Posted on 10/31/2014 10:58:09 AM PDT by Ray76
That’s the misnomer, Congress’ “failure to act” is in fact itself an act. If the Founders wanted an imperial presidency, we would have a monarch. But we don’t. When Congress says “no,” No means No.
Excellent.
Unfortunately our government has been seized by a cabal selling the same poison under two brand-names. Nothing will change until they are deposed and legitimate government restored.
I don’t favor executive orders, but by the time Obama leaves office, he will have far less of them than Reagan.
This belongs to both parties.
The Constitution? When did we get back to that?
No EO could possibly rank as low and illegal as Barry releasing 5 Taliban commanders in exchange for a DEFECTOR without giving Congress the opportunity to stop it. There is no illegal act more egregious than that. Barry was blackmailed into doing it and that’s why he couldn’t give Congress the opportunity to stop it.
49% yes?
Does it occur to anyone that if Congress is not taking action it is because that is what the voters who put them there want? "Not taking action" means you're not doing it Obama 's way.
its nearly split on Politico. That doesn’t bode well for our esteemed leader.
Yes - 46%
No - 50%
Not sure - 2%
3878 total
Leni
No=50%.
No choice available for “HELL NO!” so I voted no.
Geesh, we need to Freep the hell out of that crappy poll. I just did!
The poll is practically a litmus test for revealing people who know the Constitution versus people who don’t.
Yet one poster sent me mail saying that it is okay if he agrees with them.
Executive Orders should be examined by whether the purpose of the Order is designed to "uphold and defend" the Constitution's limitations on government power and is in tune with the Constitution's protections of the people's liberty, or whether those orders are designed to subvert the Constitution's limits on government power over "the People," or over another branch of government, in violation of the Constitution's original structuring of those powers.
An interesting example of a Reagan Executive Order dealing with Federalism which might be considered supportive of Constitutional principles versus a Clinton Executive Order dealing with the same subject is discussed here
A President's Executive Order supportive of the Founders' Constitution's principles to protect "the People's" liberty and to comply with its limits on coercive government power is one thing.
A President's Executive Order whose intended consequence is to bypass the Founders' principles and provisions is quite another thing.
Numbers of EO's is not the question.
Now up to 51% No. 4135 votes.
“If multiple voting is allowed by using “refresh”, why is this poll posted at all? Are we CNN?”
Politico is primarily liberal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.