary. The employee said the freeze appeared to be nationwide, and as of Monday night it was not clear for how long it would be in place.
The substance of the email exchange was confirmed by one senior EPA employee with over 20 years at the agency. An EPA lawyer also said that earlier communications had described such a freeze.
Monday night, Myron Ebell, who ran the EPA transition for the incoming administration, confirmed the basics of the freeze, but said the actions were not unprecedented.
"They're trying to freeze things to make sure nothing happens they don't want to have happen, so any regulations going forward, contracts, grants, hires, they want to make sure to look at them first," said Ebell, who returned over the weekend to his position directing energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market, industry-aligned group that has long fought the EPA's growth and influence.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-administration-imposes-freeze-on-epa-grants-and-contracts
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Poor Hussein.
Quote from: taxed on January 24, 2017, 12:00:07 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Poor Hussein.
:thumbsup:
He needs to get used to it.
Quote from: Solar on January 24, 2017, 11:57:42 AM
:thumbup:
The Trump administration has imposed a freeze on grants and contracts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a move that could affect a significant part of the agency's budget allocations and even threaten to disrupt core operations ranging from toxic cleanups to water quality testing, according to records and interviews.
In one email exchange obtained by ProPublica on Monday, an EPA contracting officer concluded a note to a storm water management employee this way:
"Right now we are in a holding pattern. The new EPA administration has asked that all contract and grant awards be temporarily suspended, effective immediately. Until we receive further clarification, this includes task orders and work assignments."
Asked about any possible freeze and its implications, EPA officials did not provide an answer.
One EPA employee aware of the freeze said he had never seen anything like it in nearly a decade with the agency. Hiring freezes happened, he said, but freezes on grants and contracts seemed extraordinary. The employee said the freeze appeared to be nationwide, and as of Monday night it was not clear for how long it would be in place.
The substance of the email exchange was confirmed by one senior EPA employee with over 20 years at the agency. An EPA lawyer also said that earlier communications had described such a freeze.
Monday night, Myron Ebell, who ran the EPA transition for the incoming administration, confirmed the basics of the freeze, but said the actions were not unprecedented.
"They're trying to freeze things to make sure nothing happens they don't want to have happen, so any regulations going forward, contracts, grants, hires, they want to make sure to look at them first," said Ebell, who returned over the weekend to his position directing energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market, industry-aligned group that has long fought the EPA's growth and influence.
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-administration-imposes-freeze-on-epa-grants-and-contracts
This is just the right way to run an organization. Anytime there is a new boss nothing should happen until the new boss takes charge. This is just another example of there being a new sheriff in town.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 24, 2017, 12:09:01 PM
This is just the right way to run an organization. Anytime there is a new boss nothing should happen until the new boss takes charge. This is just another example of there being a new sheriff in town.
Yep...
After 8 years of out of control govt growth, these kids thought they had a life career as a govt leech, that dream just got destroyed, especially if you're an EPA or IRS scab.
There are a few wounds that need irrigating with a scrub brush and iodine.
Quote from: Solar on January 24, 2017, 12:06:12 PM
:thumbsup:
He needs to get used to it.
He's getting that skinny neck rubbed in his own poo...
Quote from: s3779m on January 24, 2017, 11:58:28 AM
I bet this just ruined obama's golf game.
...on a golf course owned by a mean old billionaire. Poor Hussein... they hate our country but love our luxuries.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 24, 2017, 08:40:09 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/trump-to-sign-orders-reviving-pipeline-projects-sources-say.html
Liberal heads are now exploding. Another good move by Trump.
Another thing he signed today instructs the commerce dept. to look into requiring US steel to be required in new pipe line projects. Sounds kind of like the requirement that US parts be used in military aircraft but regardless it could be a real shot in the arm for our steel industry and coal miners! Jobs, jobs, jobs!
The envioro Whackos are really going to hate this guy! :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!
IF I remember right, did not the EPA say Trump could not do a thing to them. I think someone said it will business as usual. Who's next? :lol:
Quote from: redbeard on January 24, 2017, 05:44:55 PM
Another thing he signed today instructs the commerce dept. to look into requiring US steel to be required in new pipe line projects. Sounds kind of like the requirement that US parts be used in military aircraft but regardless it could be a real shot in the arm for our steel industry and coal miners! Jobs, jobs, jobs!
The envioro Whackos are really going to hate this guy! :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
I saw a piece on the news taping his signing the EO. He turned it around to show his signature, then said "We're going to make the pipeline, and we're going to make the pipes...."
I am not a big fan of Trump, with any support being along sad but common "better him than dim." I still think he is a grade A egoist, in it because he likes the spotlight every bit as much as Bammy did. But I am liking what he has been doing since winning the election. "Hit the ground running" is an understatement. If putting the USA back in at the top as the world's biggest superpower both economically and militarily is Trump's idea of HIS legacy, I'll back that idea all the way.
Quote from: zewazir on January 24, 2017, 07:23:50 PM
I saw a piece on the news taping his signing the EO. He turned it around to show his signature, then said "We're going to make the pipeline, and we're going to make the pipes...."
I am not a big fan of Trump, with any support being along sad but common "better him than dim." I still think he is a grade A egoist, in it because he likes the spotlight every bit as much as Bammy did. But I am liking what he has been doing since winning the election. "Hit the ground running" is an understatement. If putting the USA back in at the top as the world's biggest superpower both economically and militarily is Trump's idea of HIS legacy, I'll back that idea all the way.
Hmm... Could it be Trump's way of rubbing their nose in it?
Quote from: taxed on January 24, 2017, 12:47:48 PM
...on a golf course owned by a mean old billionaire. Poor Hussein... they hate our country but love our luxuries.
Man did you just hit the freaking nail on the head.
Quote from: redbeard on January 24, 2017, 05:44:55 PM
Another thing he signed today instructs the commerce dept. to look into requiring US steel to be required in new pipe line projects. Sounds kind of like the requirement that US parts be used in military aircraft but regardless it could be a real shot in the arm for our steel industry and coal miners! Jobs, jobs, jobs!
The envioro Whackos are really going to hate this guy! :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Jane Fonda is unhappy with this move. Oh dear!
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 25, 2017, 04:41:36 AM
Jane Fonda is unhappy with this move. Oh dear!
Like Kojack says, "Who loves ya, baby!"
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csgbqtrfftftswrtxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fbsfgbftkkxsqkbkrdst%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201654%2F059fondaurinaltarget-vi.jpg&hash=95dc81f12d5b227a3c1fd7e027bd14f74db050c2)
Trump Gunning for Taxpayer-Subsidized 'News' and 'Art'
President Trump has four choice words for the state-funded media and pseudo-arts program: Not on my watch.
