They are trying to get Obummer to sign an Exec Order to clarify abortion language, in order to Pacify Stupak’s gang. Obama, the king of Abortion rights will then just turn around and get rid of it after he’s stolen their votes.
They are trying to get Obummer to sign an Exec Order to clarify abortion language, in order to Pacify Stupak’s gang. Obama, the king of Abortion rights will then just turn around and get rid of it after he’s stolen their votes.
Got it. Thanks.
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 ...
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?