View Full Version : I'm not a fan of Executive Orders, but....
Averageman
08-09-20, 09:32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Nhi4BCoTc
I'm not sure how you come out against this Executive Order?
He stepped in and used his "Phone and a Pen" like Obama threatened and ended a stalemate that was hurting Americans and our economy.
This was brilliant, now the Democrats have to look like Ebeneezer Scrooge to oppose it.
I saw last night about the tax relief! FINALLY something for the folks who are actually still working!!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Business_Casual
08-09-20, 09:48
This is a horrible abuse of power and I strongly object to the Executive Branch subverting the Constitution.
Why this is wrong is it sets a precedent for the next guy to abuse it more. Can’t get money for UBI? Executive Order. Can’t get National healthcare? Executive order. Ad astra.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-09-20, 09:48
I saw last night about the tax relief! FINALLY something for the folks who are actually still working!!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hell yeah! Im tired of running into people that make my more on the dole and then went in vacations while I worked and educated my kids.
ChattanoogaPhil
08-09-20, 09:50
Trump will be characterized as a dictator circumventing Congress and a threat to democracy.
That said, I don't have nearly as much of a problem with this as I did the outrageous runaround Congress by the Trump Admin pretending the definition of machinegun was something other than what it is, effectively outlawing bump stocks. That will haunt gun owners in the future.
Problem is it’s a deferment only at this point.
Meaning we’ll still owe the taxes that aren’t being taken outta our checks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I saw last night about the tax relief! FINALLY something for the folks who are actually still working!!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Its a deferment only, absent an actual law passed by Congress instructing the IRS to not collect these taxes, they will come due at the end of the year. Probably in a lump sum for most folks.
And meanwhile, the national debt grows. And grows.
But by all means, keep giving away money we don't have.
This is a horrible abuse of power and I strongly object to the Executive Branch subverting the Constitution.
Why this is wrong is it sets a precedent for the next guy to abuse it more. Can’t get money for UBI? Executive Order. Can’t get National healthcare? Executive order. Ad astra.
You act like that precedent hasn’t already been set. Anyone know how many EOs Obama signed by this point in comparison to Trump?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
08-09-20, 10:24
This is a horrible abuse of power and I strongly object to the Executive Branch subverting the Constitution.
Why this is wrong is it sets a precedent for the next guy to abuse it more. Can’t get money for UBI? Executive Order. Can’t get National healthcare? Executive order. Ad astra.
The precedent was set with DACA and reinforced by John Roberts.
As I said I don't like it either, but how do you compromise with Democrats at this stage?
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-09-20, 10:36
Let the Dems go to court and try to get money taken out of peoples pockets, how does that optics look?
This is the reality of where we are. I’m tired of talking about fiscal responsibility when we are all going to get saddled with the burden of the debt. We might as well be to the trough too.
Bread and circus’s...
This is a horrible abuse of power and I strongly object to the Executive Branch subverting the Constitution.
Why this is wrong is it sets a precedent for the next guy to abuse it more. Can’t get money for UBI? Executive Order. Can’t get National healthcare? Executive order. Ad astra.
I don't think it's done being adjudicated legally. Watch what happens with the inevitable lawsuits.
Having said that, if Trump did this knowing (on advice from his legal-eagles) that it would cow-flop in the courts it is still brilliant on his part. In the end it won't be upheld so no real violation of Executive powers, but "Hey, he was trying to help the average working guy". Optics, optics, optics for the simpleton voters out there; Trump needs as many of them to vote for him than he ever did.
ColtSeavers
08-09-20, 10:54
Just slip slidin' down that slope...
https://media0.giphy.com/media/z2HrO5c1Cmcw0/giphy.gif
If a dem pres. issue an exec. order - bad
If a rep. pres. issue the same - good
As for the Fed. payroll tax holiday, it's simply a loan, we have to pay it back. So don't go blow all that new found extra cash on coke, hookers, guns, cars, vacation, etc.
If a dem pres. issue an exec. order - bad
If a rep. pres. issue the same - good
As for the Fed. payroll tax holiday, it's simply a loan, we have to pay it back. So don't go blow all that new found extra cash on coke, hookers, guns, cars, vacation, etc.
Yeah, about that part......it sure as hell ain't gonna look good when umpteen millions of people (myself included) suddenly get whacked with a huge back-tax. Screw that shit. Can I opt out?