Plans are in the works to eliminate both the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). And Trump wants to privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which helps fund National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The CPB currently draws nearly half a billion dollars ($445.5 million) a year from taxpayers.
Trump's plan, first reported by The Hill, is part of a blueprint to slash federal spending by $10.5 trillion over the next decade. "Many of the specific cuts were included in the 2017 budget adopted by the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), a caucus that represents a majority of House Republicans," The Hill reported.
"A free society should not have government-supported media outlets, especially ones that so often convey political news and opinion," the RSC report said. "There is no shortage of media outlets and news services available to consumers," the report said.
"The federal government should not be in the business of funding the arts," the RSC said of eliminating the taxpayer-subsidized programs.'
Read More: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12782/death-big-bird-trump-gunning-taxpayer-subsidized-lemuel-pitkin
Lets stick all new orders and other activities by Trump here, so as not to flood the board.
Thanks.
Walks, feel free to move any threads pertaining.
Thanks.
Quote from: mrconservative on January 25, 2017, 11:05:37 AM
Trump Gunning for Taxpayer-Subsidized 'News' and 'Art'
President Trump has four choice words for the state-funded media and pseudo-arts program: Not on my watch.
Plans are in the works to eliminate both the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). And Trump wants to privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which helps fund National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The CPB currently draws nearly half a billion dollars ($445.5 million) a year from taxpayers.
Trump's plan, first reported by The Hill, is part of a blueprint to slash federal spending by $10.5 trillion over the next decade. "Many of the specific cuts were included in the 2017 budget adopted by the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), a caucus that represents a majority of House Republicans," The Hill reported.
"A free society should not have government-supported media outlets, especially ones that so often convey political news and opinion," the RSC report said. "There is no shortage of media outlets and news services available to consumers," the report said.
"The federal government should not be in the business of funding the arts," the RSC said of eliminating the taxpayer-subsidized programs.'
Read More: http://www.dailywire.com/news/12782/death-big-bird-trump-gunning-taxpayer-subsidized-lemuel-pitkin
More lib heads are exploding. He also signed two EO's on immigration. I consider "building the wall" not as big a deal as the orders basically instructing DHS to enforce vigorously existing laws. Schumer and Pelosi are not happy.
Libs, this executive order stuff is fun!!!!!!!..... wwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: taxed on January 25, 2017, 01:50:18 PM
Libs, this executive order stuff is fun!!!!!!!..... wwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I like a lot of what he is doing, but didn't you hate the EOs when Obama did it.
Quote from: DwayneHoover on January 25, 2017, 03:58:51 PM
I like a lot of what he is doing, but didn't you hate the EOs when Obama did it.
Hussein was issuing them to hurt the country. Trump did these to undo what Hussein did. Hussein attempted to legislate via the EPA, etc. It didn't work, therefore, I don't hate using them to undo what Hussein was doing.
Quote from: taxed on January 25, 2017, 04:00:35 PM
Hussein was issuing them to hurt the country. Trump did these to undo what Hussein did. Hussein attempted to legislate via the EPA, etc. It didn't work, therefore, I don't hate using them to undo what Hussein was doing.
I love what he is doing but I hate EO's. An EO should be temporary and require congressional action to make them stand! After getting the country back on track it would be a great law to pass restricting the presidents power to bypass congress by time limiting EO's to say 6 month or maybe 1 year and requiring congressional legislation to continue past that. On a plus side it is a way to try something out and how it works before making it law but congress should act on some of these EO's if for no other reason then to make it harder for the next president to undo them!
Quote from: taxed on January 25, 2017, 04:00:35 PM
Hussein was issuing them to hurt the country. Trump did these to undo what Hussein did. Hussein attempted to legislate via the EPA, etc. It didn't work, therefore, I don't hate using them to undo what Hussein was doing.
he knew they wouldn't stand so I'm not sure why he did it, but it wouldn't hurt the country if they were to be countered by trump.
people may be misguided but I can't see that he wanted to hurt the country. I do worry about Trump's protectionism hurting our economy. I want6 the factories back too, but there are better ways.
Quote from: DwayneHoover on January 25, 2017, 04:15:40 PM
he knew they wouldn't stand so I'm not sure why he did it, but it wouldn't hurt the country if they were to be countered by trump.
people may be misguided but I can't see that he wanted to hurt the country. I do worry about Trump's protectionism hurting our economy. I want6 the factories back too, but there are better ways.
Hussein was very anti-American and had a seething disdain for this country. That's interesting you don't think he wanted to hurt the country. It seems you don't really pay attention to news and politics. Why is that?
Quote from: DwayneHoover on January 25, 2017, 04:15:40 PM
he knew they wouldn't stand so I'm not sure why he did it, but it wouldn't hurt the country if they were to be countered by trump.
people may be misguided but I can't see that he wanted to hurt the country. I do worry about Trump's protectionism hurting our economy. I want6 the factories back too, but there are better ways.
He's a Marxist that hates capitalism and it showed in everything he did, including doubling our debt, a debt that took every POTUS predecessor to date..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWquRmNQl-I
At 5 Executive orders a day how many will that be? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Walks, wanna merge this one as well with?
Trump Executive Orders etc...
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/trump-signs-eo-approving-keystone-and-dakota-pipelines/
Quote from: Solar on January 25, 2017, 06:25:20 PM
Walks, wanna merge this one as well with?
Trump Executive Orders etc...
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/trump-signs-eo-approving-keystone-and-dakota-pipelines/
Solar you have to admit the countdown clock is fun!~! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: redbeard on January 25, 2017, 04:14:11 PM
I love what he is doing but I hate EO's. An EO should be temporary and require congressional action to make them stand! After getting the country back on track it would be a great law to pass restricting the presidents power to bypass congress by time limiting EO's to say 6 month or maybe 1 year and requiring congressional legislation to continue past that. On a plus side it is a way to try something out and how it works before making it law but congress should act on some of these EO's if for no other reason then to make it harder for the next president to undo them!
Executive Orders have a practical and legitimate purpose. The job of the executive branch of government is to enforce the laws. The laws state what is supposed to be enforced and sometimes when or under which circumstance, and provide for funding when necessary. The original and legitimate purpose of EOs are orders sent out to the components of the executive branch, telling them HOW to enforce the laws. For example: when Trump signed the EO which directed various offices to start planning the construction of the south border wall, he is using a legitimate EO, because the LAW approving the construction of a wall was passed by congress and signed by Bush Jr. back in 2006. As long as those orders wait for congress to properly fund the project before actually beginning construction, Trump is well within his authority as president telling his people to get things ready for when congress does provide a law which includes funding.
