Obama now rules by Decree

Post Reply New Topic

Obama is now governing by Executive Order. Since he cannot govern according the law (U.S. Constitution) he is governing by Decree. He is our Elected King.

ruveyn

Part of me wants to say that it's about damn time.

But the rational part of me knows that this is nothing new for Obama. Or for american presidents in general.

List of United States Executive Orders

This concept that he's just going to rule by executive order now is just a republican talking point.

As far as I can tell, Obama's producing executive orders at a relatively slow rate compared to other Presidents this century or last. Bush gave 290 in 8 years, Obama so far has given 97 as of earlier this month, and it looks like he recently gave another 2 or 3. So about 100 in 2 and 3/4 years. Both give just about 36/year. Clinton gave 363, Bush Sr. 165, and Reagan 380, or 47.5/year.

The chief executive has the power to run his own department, but not in contradiction to statutory law. As long as executive orders do not nullify standing law or do things which by law are unlawful one can hardly complain. How is the Boss going to run his own shop if he can't run his own shop?

ruveyn

I'm a bit confused, ruveyn. Are you alleging that Obama has issued executive orders that contravene standing law? If so, would you mind providing examples? Or is it just a matter of executive orders having been okay in the past, but now, for some reason, it's not okay for Obama to do the same thing only less?

No. He is issuing executive order in lieu of standing law. He is ruling by decree. Congress could stop it by threatening to impeach him, but we both know that will not happen. A president is an elected king. Thank the gods a president's term is limited.

ruveyn

"The Supreme Court has issued its ruling; Now, let them enforce it."
-President Andrew Jackson

I only see your recognition of your own nothing, and that is too optimistic for yours.

Don't Tell Me!! ! A particular God who needs only his own rights protected, now only
issues permissions, as everything not permitted is now prohibited by his spawn!! !
That's your problem with any absences, not anyone other.

But being such is still not allowed to touch the body of Job, dream on, but that that
God is not being satisfied by detestable losing minions.

Tadzio

I *think* he was trying to take a shot at someone, though it seems the real damage was done to the English language, or at least the plain spoken version. There used to be another poster around here who spoke almost entirely in allegory and indirect references, not sure where he got off to, but he had some real head-scratching posts as well.

The quote involved a previous post, of the poster quoted, asserting that the rights of a God superseded all Human Rights.

The second part involved Constitutional Authority, as Orwell's "1984" taken as "all that is not required is prohibited", as the U.S. President is not restricted to only doing what is required, but is only restricted from doing what is prohibited, with many controversies involved of "permitted", such as "Ford pardons Nixon" beforehand, or "Truman seizes steel mills".

The third part is metaphor from part of the "Book of Job", with the three branches of government, and the lesser branches deciding to cut the tree down, instead of being productive, as the lesser holds the whole as excessive, and the larger at fault.

The wording is "embedded Bierce", and I was thinking of including the "two-ton-ten" of public holy rollers with Dr. Dobson under the bed of conservative "social disruption".

Tadzio

http://www.au.org/search/site/two-ton-ten
http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/ ... ing-partly

Obama was touted as a "constitutional law scholar."

I smelled BS.

Going to law school does not = scholar.

Being a professor does not = scholar.

Being a professor who does extensive research, is published in multiple law reviews, conducts years of constitution-based workshops, seminars and lectures on various aspects of constitutional law = scholar.

So, normally when someone claims to be a "constitutional law scholar," they will either....

1. Be a strict adherent to the plain meaning and intentions of the Constitution.

2. Be extremely clever in finding way to justify going around the plain limitations imposed by the Constitution.

I figured Obama to be the later, and I am not surprised as how things have turned out.

Much of the application of law is common sense. The lawyers who can debate on end over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are reserved for cases and clients who want to find inventive ways to justify getting around the clear prohibitions of the law.

Thank you. That is a wonderful example of ruling by decree and not law. The consequence of which was the Cherokee Death March, the "Trail of Tears" in which nearly half the evicted perished before reaching Oklahoma Territory.

ruveyn

And I ask again, ruveyn - what "extralegal decrees" have been issued? If Obama is indeed "ruling by decree", there should be no difficulty in finding examples of executive orders that contravene standing law, or even exceed the degrees of freedom permitted by precedence.

So far, all I see is a bland accusation, unsubstantiated by the accuser.