Let the Dems go to court and try to get money taken out of peoples pockets, how does that optics look?
This is the reality of where we are. I’m tired of talking about fiscal responsibility when we are all going to get saddled with the burden of the debt. We might as well be to the trough too.
Bread and circus’s...
Exactly right. Someone finally has the guts to use Dem tactics against them. Let the Dems be the ones to have to oppose further legislation forgiving the tax break.
Some folks can’t see that far ahead and will be confused for now, but this is likely the plan
He can continue to do this with one issue at a time, if he wants to...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SomeOtherGuy
08-09-20, 11:01
This is a horrible abuse of power and I strongly object to the Executive Branch subverting the Constitution.
Why this is wrong is it sets a precedent for the next guy to abuse it more. Can’t get money for UBI? Executive Order. Can’t get National healthcare? Executive order. Ad astra.
Because this:
You act like that precedent hasn’t already been set. Anyone know how many EOs Obama signed by this point in comparison to Trump?
Here's a lot of color commentary:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/08/no-backsies.html
This move is totally in violation of what all of us "decent conservatives" believe is and isn't Constitutional, but the left hasn't been caring about that for decades now. Obama made it absurd. Trump is just doing turnabout-as-fair-play and calling their bluff.
Oh by the way, any semblance of a constitutional republic died in November 2016, not with Trump's election but with the immediate and violent repudiation of the election by the DNC and the left. This is merely an important goalpost, as the substance of the republic died many years before that. The GOP wasn't exactly its protector or savior either, they frequently worked hand in hand with the DNC to destroy it.
We need leaders and a party willing to return to an actual constitutional republic. The GOP minus Trump is not it. Trump isn't it either, but he makes the problems so unbearably visible that he's a useful figure despite his many flaws.
Because this:
Here's a lot of color commentary:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/08/no-backsies.html
This move is totally in violation of what all of us "decent conservatives" believe is and isn't Constitutional, but the left hasn't been caring about that for decades now. Obama made it absurd. Trump is just doing turnabout-as-fair-play and calling their bluff.
Oh by the way, any semblance of a constitutional republic died in November 2016, not with Trump's election but with the immediate and violent repudiation of the election by the DNC and the left. This is merely an important goalpost, as the substance of the republic died many years before that. The GOP wasn't exactly its protector or savior either, they frequently worked hand in hand with the DNC to destroy it.
We need leaders and a party willing to return to an actual constitutional republic. The GOP minus Trump is not it. Trump isn't it either, but he makes the problems so unbearably visible that he's a useful figure despite his many flaws.
I could not possibly agree more with you. Especially that most decent hard-working folks who care about family and the future of America, have lost faith in BOTH parties
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There’s been a change of leadership in the free shit army.
I am just really getting tired of working two jobs, yes even through this whole pandemic, while others sit on their fat worthless asses and collect $1000 a week or now 800 a week. If you want money go to work.
Dr. Bullseye
08-09-20, 11:37
Exactly right. Someone finally has the guts to use Dem tactics against them.
Yes, and their tactics are by any means possible and the ends justify the means. I am for doing the same to them. We are at war. No due process, or any legalistic tactics. Crush the left once and for all. Everything is fair.
Its a deferment only, absent an actual law passed by Congress instructing the IRS to not collect these taxes, they will come due at the end of the year. Probably in a lump sum for most folks.
Except the IRS is part of the Department of the Treasury, which is an Executive department, so the President can just "order" them to not collect it.
From a political maneuvering perspective this seems brilliant.
From a Constitutional Republic perspective, not so much. But since that died a long time ago, I guess you need to play on the same field as the enemy. You can't keep insisting on playing on a field no one else is playing on...
Sad state of affairs in the big picture, all around.
I am against Executive Orders for 90% of all issues.
Having said that I think this was a brilliant political move on Trumps part.
ColtSeavers
08-09-20, 12:10
https://media.thedonald.win/post/dJgt8FSg.jpeg
I am against Executive Orders for 90% of all issues.
Having said that I think this was a brilliant political move on Trumps part.
This is where I'm at & will be interesting to see what happens after this supposed meeting w/ nancy & chuck...best part of that briefing was exposing all the nonsense the 3 trillion dem version had & the chuckles from his golf buddies.
Averageman
08-09-20, 12:33
I am against Executive Orders for 90% of all issues.