EOs were never intended to modify the law in any way, shape or form - a fact seemingly forgotten by several of the more recent administrations, but more so by the immediate past admin than all previous combined. O was continually using EOs to change the law, such as delaying deadlines set for the enactment of certain aspects of the ACA, to increase the scope of EPA authority, etc.
Hopefully after Trump is finished countering all of Obama's EO usurpations, he will limit their use to their original, legitimate purpose.
Quote from: DwayneHoover on January 25, 2017, 04:15:40 PM
he knew they wouldn't stand so I'm not sure why he did it, but it wouldn't hurt the country if they were to be countered by trump.
people may be misguided but I can't see that he wanted to hurt the country. I do worry about Trump's protectionism hurting our economy. I want6 the factories back too, but there are better ways.
I am not PC
BS. b o had 8 years to help the black people but all he did was stock the fire of racism at every turn. In my book b o is lower then cat shit.
Quote from: taxed on January 25, 2017, 05:14:58 PM
Hussein was very anti-American and had a seething disdain for this country. That's interesting you don't think he wanted to hurt the country. It seems you don't really pay attention to news and politics. Why is that?
i fail to see how his being dead wrong means he hates the country. He can love our country but be so wrong about what we stand for that having him as the president ultimately hurts the country.
I do pay attention to current affairs. if President Trump makes a mistake it will not nean he doesn't love our country. I love the way he is cutting these unnecessary departments, but the trade may backfire. i prefer to bring back factories mire slowly by regulating them not us.
We currently inspect 2% of the containers of these foreign goods at our expense. This is a national security issue equal to, or maybe larger than the refugees. We don't know what is in those containers. Could be a nuclear bomb, ebola, who knows Inspect all containers and charge the shipper. Prices go up on the foreign junk and we comoete on a level field.
"The American people are no longer going to have to be forced to subsidize this disregard for our laws."
snip~
Trump press secretary Sean Spicer announced on Wednesday an onslaught of new directives towards the goal of restoring law and order to the United States after eight years of the lawless Obama regime.
Spicer announced that all federal agencies are going to "unapologetically enforce the law" with "no ifs ands or buts" including the federal defunding of illegal and unconstitutional "sanctuary cities," a policy of progressive democrat leftists that give illegal aliens haven in several American cities that act as magnates for encouraging more illegal immigration.
"We're going to restore the popular and successful secure communities program which will help ICE agents target illegal immigrants for removal," Spicer announced in a prepared statement during his third press conference of the new administration.
more @
http://politistick.com/trump-administration-announces-major-steps-stop-foreign-invasion/#
Quote from: DwayneHoover on January 25, 2017, 08:18:03 PM
i fail
Correct.
Quoteto see how his being dead wrong means he hates the country.
It has nothing to do with being wrong or right.
Quote
He can love our country but be so wrong about what we stand for that having him as the president ultimately hurts the country.
You're correct, except for when you really do hate the country. To be a Marxist, you have to hate the country. If you loved the country, you wouldn't be a Marxist.
Quote
I do pay attention to current affairs.
Name something Hussein did that shows he loved the country.
Quote
if President Trump makes a mistake it will not nean he doesn't love our country.
I agree.
Quote
I love the way he is cutting these unnecessary departments, but the trade may backfire. i prefer to bring back factories mire slowly by regulating them not us.
There are many issues us free market capitalists have with various aspects of Trump's economic plans. There are many things we like as well.
Quote
We currently inspect 2% of the containers of these foreign goods at our expense. This is a national security issue equal to, or maybe larger than the refugees. We don't know what is in those containers. Could be a nuclear bomb, ebola, who knows Inspect all containers and charge the shipper. Prices go up on the foreign junk and we comoete on a level field.
I'm sure he has some smart security people. I can sleep better at night knowing our national security is high on his priority list.
Quote from: taxed on January 25, 2017, 08:33:42 PM
Correct.
It has nothing to do with being wrong or right.
You're correct, except for when you really do hate the country. To be a Marxist, you have to hate the country. If you loved the country, you wouldn't be a Marxist.
Name something Hussein did that shows he loved the country.
I agree.
There are many issues us free market capitalists have with various aspects of Trump's economic plans. There are many things we like as well.
I'm sure he has some smart security people. I can sleep better at night knowing our national security is high on his priority list.
I agree that he will set up good security. That doesn't mean that these containers coming from all over the world are safe and the fact is that we at our expense only inspect 2%.
Inspet 100%, charge the shipper, prices of foreign crap goes up, and the playing field levels a little
I don't see the downside
Quote from: redbeard on January 25, 2017, 04:14:11 PM
I love what he is doing but I hate EO's. An EO should be temporary and require congressional action to make them stand! After getting the country back on track it would be a great law to pass restricting the presidents power to bypass congress by time limiting EO's to say 6 month or maybe 1 year and requiring congressional legislation to continue past that. On a plus side it is a way to try something out and how it works before making it law but congress should act on some of these EO's if for no other reason then to make it harder for the next president to undo them!
I agree with you; while I love so far what he's doing, ruling by executive fiat is very concerning.
He is really just undoing what Obama did. He has stated he desires to go through congress. There are plenty of good laws on the books. He just needs to instruct folks to follow the law.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 26, 2017, 08:51:10 AM
He is really just undoing what Obama did. He has stated he desires to go through congress. There are plenty of good laws on the books. He just needs to instruct folks to follow the law.
Yep, unlike his predecessor, Trump hasn't created new Legislation, he's merely corrected wrongs done by the Marxist.
There's a reason Trump has to undo so many XO's, Congress is bound by the law of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, while the POTUS can only effect policy and not law.
Trump is simply undoing Marxist policy.
Quote from: DwayneHoover on January 25, 2017, 03:58:51 PM
I like a lot of what he is doing, but didn't you hate the EOs when Obama did it.
Do you understand that most of the EXo Trump is composing are to un do the Exo's Obamao wrote.
That and the fact that the EXo's on Immiogration are to reiterate EXISTING LAW and to begin enforcing the Law as it was PASSED PREVIOUSLY.
Quote from: Ms.Independence on January 26, 2017, 06:57:23 AM
I agree with you; while I love so far what he's doing, ruling by executive fiat is very concerning.
If that was even remotely what he was doing, I'd agree.
Quote from: DwayneHoover on January 26, 2017, 06:15:42 AM
I agree that he will set up good security. That doesn't mean that these containers coming from all over the world are safe and the fact is that we at our expense only inspect 2%.
