Posted on 11/09/2008 3:46:11 PM PST by EBH
"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said. "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set."
Executive orders "have the power of law and they can cover just about anything," Tobias said in a telephone interview.
On drilling, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling. Bush administration officials argue that the drilling will not harm sensitive areas; environmentalists oppose it.
"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," Podesta said. "I think that's a mistake."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I sit here and joke about Hussein but in truth he has me scared to death. We got us a rookie on our hands here. Lord help us all.
I think that technically, Exec Orders only apply to the Executive Branch.
If a president issued an EO commanding me to wear a yellow dress, I could ignore it since I’m not in the executive branch.
Anything else would violate separation of powers.
An EO cannot command Congress to act, but can command the FBI to do something, or BATF, and so on.
But an EO cannot command a state to do anything.
Dangerous enough, but not Imperial power nor even regal.
On the night of January 30, 1933, the Nazis organized a massive torchlight parade in Berlin to celebrate the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor of Germany.
You could be on to something. If there had been no Clinton combined with a fully dem congress from 92 to 94 would there have been a need for a contract with America?
Sorry buddy, but one of the key points in Saul Alinskis Rules for Radicals is that you have to make changes gradually so that the people can slowly get use to them and accept them. It's been a successful strategy so far, and I don't see any reason for them to chance from it.
***The American people have no idea what they have done.***
I agree with you.
“Stroke of the pen — law of the land.”
Who needs congress anyway? Just elect Obama and give him the Supreme Court.
Obama understands the separation of powers and will use it to further his agenda.
Unfortunately, you have to question the agendas of so-called “conservative” presidents who were “conservative” about using their executive powers and never even used the line-item veto to curb Congress’s profligate spending.
He also said he’s a “citizen of the world” and has come to “change the world.” I’m certain that is his agenda.
“never even used the line-item veto to curb Congress’s profligate spending”
you can’t use what you DON’T HAVE.
Time to get my “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For McCain” bumper sticker.
In this case, we have someone worse than HRC...
Of course if you opposed the Patriot act, you are a traitor according to some.
The Line Item Veto was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, wasn’t it?
It’s official- the US has become a facist state.
facist = fascist
Line Item Veto Act of 1996
Presidents have repeatedly asked Congress to give them a line item veto power. According to Louis Fisher in The Politics of Shared Power, Ronald Reagan said to Congress in his 1986 State of the Union address, “Tonight I ask you to give me what forty-three governors have: Give me a line-item veto this year. Give me the authority to veto waste, and I’ll take the responsibility, I’ll make the cuts, I’ll take the heat.” Bill Clinton echoed the request in his State of the Union address in 1995.
The President was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control “pork barrel spending” that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by President Bill Clinton.
However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled on February 12, 1998, that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998, by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York. The case was brought by the then New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.
A constitutional amendment to give the President line item veto power has been considered periodically since the Court ruled the 1996 act unconstitutional.
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.