Having said that I think this was a brilliant political move on Trumps part.
Likely worth another five percentage points in the polls.
He let the trap Chuck and Nancy set, trap Chuck and Nancy. Now they have to go along or be seen as the folks who took your money away.
Yeah, about that part......it sure as hell ain't gonna look good when umpteen millions of people (myself included) suddenly get whacked with a huge back-tax. Screw that shit. Can I opt out?
Open a new account and put that money in it for when it's time to pay it back.
Yeah, about that part......it sure as hell ain't gonna look good when umpteen millions of people (myself included) suddenly get whacked with a huge back-tax. Screw that shit. Can I opt out?
Yeah, Prolapsi and Suremore successfully convinced half the public that a reduced refund meant the govt was keeping more of their tax money because "who cares about an extra $50 per paycheck in your pocket, what about that missing $600 at the end of the year?"
Averageman
08-09-20, 13:27
http://https://www.redstate.com/mike_miller/2020/08/09/%e2%80%98unconstitutional-slop%e2%80%99-%e2%80%94-pelosi-calls-trump%e2%80%99s-executive-order-an-%e2%80%98illusion%e2%80%99-in-fox-news-interview/
Nancy's reply;
“These policy announcements provide little real help to families. For instance, not only does the President’s announcement not actually extend the eviction moratorium, it provides no assistance to help pay the rent, which will only leave desperate families to watch their debt pile higher.
“Instead of passing a bill, now President Trump is cutting families’ unemployment benefits and pushing states further into budget crises, forcing them to make devastating cuts to life-or-death services.
“Furthermore, these announcements do nothing to increase testing, nothing to reopen schools, nothing to put food on the table for hungry families, nothing to prevent heroes being laid off across state and local government, nothing to protect the Postal Service or the integrity of our elections, nothing on many critical needs of the American people.
“Democrats repeat our call to Republicans to return to the table, meet us halfway and work together to deliver immediate relief to the American people. Lives are being lost, and time is of the essence.”
The Ball is in their court, but they are damned if they do anything to stop this from moving forward.
Diamondback
08-09-20, 14:28
http://https://www.redstate.com/mike_miller/2020/08/09/%e2%80%98unconstitutional-slop%e2%80%99-%e2%80%94-pelosi-calls-trump%e2%80%99s-executive-order-an-%e2%80%98illusion%e2%80%99-in-fox-news-interview/
Nancy's reply;
“These policy announcements provide little real help to families.
Same Pelosi who dismissed the previous tax-cuts as crumbs because they weren't enough to buy one of her $20k icecream freezers...
Averageman
08-09-20, 15:14
Same Pelosi who dismissed the previous tax-cuts as crumbs because they weren't enough to buy one of her $20k icecream freezers...
I don't know if Nancy ever had to pinch a penny, but with an attitude like that, I doubt it.
I'm thinking $400 would buy a lot of rice, beans and .99 cent a pound chicken thighs for a family and because we don't all live like the Queen Nancy, we do know how to make things stretch a bit further.
I see both sides of the "Free Shi+ for Everyone", but there are folks out there who are having a really tough time because of all of the Covid 19 becoming a political football.
This is a horrible abuse of power and I strongly object to the Executive Branch subverting the Constitution.
Why this is wrong is it sets a precedent for the next guy to abuse it more. Can’t get money for UBI? Executive Order. Can’t get National healthcare? Executive order. Ad astra.
I completely agree. The ends do not justify the means. It pissed me off when Obama did it. It pisses me off when a Republican does it.
Diamondback
08-09-20, 15:24
I don't know if Nancy ever had to pinch a penny, but with an attitude like that, I doubt it.
I'm thinking $400 would buy a lot of rice, beans and .99 cent a pound chicken thighs for a family and because we don't all live like the Queen Nancy, we do know how to make things stretch a bit further.
I see both sides of the "Free Shi+ for Everyone", but there are folks out there who are having a really tough time because of all of the Covid 19 becoming a political football.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the damage this thing will do either, but I look at it as dynamiting a firebreak versus letting the Dem-fueled wildfire burn unfettered. In a no-win, sometimes Lose LEAST becomes a temporary "win" while you uy tim to stabilize, reorganize and retake the offensive.