Inspet 100%, charge the shipper, prices of foreign crap goes up, and the playing field levels a little
I don't see the downside
Who pays for the staff to do this? How long do you think it would take to become cost-effective, after recruitment, background checks and training? And while you're at it, what would you do with the massive numbers of empty shipping containers now piling up around the country? If we can't get the other countries to take back their boxes, how do you propose to collect your added fees?
Quote from: DwayneHoover on January 26, 2017, 06:15:42 AM
I agree that he will set up good security. That doesn't mean that these containers coming from all over the world are safe and the fact is that we at our expense only inspect 2%.
Inspet 100%, charge the shipper, prices of foreign crap goes up, and the playing field levels a little
I don't see the downside
Logistics alone would cripple transportation, be it massive amounts of manpower swarming the docks, to opening every container.
To what level do you search? Do you do a cursory and simply shake the container, break the seal and open the doors, or pull every piece out and physically inspect it, and if sealed packages, do they open each and everyone?
Where do we find the space to do this? Millions of containers being shipped daily, hiring millions of people to inspect them, an area large enough to spread out their entire contents, not to mention deciding what gets X-rayed.
Yeah, it's a nice dream, but it's never going to happen, ever.
Quote from: zewazir on January 25, 2017, 06:32:47 PM
Executive Orders have a practical and legitimate purpose. The job of the executive branch of government is to enforce the laws. The laws state what is supposed to be enforced and sometimes when or under which circumstance, and provide for funding when necessary. The original and legitimate purpose of EOs are orders sent out to the components of the executive branch, telling them HOW to enforce the laws. For example: when Trump signed the EO which directed various offices to start planning the construction of the south border wall, he is using a legitimate EO, because the LAW approving the construction of a wall was passed by congress and signed by Bush Jr. back in 2006. As long as those orders wait for congress to properly fund the project before actually beginning construction, Trump is well within his authority as president telling his people to get things ready for when congress does provide a law which includes funding.
EOs were never intended to modify the law in any way, shape or form - a fact seemingly forgotten by several of the more recent administrations, but more so by the immediate past admin than all previous combined. O was continually using EOs to change the law, such as delaying deadlines set for the enactment of certain aspects of the ACA, to increase the scope of EPA authority, etc.
Hopefully after Trump is finished countering all of Obama's EO usurpations, he will limit their use to their original, legitimate purpose.
You and I are on the same page. If there is going to be any EO abuse,
use it to unwind the former abuse QUICKLY, and then put a stop to it - return to the original purpose, let Congress function as it's suppose to, the People's House.
It really bugged me in 2009 when Obama supporters referred to "Obama's rule" - like he was a monarch and not a representative of the country. He took it literally, unfortunately. I don't like the idea of an Executive Order - no matter WHO is POTUS. I'd much rather see the House exercise full control of the finances & budget, instead of this shirking their responsibility for this 20 Trillion dollar debt.... but that's another subject.
I'm really concerned how quickly and easily Americans forget how the 3 branches of government are suppose to work! None of them have been acting responsibly, IMO.
Quote
Quote from: Ms.Independence on January 26, 2017, 06:57:23 AM
I agree with you; while I love so far what he's doing, ruling by executive fiat is very concerning.
Quote
Quote from: taxed on January 26, 2017, 05:06:50 PM
If that was even remotely what he was doing, I'd agree.
It's all those years of bowing and taking it in the shorts - we all got use to being stepped on, maligned and laughed at as Americans.
Trump can right the ship, and go on to *represent* the American people, not *rule* ... we're all good with that.
Unwinding the Executive Orders isn't ruling, it's *righting* a wrong.
Hate to admit it... even I have gotten so accustomed to government-running-amuck... this is quite a *shock* (or is refreshing a better term?) All those times a criminal or thug or terrorist harmed Americans, and Obama insinuated it was somehow OUR FAULT and we needed to examine ourselves, like we might have precipitated the evil act. Logic & Common sense turned upside down for 8 years.
Quote from: Hoofer on January 27, 2017, 02:52:45 PM
You and I are on the same page. If there is going to be any EO abuse, use it to unwind the former abuse QUICKLY, and then put a stop to it - return to the original purpose, let Congress function as it's suppose to, the People's House.
It really bugged me in 2009 when Obama supporters referred to "Obama's rule" - like he was a monarch and not a representative of the country. He took it literally, unfortunately. I don't like the idea of an Executive Order - no matter WHO is POTUS. I'd much rather see the House exercise full control of the finances & budget, instead of this shirking their responsibility for this 20 Trillion dollar debt.... but that's another subject.
I'm really concerned how quickly and easily Americans forget how the 3 branches of government are suppose to work! None of them have been acting responsibly, IMO.
Too long have we allowed the infection of Marxism to fester in our public education system. If the people do not understand how our government is designed to work, then they will, of course, not recognize when it is not working according to design. I find it a point of concern that the high school curriculum of today only requires a single semester of study focused specifically on how our government is supposed to function.
The concept of executive orders does not bother me, because how else is the president supposed to run the executive branch of government? The president gives orders to get things done - to his cabinet chiefs, to federal agencies, to the military. Those are executive orders, each and every one of them, though only a small percentage are taken note of (by the media - promoted by the government) and labeled as such. And, the large majority of EOs, even under a shitheap like Obama, are perfectly legitimate uses of executive authority.
But when an EO is used to alter law, or to refuse to enforce a law (effectively repealing it), then we see abuse of authority, which ends up giving the entire concept of executive order a bad smell.
I think of EOs as a management tool. And like any other tool, the determination of whether they are good or bad depends on how they are used.
He's been a very busy Potus, and i'm lovin' what he's done so far. I hope he keeps it up.
It seems the EO concerning extreme vetting is working. People are being detained until their proper credentials are confirmed. That was the intent. Of course, the left is outraged. That is good also. Just think about it. We are identifying people who should not be entering our country. Before the EO they were passing through customs to disappear into the country. The MSM is going to declare all out war on this EO.
Trumps EO's have the lib media blowdryheads brains exploding, and the more they piss and moan, the happier I get. I feel like iv'e overdosed on Valium.
Quote from: stewball on January 30, 2017, 05:02:23 PM
Trumps EO's have the lib media blowdryheads brains exploding, and the more they piss and moan, the happier I get. I feel like iv'e overdosed on Valium.
Their exploding alright. Not just at the EO's but also at the speed at which they are coming. To a lib, it must look like there is no end to them. Just when they are ready to start protesting on one EO, here come several more. And add to this anger is a real fear that their leaders are not able to stop any of this, pelosi, warren,schumer,boxer, can do nothing and their followers know it. All in all, not a good time to be a liberal. And Trump has 3 years 50 weeks to go. Poor libs.
