I'm not a fan of Executive Orders, but....

[ScottsBad]

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.

[glocktogo]

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...

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.

[flenna]

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.

[jsbhike]

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.

[chadbag]

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.

[jsbhike]

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.

[jsbhike]

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.

[chadbag]

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.

[jsbhike]

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.

[chadbag]

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.