In WWII terms: Japan was building an airfield on Guadalcanal to cut of our supply line to Australia, so to blunt that WE had to seize and hold that airfield, now Henderson Field, before they could move in Yamamoto's Betty bombers--and in holding the line there, bought time to reinforce and restrategize so we could turn the Rising Sun into a setting sun.
Dr. Bullseye
08-09-20, 18:00
I am against Executive Orders for 90% of all issues.
Having said that I think this was a brilliant political move on Trumps part.
And as someone mentioned, Justice Roberts stepped in it and made EOs semi permanent. Maybe after the election we will get Speaker McCarthy but with chicken shit Mitch in charge of the Senate nothing is going to change. So, as far as I am concerned, Trump can do a EO each and every day targeting the Left.
Averageman
08-09-20, 18:16
Could he declare Antifa a terrorist organization already?
ColtSeavers
08-09-20, 19:20
Could he declare Antifa a terrorist organization already?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-resolution/279
Straight Shooter
08-09-20, 20:00
Open a new account and put that money in it for when it's time to pay it back.
I not doubting this- but WHERE are yall seeing this would have to be paid back?
that doesnt even make sense to me- giving people money who dont have it now- to pay back later when they still wont have it?
Ive not seen anywhere this will have to be paid back. Just asking.
Yeah, about that part......it sure as hell ain't gonna look good when umpteen millions of people (myself included) suddenly get whacked with a huge back-tax. Screw that shit. Can I opt out?
That is the play here. The reason we have payroll taxes (and half of that is further hidden as employer paid) is because they are TERRIFIED of taxpayers having to cut a big check at the end of the year and understanding how much they are being bled.
Congress is now on the hook to pass this or be the ones to deal with the voters.
It is not "giving money to people who don't have it now" .... you already made that money, that money is yours, the Feds are not going to collect the FICA tax from your paycheck. So you only pay the state portion. Look at your pay stub, it's all there.
It is not clearly stated when the deferral will need to be paid back but a deferral usually means postpone, postpone means it will happen sometimes later. The article below said if Trump is reelected he would terminate those taxes. He'll have to fight the democrat House and whoever runs the Senate in 2021.
Payroll Tax Holiday
The payroll tax refers to FICA, which stands for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, and it has two parts - Social Security and Medicare. Payroll tax is deducted from your paycheck to cover those two social programs.
For Social Security, you pay 6.2% of your earnings up to what is known as the Social Security wage base. The Social Security wage base is $137,700 for 2020. If you earned $100,000 in 2020, you would pay $6,200 into Social Security.
For Medicare, you pay 1.45% of your earnings but there is no limit. If you earned $100,000 in 2020, you would pay $1,450 into Medicare.
A payroll tax cut would mean you keep this money in your paycheck, if you get one. If you are unemployed, a payroll tax cut would not help you at all.
The President signed an executive memorandum, titled the “Memorandum on Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations in Light of the Ongoing COVID-19 Disaster,” that will give a payroll tax holiday to employees earning less than $104,000 per year from September 1st through December 31st.
The President said that he would direct the Treasury Department to allow employers to “defer” the payment of payroll taxes and then direct the Secretary of the Treasury to “explore avenues, including legislation, to eliminate the obligation to pay the taxes deferred pursuant to the implementation of this memorandum.”
He would later state that if he was re-elected, he’d “terminate” those taxes. In the past, President Trump has promised to not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid but this statement seems to indicate that his stance has changed on these social safety net programs.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimwang/2020/08/08/president-trump-signs-executive-orders-for-payroll-tax-holiday-enhanced-unemployment-insurance-student-loans-deferred-and-eviction-moratorium/#2470b1aee785
You act like that precedent hasn’t already been set. Anyone know how many EOs Obama signed by this point in comparison to Trump?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
177 Trump, 147 Obama.
That is the play here. The reason we have payroll taxes (and half of that is further hidden as employer paid) is because they are TERRIFIED of taxpayers having to cut a big check at the end of the year and understanding how much they are being bled.
Congress is now on the hook to pass this or be the ones to deal with the voters.
Just to be clear, "Payroll Taxces" are the "FICA" -- social security etc. -- taxes and are not the withheld income taxes that also come out each paycheck for those who collect wages or salary (vs business owners or self employed).
HardToHandle
08-09-20, 20:45
Effectively Trump is on track to issue nearly twice as many executive orders as Obama.