I might point out that this EXO is based upon CODIFIED law under 8 USC 1187...the President or his designee have the right to ban or limit foreign nationals entry into the USA that are deemed a threat.
This one will cripple the Dems dependent upon Saudi money.
QuoteWASHINGTON - President Donald Trump acted Saturday to fulfill a key portion of his pledge to "drain the swamp" in Washington, banning administration officials from ever lobbying the U.S. on behalf of a foreign government and imposing a separate five-year ban on other lobbying.
Administration officials described the bans as historic in scope. But it was not immediately clear how either one would be enforced.
STORY AND VIDEO:
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/trump-imposes-lifetime-ban-on-administration-officials-lobbying-foreign-governments-5-years-for-oth
I need someone to answer this question: according to the judge in Seattle the Executive Branch does not have the authority to control immigration. Which branch does? Is this not a Constitutional crisis?
Quote from: mmtwice on February 09, 2017, 06:51:12 AM
I need someone to answer this question: according to the judge in Seattle the Executive Branch does not have the authority to control immigration. Which branch does? Is this not a Constitutional crisis?
Link?
Quote from: mmtwice on February 09, 2017, 06:51:12 AM
I need someone to answer this question: according to the judge in Seattle the Executive Branch does not have the authority to control immigration. Which branch does? Is this not a Constitutional crisis?
The fact is, the judge in Seatle is wrong, POTUS is the final arbiter of who enters the country.
By the way, this same idiot judge believes Black Lives matters is relevant.
By the way, welcome to the forum...
QuoteThe first executive order, according to what Mr. Trump outlined during the signing ceremony in the Oval Office, is meant to direct the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to "undertake all necessary and lawful action to break the back of the criminal cartels that have spread across our nation and are destroying the blood of our youth and many other people.""These groups are drivers of crime, corruption, violence, and misery," the order reads. "In particular, the trafficking by cartels of controlled substances has triggered a resurgence in deadly drug abuse and a corresponding rise in violent crime related to drugs."
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe president signed two other actions Thursday, including one that creates a task force within the Justice Department dedicated to "reducing violent crime in America."
The "Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety" will have administrative and financial support from the Attorney General's office, according to the text of the order.
The last action directs the DOJ to implement a plan to "stop crime and crimes of violence against law enforcement officers."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-signs-executive-orders-on-crime-law-enforcement/ar-AAmLMUx?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
Sessions swearing in, First day and he has just received some massive marching orders! Is that last order directed at BLM and the Black Panthers?
Here is some more from the article!
QuoteThe order itself instructs the department to "pursue appropriate legislation...that will define new Federal crimes, and increase penalties for existing Federal crimes, in order to prevent violence against Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement officers." That recommended legislation could include "defining new crimes of violence and establishing new mandatory minimum sentences for existing crimes of violence."
The order also directs a thorough evaluation of all grant funding programs currently administered by the Justice Department.
This is exactly why Trump was elected! All the snowflakes are going into meltdown!
Will the 9th get slapped down and put in there place?
9th Circuit Judge Wants Another Vote over Trump Travel Ban Decision.
by Rachel Stockman | 6:16 pm, February 10th, 2017
snip~
In a rare move, one of the judges on the Ninth Circuit of Appeals has made a request that a vote be taken as to whether the order issued by the three judges Thursday night should be reconsidered en banc, which means before 11 federal judges of the Ninth Circuit. It's not clear if this means that this judge (who was not named in the order) believes that there are enough votes to overturn the lower court's decision which put a temporary halt on Trump's controversial travel ban or if the judge simply wasn't satisfied with the panel's decision. Regardless, it is an interesting move that could bode well for President Trump, and throws yet another legal twist into the ongoing court battle between Trump and those trying to prevent his controversial immigration ban from being enforced.
more @
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-9th-circuit-judge-wants-another-vote-on-trump-travel-ban-decision/
Quote from: walkstall on February 11, 2017, 08:48:29 AM
Will the 9th get slapped down and put in there place?
9th Circuit Judge Wants Another Vote over Trump Travel Ban Decision.
by Rachel Stockman | 6:16 pm, February 10th, 2017
snip~
In a rare move, one of the judges on the Ninth Circuit of Appeals has made a request that a vote be taken as to whether the order issued by the three judges Thursday night should be reconsidered en banc, which means before 11 federal judges of the Ninth Circuit. It's not clear if this means that this judge (who was not named in the order) believes that there are enough votes to overturn the lower court's decision which put a temporary halt on Trump's controversial travel ban or if the judge simply wasn't satisfied with the panel's decision. Regardless, it is an interesting move that could bode well for President Trump, and throws yet another legal twist into the ongoing court battle between Trump and those trying to prevent his controversial immigration ban from being enforced.
more @
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-9th-circuit-judge-wants-another-vote-on-trump-travel-ban-decision/
If I'm not mistaken, this isn't the first time the court overturned itself after the fact.
The Ninth Circus is the most overruled court in the Nation, and it's possible the court itself knows when three judges overstepped its own authority.
Quote from: Solar on February 11, 2017, 10:46:14 AM
If I'm not mistaken, this isn't the first time the court overturned itself after the fact.
The Ninth Circus is the most overruled court in the Nation, and it's possible the court itself knows when three judges overstepped its own authority.
My understanding the 9th is not the only one call out over the years.
Quote from: Solar on February 11, 2017, 10:46:14 AM
If I'm not mistaken, this isn't the first time the court overturned itself after the fact.
The Ninth Circus is the most overruled court in the Nation, and it's possible the court itself knows when three judges overstepped its own authority.
This would be fun to watch. They may desire to prevent another embarrassment by the SC.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 11, 2017, 11:37:13 AM
This would be fun to watch. They may desire to prevent another embarrassment by the SC.
New Order coming next week! I Will bet that it is being written and reviewed by some of the best constitutional layers in the country to dot every I and cross every T. Can't wait to see just what it will cover. Will it be watered down? They said they would take the Courts ruling under consideration for valid visa holders but I will bet you in some areas it will be tougher then the last order! Trump isn't much on caving in.
This could be real fun watching the new Snowflake meltdown!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
If Trump starts pouring out more EO's, I set stick again.
Quote from: admin on February 22, 2017, 06:21:17 PM
If Trump starts pouring out more EO's, I set stick again.
Well he just rescinded Obama's transgender bathroom EO. That's something!!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/22/trump-administration-revokes-obama-era-transgender-bathroom-guidance-for-schools.html
I guess this means no more super bowls in the united states!!
