carlfense Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 . . . and they look like a joke. It seems pretty clear that this doesn't concern them. Reality can barely penetrate the Fox News bubble and they don't seem to care what people outside of that bubble think. Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Premature Litigation. Don't they make a pill for this? Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Number of executive orders by President: President Total Orders George Washington 8 John Adams 1 Thomas Jefferson 4 James Madison 1 James Monroe 1 John Quincy Adams 3 Andrew Jackson 12 Martin van Buren 10 William Henry Harrison 0 John Tyler 17 James K. Polk 18 Zachary Taylor 5 Millard Fillmore 12 Franklin Pierce 35 James Buchanan 16 Abraham Lincoln 48 Andrew Johnson 79 Ulysses S. Grant 217 Rutherford B. Hayes 92 James Garfield 6 Chester Arthur 96 Grover Cleveland - I 113 Benjamin Harrison 143 Grover Cleveland - II 140 William McKinley 185 Theodore Roosevelt 1,081 William Howard Taft 724 Woodrow Wilson 1,803 Warren G. Harding 522 Calvin Coolidge 1,203 Herbert Hoover 968 Franklin D. Roosevelt 3,522 Harry S. Truman 907 Dwight D. Eisenhower 484 John F. Kennedy 214 Lyndon B. Johnson 325 Richard Nixon 346 Gerald R. Ford 169 Jimmy Carter 320 Ronald Reagan 381 George Bush 166 William J. Clinton 364 George W. Bush 291 Barack Obama 183 Any president with more executive orders than the Kenyan Marxist Pinko Commie Liberal Dictator Tyrant Traitor Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama has been highlighted in Red. Source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php (Through July 20, 2014) Link to comment
Junior Posted August 1, 2014 Author Share Posted August 1, 2014 But our hero... Ronnie Raygun? Say it ain't so! Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 A quick honest question. I do not plan to get into some internet tough guy posting battle, but I really want to know if the ardent Obama supporters feel a though he has over reached in some degree with his authority as it relates to the separation of powers with Congress enacting/enforcing law. Specifically, the changes in implementing the ACA, disregard of the INA, Welfare reform Act and Defense of Marriage Act. Not talking about "scandals", but actual laws he has changed without Congressional approval or blatant disregard in enforcing them. Has any president done executive decisions that so dramatically changed/effected law in your opinion. I realize he has "done less" , but have they been more impacting? Do you think this is acceptable? If a R had done these things do you think it would cause more or less reaction? Would you still support these actions as acceptable un Bush? Do you feel SCOTUS made the correct decision on the recess appointment decision? I am ASSuming no, as no one has commented. Thought of this when I ran across this article. Judging by how little this is being covered, and by how few (as in, none) Republican party leaders are threatening lawsuits against these sheriffs, I'm going to say we know the answer to the question in bold: Sheriffs refusing to enforce laws they deem unconstitutional While the position of sheriff is not found in the U.S. Constitution, it is listed in state constitutions. Nearly all of America’s 3,080 sheriffs are elected to their positions, whereas state and city police officials are appointed. Lewis and other sheriffs, and their supporters, say that puts them in the best position to stand up to gun laws they consider unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms. “The role of a sheriff is to be the interposer between the law and the citizen,” said Maryland Delegate Don Dwyer, an Anne Arundel County Republican. “He should stand between the government and citizen in every issue pertaining to the law.” When Lewis was president of the Maryland Sheriffs’ Association, he testified with other sheriffs against the state’s Firearms Safety Act (FSA) before it was enacted in 2013. One of the strictest gun laws in the nation, the act requires gun applicants to supply fingerprints and complete training to obtain a handgun license online. It bans 45 types of firearms, limits magazines to 10 rounds and outlaws gun ownership for people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility. 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Anyone wonder what happened to this? I'm shocked. Shocked, I say. When, back in July, Speaker John Boehner secured House authorization to file suit against President Obama for “changing the health care law without a vote of Congress, effectively creating his own law,” cynical Democrats derided the planned litigation as a “political stunt,” a talking point for the fall campaign playbook. But areport by the apolitical Congressional Research Service (CRS), completed on September 4, but never released by the member who sponsored it, nor mentioned in the press, indicates that the Democrats were not cynical enough.Now, three months after the party-line House vote to green-light the lawsuit, no complaint has yet been filed. If this stretched out delay means that Boehner has actually redirected his sue-Obama gambit toward oblivion, the reason may be this unnoticed six week old CRS report. While bearing an opaquely generic title - “A Primer on the Reviewability of Agency Delay and Enforcement Discretion,” the report actually targets a single instance of alleged agency delay and exercise of enforcement discretion - the Obama Administration’s adjustments of effective dates for the Affordable Care Act’s so-called employer mandate to offer employees ACA-complaint health insurance or pay a tax. This delay happens to be the basis - the sole basis - for the legal action against the President that Boehner outlined in July. Although shrouded in twelve pages of fine print and protectively bureaucratic phraseology, the report’s bottom line is clear: not merely are the legal underpinnings of the Republicans’ planned lawsuit weak; the report turns up no legal basis - no “there” there - at all. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2014/10/the_congressional_research_ser052647.php Link to comment
alexhortdog95 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 More useless rhetoric from both. Link to comment
Recommended Posts