An impressive number of Trump’s (1) have been held as unconstitutional in all level of US courts and (2) a large number have been filed in the last year, as his re-election as looked less likely.
Donald Trump issued 177 executive orders between 2017 and 2020.
Barack Obama issued 276 executive orders between 2009 and 2017.
GWB had 291 and WJC 254.. but GWB also had some big GWOT activity.
As noted, watching democracy dying is not fun.
Effectively Trump is on track to issue nearly twice as many executive orders as Obama.
An impressive number of Trump’s (1) have been held as unconstitutional in all level of US courts and (2) a large number have been filed in the last year, as his re-election as looked less likely.
Donald Trump issued 177 executive orders between 2017 and 2020.
Barack Obama issued 276 executive orders between 2009 and 2017.
GWB had 291 and WJC 254.. but GWB also had some big GWOT activity.
As noted, watching democracy dying is not fun.
According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
WJC had 364, not 254
Carter had 320 in his 1 term.
This is not a new phenomenon.
Diamondback
08-09-20, 21:15
Also, a lot of Trump EO's have been to cancel Obuttf--k's.
HardToHandle
08-09-20, 22:17
According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
WJC had 364, not 254
Carter had 320 in his 1 term.
This is not a new phenomenon.
I used the National Archives EO numbers, for consistency- https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders. Since Executive Orders are a non-constitutional creation, they have used different titles and had some variation over time (signing statements particularly). Federal administrative law is a deep topic, which I know enough to admit I have a general historical knowledge of but am not an expert.
The Carter years are an outlier, as a significant portion of those administrative actions had linkages to realignment of executive functions, such as creation of Dept. of Energy or FEMA. Those executive actions were in general accord with Congressional committees and were also part of the 1976 Carter-Mondale campaign pledges. The Congress was firmly Democratic post Watergate in both the 1976 and 1978 elections. The large number of Carter EOs were often directing intra-Executive realignment and very, very different from President Trump’s DACA or COVID EOs.
In other words, apples and oranges. Trump has taken executive action into a new zone, potentially a continuation of the last two years of Obama Administration, but has been pushing the boundaries and has not been very successful.
Dr. Bullseye
08-09-20, 22:57
Effectively Trump is on track to issue nearly twice as many executive orders as Obama.
An impressive number of Trump’s (1) have been held as unconstitutional in all level of US courts and (2) a large number have been filed in the last year, as his re-election as looked less likely.
Donald Trump issued 177 executive orders between 2017 and 2020.
Barack Obama issued 276 executive orders between 2009 and 2017.
GWB had 291 and WJC 254.. but GWB also had some big GWOT activity.
As noted, watching democracy dying is not fun.
As long as the Left dies, I really don't give a damn. Wake up. That is the enemy Trump is fighting, not some goat herder in Iraq or Afghanistan or Kuwait. Our enemy is not some bookish abstraction of the law. America on the street level is dying. I truly wish there was as much enthusiasm to fight our Domestic Enemies as there was to joust with windmills in those meaningless foreign wars.
m1a_scoutguy
08-10-20, 00:58
I not doubting this- but WHERE are yall seeing this would have to be paid back?
that doesn't even make sense to me- giving people money who don't have it now- to pay back later when they still wont have it?
I've not seen anywhere this will have to be paid back. Just asking.
It would be idiotic for us to have to pay it back,,ain't gonna happen ! For what its worth I was watching FOX tonight and they were talking about it,I can't remember shit but I know they said it would not have to be paid back, and SSI will get $$$ put back into it from Bonds and such. Yea it was Fox so take it for what its worth but that is what they were talking about. It was that British guy Steve Hilton with Sara Carter and another guy I can't remember.
vicious_cb
08-10-20, 02:03
As long as the Left dies, I really don't give a damn. Wake up. That is the enemy Trump is fighting, not some goat herder in Iraq or Afghanistan or Kuwait. Our enemy is not some bookish abstraction of the law. America on the street level is dying. I truly wish there was as much enthusiasm to fight our Domestic Enemies as there was to joust with windmills in those meaningless foreign wars.
The kid gloves need to be taken off. People like HardtoHandle need to wake up, Trump isnt the one killing democracy.
I don't think outside of a very narrow focus that Executive Orders are Constitutional.
Having said that with the exception of one President who died after only a month in office,(Harrison) every President including Washington has issued Executive Orders.