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Quote from: redbeard on February 22, 2017, 06:25:59 PM
Well he just rescinded Obama's transgender bathroom EO. That's something!!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/22/trump-administration-revokes-obama-era-transgender-bathroom-guidance-for-schools.html
I guess this means no more super bowls in the united states!!
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
LOL I was just about to post that in its own topic.
Quote from: taxed on January 25, 2017, 01:50:18 PM
Libs, this executive order stuff is fun!!!!!!!..... wwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
Quote from: taxed on January 25, 2017, 05:14:58 PM
Hussein was very anti-American and had a seething disdain for this country. That's interesting you don't think he wanted to hurt the country. It seems you don't really pay attention to news and politics. Why is that?
Isn't it possible that he believed his ivory tower philosophies would actually help the country and did what he thought was best for the US ... even though about every move he made was corrosive to our foundation?
This is a very important point Taxed made ... andn I wanted to bring emphasis ...
Quote from: taxed on January 25, 2017, 08:33:42 PM
If you loved the country, you wouldn't be a Marxist.
BO acted like a Marxist so I share in giving him that label. And, by definition, a Marxist will hate a republic as they cannot do whatever they want. So, from that viewpoint, BO DID hate this country and acted it out.
I doubt if he recognized it overtly - but it sure was in his DNA. And we are what we do, what we say may or may not be an indicator.
Quote from: topside on February 23, 2017, 09:50:29 AM
This is a very important point Taxed made ... andn I wanted to bring emphasis ...
BO acted like a Marxist so I share in giving him that label. And, by definition, a Marxist will hate a republic as they cannot do whatever they want. So, from that viewpoint, BO DID hate this country and acted it out.
I doubt if he recognized it overtly - but it sure was in his DNA. And we are what we do, what we say may or may not be an indicator.
For clarification, he wasn't acting like a Marxist, he is one.
Quote from: topside on February 23, 2017, 09:44:30 AM
Isn't it possible that he believed his ivory tower philosophies would actually help the country and did what he thought was best for the US ... even though about every move he made was corrosive to our foundation?
The answer is NO!. He knew exactly what he was doing and told us from the get go. As soon as I learned he was a Saul Alinsky advocate and friend of Bill Ayers I knew exactly what his intentions were in 2007.
Quote from: topside on February 23, 2017, 09:50:29 AM
This is a very important point Taxed made ... andn I wanted to bring emphasis ...
BO acted like a Marxist so I share in giving him that label. And, by definition, a Marxist will hate a republic as they cannot do whatever they want. So, from that viewpoint, BO DID hate this country and acted it out.
I doubt if he recognized it overtly - but it sure was in his DNA. And we are what we do, what we say may or may not be an indicator.
Instead of doubting and posting about what you know nothing about, maybe learn first, then discuss?
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/obama-energy-plan-killing-jobs/msg60029/#msg60029
Quote from: taxed on February 23, 2017, 12:15:51 PM
Instead of doubting and posting about what you know nothing about, maybe learn first, then discuss?
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/obama-energy-plan-killing-jobs/msg60029/#msg60029
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Aww, the good times, watching libs collapse when they learn their hero is a lying communist.
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.
Where is the misuse? We have laws on the books which prohibit immigrants whose intent is contrary to the republic and constitution. Clearly, without proper vetting, admitting refugees from the seven countries listed in Trump's EO have a high probability of including individuals whose intent is contrary to our constitution. Therefore his EO is exactly within the scope of the law, and a proper use of an EO. Ditto his EO which is increasing patrol of the border and ending Obama's prohibition against deporting illegal immigrants. We have laws on the books which describe in exacting detail the processes for obtaining visas and entering this country as a foreign national, which include sections which describe the appropriate actions for those who bypass those procedures. Trump tells ICE to enforce those laws - the exact purpose and original intent of executive orders.
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.
I'm just curious. Where do you get your misinformation....ummm, "Fake News"?
Quote from: Solar on February 23, 2017, 06:55:41 PM
I'm just curious. Where do you get your misinformation....ummm, "Fake News"?
Not following you. As said several time, EOs are for the executive branch's use to enforce the laws that the legislative branch sets. OB used it to basically form new laws - a mis-use. Now Trump is using the EOs to an extent to undo OBs crap - which, in some cases where he is undoing "fake law", it's a misuse from my viewpoint.
I was saying that I am enjoying the current mis-use as the OB eight years I just felt like road kill while he did what he wanted. The sugar high is Trump misusing (in some cases) to undo - a blessed relief from the OB years. But, as others have also said and I agree with, the mis-use should and probably will be closed off in some way as this administration progresses. EOs shouldn't be allowed to set laws or cancel them - that's what congress is supposed to do.
So what do you take issue with?
Quote from: topside on February 24, 2017, 05:54:02 AM
Not following you. As said several time, EOs are for the executive branch's use to enforce the laws that the legislative branch sets. OB used it to basically form new laws - a mis-use. Now Trump is using the EOs to an extent to undo OBs crap - which, in some cases where he is undoing "fake law", it's a misuse from my viewpoint.
I was saying that I am enjoying the current mis-use as the OB eight years I just felt like road kill while he did what he wanted. The sugar high is Trump misusing (in some cases) to undo - a blessed relief from the OB years. But, as others have also said and I agree with, the mis-use should and probably will be closed off in some way as this administration progresses. EOs shouldn't be allowed to set laws or cancel them - that's what congress is supposed to do.
So what do you take issue with?
That was the point. How is it trump is misusing the law, or to be honest, your claim is, he's abusing the law. Show me an example of this supposed abuse.
It's the very reason I asked where you get your news that shapes your opinion that he's abusing his power?
Quote from: Solar on February 24, 2017, 06:03:45 AM
That was the point. How is it trump is misusing the law, or to be honest, your claim is, he's abusing the law. Show me an example of this supposed abuse.
It's the very reason I asked where you get your news that shapes your opinion that he's abusing his power?
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.
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.
Second hand smoke, is that code for MSNBC?
Quote from: Solar on February 24, 2017, 07:04:34 AM
Second hand smoke, is that code for MSNBC?
No - not MSNBC; I only get my information from CNN (not). Cut me a little slack, will ya. Although, it was humourous. Your like some of my professors that loved smacking their students down while they try to learn from them. Never really understood it, but I had to take the heat to gain the knowledge on many occasions. But its a better experience when the professor is more understanding when the student is trying to work forward.
So second hand means how I sort a composite of information without trying to dig farther down towards bedrock - from all sources including what I've read / seen on this site. We all have to do it to a degree as looking at details takes time. We need to trust others on some topics to inform us - it's dangerous but difficult not to do.
