Posted on 03/20/2010 5:44:39 PM PDT by NoobRep
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Executive Order [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
I hear Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) has signed off on the idea. That's an iron-clad guarantee it's no real alternative for any member who calls himself "pro-life."
03/20 07:25 PMShare
So if Stupak & Co. cave, why does he need the EO?
won’t this tick off the pro death group
Not ONLY do these Nimrods NOT read the legislation that they pass - but APPARENTLY, they don't read the Constitution either ...
Article II, Section 3:
" ... He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States ..."
NOWHERE does it say that he can change the language of legislation by fiat. In fact, the Founders EXPLICITLY did not want this ...
From Clinton v. City of New York [majority opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens]:
" ... There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes. Both Article I and Article II assign responsibilities to the President that directly relate to the lawmaking process, but neither addresses the issue presented by these cases. The President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient … .” ...
... Although the Constitution expressly authorizes the President to play a role in the process of enacting statutes, it is silent on the subject of unilateral Presidential action that either repeals or amends parts of duly enacted statutes. ...".
Stevens goes on to conclude that unilateral action by the President is unconstitutional ...
If he gets the EO, he justifies his demand that Federal Funds can not be used for abortions.
It means they don’t have the votes, they need to peel off some of Stupak’s no votes and Bambi is promising them an executive order and Degette has agreed not to make a stink about it.
Thanks, I just did. Appreciate it.
Good. SO much news, so little time. Have a good weekend, and Happy Spring!
THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES!!
seems to me based on the post above that someone could immediately file a suit and get an injunction based on the EO being unconstitutional per Clinton v NY. By the time the case is decided, the Congress will have a different makeup and they won’t have the votes.
See latest posts on http://thehayride.com/2010/03/no-bill-no-cbo-numbers-bad-sign-for-obamacare/
This whole maneuver by Pelosi and Obambi shows THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES. And, now with all these Catholic organizations coming out against the Executive Order, they're not likely to get them. On that news, I think I can go to bed and sleep tonight.
That’s huge! Thank you
I guess she doesn’t know about the LIAR./s
won’t this tick off the pro death group
___ ### ****
That’s what I was thinking. What EO could possibly satisfy the pro-lifers but not pi$$s off the pro-choicers?
I hope the sincere naive people who voted for this criminal are watching all this.
Yeppers... ;)
Unless I’m very wrong about this, that executive order isn’t worth the paper it’s written on until it has been published in the Federal Regs.
Can the Prez issue an executive order prior to the passage of the law that backs it up?
Clearly he can rescind it afterward.
However if the law truly needs clarification, why not just put it in the bill?
Is it this obvious? /sarcasm
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.