So if Trump can use these orders to drive the left crazy and keep the marxist from spending over 3 trillion that would include bailouts to marxist states that are broke. I am good with it.
It would have been a lot cooler if he set the max income above $120K. Just saying..
Business_Casual
08-10-20, 09:11
I want to believe he is a “good guy” and I know a lot of good has come from him so far, but I am concerned and cautious when it comes to rule by fiat. That’s just not how we are supposed to operate.
Averageman
08-10-20, 09:13
The Litmus Test for me when it comes to Executive Orders are;
Is this a National Emergency? Well, yes it is, clearly.
By not issuing a Executive Order will the situation become worse? Again, clearly so.
By not issuing this Executive Order will the Economy and therefore the Citizens be harmed. Again, yes.
Are the House and the Senate deadlocked to a stalemate? Yes they are.
Is this Executive Order Constitutional under any other situation? Yes it is.
177 Trump, 147 Obama.
Keep in mind that President Obama had a democratic Congress and Senate for the first 2 years of his term.
Andy
In other words, apples and oranges. Trump has taken executive action into a new zone, potentially a continuation of the last two years of Obama Administration, but has been pushing the boundaries and has not been very successful.
Please present your evidence. Obama did a lot of EOs and he HAD a compliant Congress for 1/2 his first term, and Trumps number of EOs, including ones needed to undo the Obama mess, are not that many more at this point in time. So, please support your claim that Trump has taken it to a new zone.
Keep in mind that President Obama had a democratic Congress and Senate for the first 2 years of his term.
Andy
Should we keep in mind Trump had a Republican House and Senate during his first 2 years?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
I don't recall any "never obamer" democrats. How many of Trump's EOs rescinded Obama's EOs?
Look, if you want to vote for a senile pedophile, be my guest.
I get why he did it, but I still disagree with it. I'm not a fan of EOs to begin with...
Business_Casual
08-10-20, 12:11
Should we keep in mind Trump had a Republican House and Senate during his first 2 years?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
Hahaha Ryan? That guy didn’t lift a finger to help.
MountainRaven
08-10-20, 13:23
I don't recall any "never obamer" democrats.
The guy in the White House is one.
:jester:
Diamondback
08-10-20, 13:59
Should we keep in mind Trump had a Republican House and Senate during his first 2 years?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
Yeah, but it was only so in name. Calling Mitt Romney , Murkowski and several others "Republican" is about as truthful as it would be to throw a strap-on and a Mens Wearhouse suit on a girl and call her a man... #JustSayNoToPoliticalTrannies
This is a horrible abuse of power and I strongly object to the Executive Branch subverting the Constitution.
Why this is wrong is it sets a precedent for the next guy to abuse it more. Can’t get money for UBI? Executive Order. Can’t get National healthcare? Executive order. Ad astra.
I understand that coming Presidents will use EOs too, but it was Obama that began the abusive use of Executive Orders
I support what the President has done, ONLY because the DemonRats are NOT negotiating in good faith to help people who are suffering. The leftists don't give a crap about people....it's all politics and they will seriously hurt people for political gain.
If a dem pres. issue an exec. order - bad
If a rep. pres. issue the same - good
As for the Fed. payroll tax holiday, it's simply a loan, we have to pay it back. So don't go blow all that new found extra cash on coke, hookers, guns, cars, vacation, etc.
Technically it isn't a loan to us, it's us not making a short-term loan to the .gov.
https://stjohnonline.iqhealth.com/messaging/
Yes. Simply drop your dependent rate to 0, and if you're already there, pay a fixed amount per pay period on top. That's what I've been doing for years.
What Trump has done here is steal a page from Obama's playbook. The bill won't come due till after the election results are in, just like Obama did with the ACA.
Except the IRS is part of the Department of the Treasury, which is an Executive department, so the President can just "order" them to not collect it.
From a political maneuvering perspective this seems brilliant.
From a Constitutional Republic perspective, not so much. But since that died a long time ago, I guess you need to play on the same field as the enemy. You can't keep insisting on playing on a field no one else is playing on...
Sad state of affairs in the big picture, all around.