Standby - I'm going down another layer with a little originality on this topic that I hope will be instructive and constructive for me and other members.
Quote from: topside on February 24, 2017, 12:31:48 PM
No - not MSNBC; I only get my information from CNN (not). Cut me a little slack, will ya. Although, it was humourous. Your like some of my professors that loved smacking their students down while they try to learn from them. Never really understood it, but I had to take the heat to gain the knowledge on many occasions. But its a better experience when the professor is more understanding when the student is trying to work forward.
So second hand means how I sort a composite of information without trying to dig farther down towards bedrock - from all sources including what I've read / seen on this site. We all have to do it to a degree as looking at details takes time. We need to trust others on some topics to inform us - it's dangerous but difficult not to do.
Standby - I'm going down another layer with a little originality on this topic that I hope will be instructive and constructive for me and other members.
Seriously, CNN? THat's no different than MSNBC. But you still didn't answer the question.
"How is trump misusing the law, or to be honest, your claim is, he's abusing the law. Show me an example of this supposed abuse."
Quote from: Solar on February 24, 2017, 06:03:45 AM
That was the point. How is it trump is misusing the law, or to be honest, your claim is, he's abusing the law. Show me an example of this supposed abuse.
It's the very reason I asked where you get your news that shapes your opinion that he's abusing his power?
BO issued 276 orders according to one site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
So I spent some time reading Trumps twelve (so far) executive orders. There is a set of CYA (cover your ass) clauses at the bottom that, I think, the lawyers meant to say that these orders cannot contradict the Constitution or powers vested in the branches. But they look like cover to me - just so the orders can't be interpreted as working outside the bounds.
I also randomly sampled one of BOs executive orders for CYA statements:
Executive Order 13754 of December 9, 2016
Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience
An obvious liberal order (why did our president mess with this?) The order is much longer than Trump's. It has some of the same CYA language at the end. It appears he was less cautious than Trump is being with the CYA language.
So now, back to the issue at hand. Is Trump mis-using (abusing) his power with the EOs. Here is a table of the EOs along with my viewpoint of which EOs are not in his court - CYA aside.
(https://public.fotki.com/mgeile/topside-album/eodiscussion.html)
Ahh ... for some reason the table I posted won't show up on this page as an image. If an admin can see what I did wrong I would appreciate a pointer on how to fix it.
Here is the link if the paged doesn't show for you.
https://public.fotki.com/mgeile/topside-album/eodiscussion.html (https://public.fotki.com/mgeile/topside-album/eodiscussion.html)
So I think Trump is mis-using the EOs to a degree. As said above, I'm good with it to counter the BO orders. But the branches need to get in their lanes for our republic to work as intended.
Quote from: topside on February 24, 2017, 01:26:32 PM
BO issued 276 orders according to one site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
So I spent some time reading Trumps twelve (so far) executive orders. There is a set of CYA (cover your ass) clauses at the bottom that, I think, the lawyers meant to say that these orders cannot contradict the Constitution or powers vested in the branches. But they look like cover to me - just so the orders can't be interpreted as working outside the bounds.
I looked at one of BOs executive orders.
Executive Order 13754 of December 9, 2016
Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience
An obvious liberal type of order (why did our president mess with this?) But its much longer. It has some of the same CYA language at the end. It appears he was less cautious than Trump is being with the CYA language.
So now, back to the issue at hand. Is Trump mis-using (abusing) his power with the EOs. Here is a table of the EOs along with my viewpoint of which EOs are not in his court - CYA aside.
(https://public.fotki.com/mgeile/topside-album/eodiscussion.html)
Ummm, can you at least give me one that shows Trump abused his Executive privilege? I'm lousy at mind reading....
Quote from: Solar on February 24, 2017, 01:36:38 PM
Ummm, can you at least give me one that shows Trump abused his Executive privilege? I'm lousy at mind reading....
Follow the link and look at the columns in dark red - I added those two that say which branch should own the topic of the EO and why. The ones marked Legislative I believe to be outside his privileged. For example, EO 13770.
Any pointers on why the http wouldn't post would be helpful too. I tried to insert the table for ease of reading but the code in there is failing for some reason. So I just put the link in but left the img code.
Quote from: topside on February 24, 2017, 01:43:08 PM
Follow the link and look at the columns in dark red - I added those two that say which branch should own the topic of the EO and why. The ones marked Legislative I believe to be outside his privileged. For example, EO 13770.
Any pointers on why the http wouldn't post would be helpful too. I tried to insert the table for ease of reading but the code in there is failing for some reason. So I just put the link in but left the img code.
No! You give me one! It's not my job to do your work for you.
Quote from: Solar on February 24, 2017, 02:00:42 PM
No! You give me one! It's not my job to do your work for you.
Whoa! I'm confused. I posted a table about all of Trump's EOs and tried to put it in the post. That failed so I provided this link (below) with my augmented table:
https://public.fotki.com/mgeile/topside-album/eodiscussion.html (https://public.fotki.com/mgeile/topside-album/eodiscussion.html)
I tested the link - it worked for me. Should be no work for you.
Quote from: topside on February 24, 2017, 02:04:53 PM
Whoa! I'm confused. I posted a table about all of Trump's EOs and tried to put it in the post. That failed so I provided this link (below) with my augmented table:
https://public.fotki.com/mgeile/topside-album/eodiscussion.html (https://public.fotki.com/mgeile/topside-album/eodiscussion.html)
I tested the link - it worked for me. Should be no work for you.
Are you Fuckin Thick? I said give me one, just one, that you claim represents Trump's abuse of power!
I won't ask again!!!!
Quote from: Solar on February 24, 2017, 02:08:07 PM
Are you Fuckin Thick? I said give me one, just one, that you claim represents Trump's abuse of power!
I won't ask again!!!!
I'm not your bitch Solar.
Quote from: topside on February 24, 2017, 02:19:22 PM
I'm not your bitch Solar.
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.
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.
Actually the table he linked is his own work and does explain why he believes certain EO's are stretching executive authority. It outlines each EO signed by Trump along with dates and document numbers, then in the two right hand columns he opines which branch of government he thinks the authority belongs to and explains why. IMO, not a bad piece of work, even though I disagree with many of his conclusions.
Quote from: zewazir on February 24, 2017, 04:43:42 PM
Actually the table he linked is his own work and does explain why he believes certain EO's are stretching executive authority. It outlines each EO signed by Trump along with dates and document numbers, then in the two right hand columns he opines which branch of government he thinks the authority belongs to and explains why. IMO, not a bad piece of work, even though I disagree with many of his conclusions.
