[Two Thirds Vote Aye]

Oh, goodness .... (((blushing))), well I'm not so sure this nut didn't roll down the hill away from the tree a little ways. Thank you, Jem.

Thank you for your research on the EO's. I want to know more about them, because if we win the House back, he will be throwing those EO's out like he wants to do as much damage to our country as he can before he is fired in November 2012 and FINALLY removed from his illegally held office on January 20, 2013.

I want our real president that takes office on January 20, 2013, to immediately rescind E.O. 13489, which he signed on January 21, 2009, sealing all of his records.

[Jemian]

he will be throwing those EO's out like he wants to do as much damage to our country as he can

That fear is what has prompted my discussion. Since he writes EOs already, you KNOW he'll be doing it even more when his party isn't in power in the Congress.

Further reading of the article on Wikipedia points to clauses within Article II which can be interpreted for EOs. It is to allow for the smooth implementation of bills already passed. Wikipedi lists two ways an EO can be overridden, by a super majority, which has happened only twice so far, and by refusing to fund. Further, EOs expire only when rescinded by a subsequent president.

[Bitwhacker]

The Presidency is a very strong office, hence 'the most powerful man in the world.'

From what I understand about it, the Prez cannot issue any E.O. that contradicts current law (because he's sworn to uphold the Constitution and laws). If he does, that's impeachable.

I think the problem with E.O.'s is when they are used to create new law by fiat -- i.e. they don't contradict anything because no law yet exists for the topic.

Congress can make new legislation any time they want to contradict the Prez (except in areas where the Constitution specifically gives the Prez the nod), but here's a question: Have any E.O.'s ever been rescinded because Congress legislated the other way? I don't think so...;-))