But, but, then all Congress has to do is use their power of the purse to defund the IRS if they won't coll... Oh... Wait... :D
To everyone saying we'll have to "pay it back", that's incorrect. We may have to pay it in the first place come next April 15th, but we aren't getting it only to pay it "back". They're simply not stealing it from us now. They'll wait and steal it from us next year instead. :)
I understand that coming Presidents will use EOs too, but it was Obama that began the abusive use of Executive Orders
I support what the President has done, ONLY because the DemonRats are NOT negotiating in good faith to help people who are suffering. The leftists don't give a crap about people....it's all politics and they will seriously hurt people for political gain.
I honestly believe that Trump has been too nice to the Democrats. They only understand power and force. Trump needs to do them as dirty as they can be done, and then rub salt in their wounds for good effect.
Constitutionally I don’t agree with this move. Politically it’s a great move- the President is putting the ComDems on the defensive by making them explain why they don’t want to help the working people. If Obutthead did the same thing the MSM and Left would be hailing him as a hero.
I understand that coming Presidents will use EOs too, but it was Obama that began the abusive use of Executive Orders
.
Any EO is an abuse of Constitutional limitations and violation of the freedoms of citizens.
Any EO is an abuse of Constitutional limitations and violation of the freedoms of citizens.
Technically this is NOT true. An EO is supposed to be direction from the chief executive to one of his departments. That is it. There is nothing unconstitutional about that.
What is unconstitutional about EO is how they are used to run around Congress or otherwise co-opt the system to make in effect new laws.
Yeah, but it was only so in name. Calling Mitt Romney , Murkowski and several others "Republican" is about as truthful as it would be to throw a strap-on and a Mens Wearhouse suit on a girl and call her a man... #JustSayNoToPoliticalTrannies
I have always viewed the Pauls, Massies, Chenoweths, Bob Smiths, and a few others as being the RINO's.
Technically this is NOT true. An EO is supposed to be direction from the chief executive to one of his departments. That is it. There is nothing unconstitutional about that.
What is unconstitutional about EO is how they are used to run around Congress or otherwise co-opt the system to make in effect new laws.
Nothing in the Constitution mentions EO's.
I realize Washington issued some, I also am aware of the sedition act intended to keep John Adams in office. Not an indicator of proper actions, but of early corruption.
Nothing in the Constitution mentions EO's.
I realize Washington issued some, I also am aware of the sedition act intended to keep John Adams in office. Not an indicator of proper actions, but of early corruption.
EOs don't have to be mentioned in the Constitution to make them "Constitutional". If there is nothing specifically in the Constitution blocking them, and the things a specific one is trying to do is not unconstitutional, then they would be perfectly constitutional. Is the DoD mentioned in the Constitution? Is the DoD constitutional? How about the White House. Is that mentioned in the Constitution?
All an Executive Order is is an order by the executive governing the policy, behavior, administration of an executive branch piece of government. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. That does not mean all uses of the EO are constitutional. (I expect most are not). But the idea of an Executive Order is in and of itself, not unconstitutional. It is how the president tells his pieces of the executive branch what they should be doing in specific cases.
EOs don't have to be mentioned in the Constitution to make them "Constitutional". If there is nothing specifically in the Constitution blocking them, and the things a specific one is trying to do is not unconstitutional, then they would be perfectly constitutional. Is the DoD mentioned in the Constitution? Is the DoD constitutional? How about the White House. Is that mentioned in the Constitution?
All an Executive Order is is an order by the executive governing the policy, behavior, administration of an executive branch piece of government. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. That does not mean all uses of the EO are constitutional. (I expect most are not). But the idea of an Executive Order is in and of itself, not unconstitutional. It is how the president tells his pieces of the executive branch what they should be doing in specific cases.
According to the 10th Amendment, no to all.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Governmental duties are enumerated/limited. Individual liberties are the part that do not have to be listed to exist per the 9th Amendment.
According to the 10th Amendment, no to all.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Governmental duties are enumerated/limited. Individual liberties are the part that do not have to be listed to exist per the 9th Amendment.
The 10th Amendment does not address the ability of the President to control the executive branch.
The 10th Amendment does not address the ability of the President to control the executive branch.
Article 2 lays out what the president is allowed to do. The 10th Amendment says if it isn't listed in article 2 then it isn't a duty authorized for the president to do.
I read article 2. It says nothing about committing the rape of a minor. According to the 10th Amendment, since rape of a child is not mentioned, that is not a power delegated by the citizens of the US to the president.
According to you, who ever holds the office is free to do whatever they dream up.