Problem was, the link didn't click through so I could examine it in detail.
I don't want his Fotki account, I want the actual source.
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.
:lol: 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. :biggrin:
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.
(https://images59.fotki.com/v1640/photos/2/3752592/14241238/eo4-vi.jpg)
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 (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 (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. :popcorn:
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.
(https://images59.fotki.com/v1640/photos/2/3752592/14241238/eo4-vi.jpg)
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 (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 (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. :popcorn:
There's Solar, Taxed, and then who resizes Solar's images. :lol:
Quote from: quiller on February 25, 2017, 05:55:47 PM
There's Solar, Taxed, and then who resizes Solar's images. :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
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. :lol:
Hmm... Nautical Underpants :lol:
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.
Much ado over too little. Too many bugs up too many asses.
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. (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.headingfortheexits.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2FExplodingHead.gif&hash=d4418b549584463d96d3f9177c88eeff8af2c036)
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/ (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/ (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. :biggrin:
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/ (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 ? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
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.
Quote from: Josey on February 28, 2017, 06:22:17 AM
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.
Problem is, Congress refused to address it when they had the chance.
What Trump is doing, is essentially their job, what they refused to address, the law of the land as in upholding the constitution.
Trump has put it front and center, forcing congress to deal with it, like it or not. He's setting Congress' agenda for them.
Quote from: Josey on February 28, 2017, 06:22:17 AM
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.
If you "are not a fan" of EOs, you do not understand what they are. In simple terms, every time the president tells the staff of a cabinet or agency how or what to do in relation to laws governing that cabinet/agency, he is essentially issuing an executive order. The problem is not EOs themselves, but when a president abuses the authority to change the law, either by adding enforcement aspects which are not in the law (war on coal), actually changing the law (Delaying deadlines of the ACA) or refusing to enforce it at all (immigration).
Thus far Trump has been very careful to issue EOs that stay within the limits of authority of the executive branch. Obama wandered out of that limitation so many times it may as well have not existed.
Quote from: zewazir on February 28, 2017, 06:47:39 AM
If you "are not a fan" of EOs, you do not understand what they are. In simple terms, every time the president tells the staff of a cabinet or agency how or what to do in relation to laws governing that cabinet/agency, he is essentially issuing an executive order. The problem is not EOs themselves, but when a president abuses the authority to change the law, either by adding enforcement aspects which are not in the law (war on coal), actually changing the law (Delaying deadlines of the ACA) or refusing to enforce it at all (immigration).
Thus far Trump has been very careful to issue EOs that stay within the limits of authority of the executive branch. Obama wandered out of that limitation so many times it may as well have not existed.
I understand exactly what they are and how they work. I wasn't a fan when oBlamer used them either for ANY reason.
My point is if there's a problem with immigration change the law, same with oBlamercare.
He is a Republican like it or not, Republicans have an advantage although it may be slight.
I would like to have seen him address the R's in the legislature early on and put his foot down, or up their *ss.
Another two yrs of a do nothing legislature and the R's are toast in two yrs. as will be Trump.
If the libs want to block at every turn fine then Trump and EVERY R must take that to the people in simple forum everyday. When they get in front of the MSM don't cower but stick to the message.
Quote from: Josey on February 28, 2017, 08:37:27 AM
I understand exactly what they are and how they work. I wasn't a fan when oBlamer used them either for ANY reason.
My point is if there's a problem with immigration change the law, same with oBlamercare.
Wherein lies the problem, we have the laws in place, and the GOP refused to fund them as in the border issues, while they turned a blind eye to Commiecare.
Point being, Trump is forced to move things along in a temporary fashion via EO.
QuoteHe is a Republican like it or not, Republicans have an advantage although it may be slight.
I would like to have seen him address the R's in the legislature early on and put his foot down, or up their *ss.
Another two yrs of a do nothing legislature and the R's are toast in two yrs. as will be Trump.
If the libs want to block at every turn fine then Trump and EVERY R must take that to the people in simple forum everyday. When they get in front of the MSM don't cower but stick to the message.
The GOP is on a short leash with the electorate, an electorate hell bent on kicking out the leftist scum out of the party.
Quote from: Josey on February 28, 2017, 06:22:17 AM
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.
Your point is well made. The reason EO's have become so prevalent is congress had abdicated its responsibility. Congress is more than happy to let the POTUS take any heat as they go about when their hands for their next campaign.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 28, 2017, 09:24:51 AM
Your point is well made. The reason EO's have become so prevalent is congress had abdicated its responsibility. Congress is more than happy to let the POTUS take any heat as they go about when their hands for their next campaign.
Exactly! And the GOP wasn't all that opposed to what the Marxist was doing.
Quote from: Josey on February 28, 2017, 06:22:17 AM
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.
Huh?
Quote from: Solar on February 28, 2017, 09:31:52 AM
Exactly! And the GOP wasn't all that opposed to what the Marxist was doing.
When Congress writes the law which allows agencies to write their own rules, it causes all kinds of constitutional conflicts. That is on Congress. Agencies apply law, not make it.
But a lazy congress does not make the IDEA of EOs wrong. A president still needs to issue commands to the military, the cabinet, and others of the executive branch. IMO, putting those commands in the form of EOs allows for more transparency. The People can read what he is telling his people to do. EOs are a tool, and like any other tool, the manner one is used makes it good or bad for the republic. Obama abused the authority and straight out violated the law with many of them.
Quote from: zewazir on February 28, 2017, 02:23:35 PM
When Congress writes the law which allows agencies to write their own rules, it causes all kinds of constitutional conflicts. That is on Congress. Agencies apply law, not make it.
But a lazy congress does not make the IDEA of EOs wrong. A president still needs to issue commands to the military, the cabinet, and others of the executive branch. IMO, putting those commands in the form of EOs allows for more transparency. The People can read what he is telling his people to do. EOs are a tool, and like any other tool, the manner one is used makes it good or bad for the republic. Obama abused the authority and straight out violated the law with many of them.
The POTUS is afforded the luxury of appointing Diplomats without a consent of Congress, as in the form of an EO, and from what I understand, the EO was designed for formal relations abroad with potential allies or declaring acts of war including Martial Law, all of which fall under Executive Orders.
Until it's abused, it'll exist at the president's prerogative until such time Congress challenges it or defines its limits.
Another organization that needs to be reeled in is the FAA and it's writing of rules. That needs to stop, these entities are growing beyond the parameters they were afforded at their inception. They want to write law, then they need to run it all by Congress first.
But it's becoming more and more clear, Congress would rather avoid actually working and let POTUS do as they please.
We are quickly approaching a single branch of govt and two rubber stamp branches...