Executive Order challenge: fair or foul?
|
|
|||||
|
276 votes
|
|
75% | |||
|
27 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
34 votes
|
|
9% | |||
|
29 votes
|
|
8% | |||
Representative Steven King (R-IA) said on Friday that he would go to court to enjoin Obama's "DREAM Executive Order" from taking effect. Unless and until Congress
passes anything like the DREAM Act, Obama has no right to put it into
effect by Executive Order. So says
King. He also said he would challenge the President by himself, whether
anyone else in Congress joined him or not. (See stories in WND and Newsmax.)
King’s problem with this Executive Order goes far beyond what it does. No
President, nor any State Governor or other executive, has the power to
do what he pleases without checking with his respective legislature.
King said he would act
before Obama has a chance to do even more damage to the Constitution.
King has done this before. Then-Governor Tom Vilsack signed an
Executive Order in 1999, having to do with hiring discrimination in
State government offices. King sued him, and won. A judge said that
Vilsack exceeded his authority with that order. King will rely on his
experience in suing Obama. His lawyers are looking now into:
- Where to sue, and
- Whether he has standing.
This is the first time in recent memory that anyone in Congress has
challenged a Presidential Executive Order. Without challenges like this,
Presidents have for decades seemed to make new law with them and get
away with it. Now, at last, a court might decide whether a President may
do that, and how far he may go.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/06/18...
If was a humanitarian mission.
Not that I am acknowledging any wrongs by the 3 you listed.
In ancient Rome the congress was left in place when the republic ended to make the people more comfortable. So they would not really notice the new form of government. IMHO this is the plan here as well!! If they can get us to just not notice we are now being goverened by executive fiat and not the rule of law.
This is sad how this Administration has by-passed Congress repeatedly and has attempted to strong arm the Surpreme Court. Chicago style politics on the national scale. 100% wrong.
second your comments show you are a lib. seeing that this eo does nothing to violate any law or section of the constitution.
This EO bypasses something congress has already addressed, as well as existing laws, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for a president to do that.
Again, the use of EOs and NDs has been abused by both parties for decades and the three branches have done little to keep each other in check and all have overstepped their Constitutional limits.
It is long past time someone challenged the scope of EOs. Presidents have been overstepping their Constitutional limitations for many, many years using EOs and NDs.
In the first place, I'm not a lib. In the second, presidents, congress and the judiciary have all been remiss in not keeping each other in check and have all overstepped their Constitutional limitations for a very long time. It has nothing to do with libs/cons or Dems/Reps...they have all been guilty. My comment neither singles out this EO or this president, in fact, it clearly does the opposite.
This EO bypasses something congress has already addressed, as well as existing laws, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for a president to do that.
Again, the use of EOs and NDs has been abused by both parties for decades and the three branches have done little to keep each other in check and all have overstepped their Constitutional limits.
now can you please stop acting like a lib and show how the eo violates any law or section of the constitution
Article II
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, ...
Hmmm...nothing there giving the POTUS the power to make law via EOs or NDs.
thanks for another posting to show you are a lib. seeing libby no law has been made and you failed ot show the violation you did continue to show that you are a lib. when you can show a law was made come back and show me how it violates anything
Both EOs that make law and presidential declared nullification of existing laws are an overreach of a president's Constitutional powers.
It was initially reported that 0bama was issuing an EO on this, it was subsequently reported that he decided instead to ignore the law.