Article 2 lays out what the president is allowed to do. The 10th Amendment says if it isn't listed in article 2 then it isn't a duty authorized for the president to do.
I read article 2. It says nothing about committing the rape of a minor. According to the 10th Amendment, since rape of a child is not mentioned, that is not a power delegated by the citizens of the US to the president.
According to you, who ever holds the office is free to do whatever they dream up.
:rolleyes: Yes, your rape example makes a lot of sense. Thanks. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Your conclusion "According to you, who ever holds the office is free to do whatever they dream up." is not logical based on any of my posts.
Since you have not been able to answer any of my questions so far, let us try a really simple one:
Does the President have the legal right to preside over the executive branch of government?
Article 2 does say something about this btw...
:rolleyes: Yes, your rape example makes a lot of sense. Thanks. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Your conclusion "According to you, who ever holds the office is free to do whatever they dream up." is not logical based on any of my posts.
Since you have not been able to answer any of my questions so far, let us try a really simple one:
Does the President have the legal right to preside over the executive branch of government?
Article 2 does say something about this btw...
You are the one claiming: "If there is nothing specifically in the Constitution blocking them"
When the 10th Amendment states any power has to be specifically delegated.
You are the one claiming: "If there is nothing specifically in the Constitution blocking them"
When the 10th Amendment states any power has to be specifically delegated.
I guess you can't answer questions. And I posit it is because your position is not supported.
There is nothing in the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment is not it, that prohibits an Executive Order. That does not mean all EO are legal/constitutional. (Most modern ones probably aren't, strictly speaking). But the Executive Order itself is NOT unconstitutional. An Executive Order is merely one way that the President controls/guides the executive branch. including those things specifically mentioned in the Constitution (eg, "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", Article II sec 2 excerpt).
The use of EO to do unconstitutional things is of course unconstitutional. That does not make the EO concept itself unconstitutional.
I guess you can't answer questions. And I posit it is because your position is not supported.
There is nothing in the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment is not it, that prohibits an Executive Order. That does not mean all EO are legal/constitutional. (Most modern ones probably aren't, strictly speaking). But the Executive Order itself is NOT unconstitutional. An Executive Order is merely one way that the President controls/guides the executive branch. including those things specifically mentioned in the Constitution (eg, "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", Article II sec 2 excerpt).
The use of EO to do unconstitutional things is of course unconstitutional. That does not make the EO concept itself unconstitutional.
So what is the 10th Amendment referring to?
It's clear many of you have a "trigger" word response to EO.
It can be as simple as the EXECUTIVE laying out how he wants his EXECUTIVE power used by the EXECUTIVE agencies...
or as corrupt as DACA.
Numbers of EO's do not equal a corruption index, the authority for the OE does. It can be:
1) Inherently Executive
2) Made up
3) Delegated by the Legislative
I think many here overlooked the possibility these are done under number 3.
So what is the 10th Amendment referring to?
It certainly has nothing to do with the concept of EO.
When I earlier said it was not specifically disallowed by the Constitution, I think I could have phrased it better. The Constitution does not address the HOW of duties of the President. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits or disallows the EO as the mechanism for the President to fulfill his duties. It was not a generic carte blanche statement saying that the President can do anything not specifically disallowed in the Constitution (speaking of policy, execution of policy, etc). It was a statement constrained by the topic of the EO and the fact that the EO is not unconstitutional as a mechanism. The EO can certainly be used to do unconstitutional things.
It's clear many of you have a "trigger" word response to EO.
It can be as simple as the EXECUTIVE laying out how he wants his EXECUTIVE power used by the EXECUTIVE agencies...
or as corrupt as DACA.
Numbers of EO's do not equal a corruption index, the authority for the OE does. It can be:
1) Inherently Executive
2) Made up
3) Delegated by the Legislative
I think many here overlooked the possibility these are done under number 3.
Note that often the #2 ones will be couched in terms to make it sound like a #1. It will be an "order" to some executive dept to do something that undermines the law or is against the law, but the wording makes it try and sound like #1 (or maybe #3).
WickedWillis
08-10-20, 17:55
I am an essential worker.
So, I'll keep going to work.
So what is the 10th Amendment referring to?My understanding is the 10th amendment has to do with powers of Federal goverment vs states.
Has nothing to do with a executive officer controlling executive( federal) agencies .
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Straight Shooter
08-10-20, 23:13
deleted
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.