Posted on 11/23/2014 6:23:38 AM PST by servo1969
I have been kind of wondering about this too. Is there a website that lists all executive orders?
Roger that. That is why I quit the RINOpublican party and quit giving them money. I vote for only conservative candidates, who believe like I do. Otherwise, I skip them and move to the next office to vote for. If he is a RINOpublican, then again I skip and move on. I DID NOT vote for Romney. I did not vote for McScream. I refuse to vote for the so called “lesser of two evils” anymore. In my book, evil is evil is evil. No matter the level of that evil. It is still evil. Thus, I no longer vote for them. Don’t care what folks say. I go with what my heart tells me. Not what a bunch of screaming people say. Oh, well.
Lots of people got played with mis-information.
/johnny
Yep. The White House lists EOs.
/johnny
Obama's announced administrative actions will be new...as we have discussed.
Congress doesn't "defund" new requirements. Instead it's a matter of Congress not funding new requirements. When these new "requirements" require funds, that's when you deny the funds.
And by the way, when did I say that I want to deny funds "NOW", to something that hasn't been created yet?
LOL.
And of course I didn't.
And you belived him?
Show me the memo or EO that creates new unlawful administrative actions.
/johnny
There is no such thing as Executive Action. It simply does not exist. You entire premise is therefore incorrect so I cannot respond.
Executive orders and proclamations are directives or actions by the President when they are founded on the authority of the President derived from the Constitution or statute, they may have the force and effect of law....
The distinction between these instruments—executive orders, presidential memoranda, and proclamations—seems to be more a matter of form than of substance, given that all three may be employed to direct and govern the actions of government officials and agencies.
Moreover, if issued under a legitimate claim of authority and made public, a presidential directive could have the force and effect of law, “of which all courts are bound to take notice, and to which all courts are bound to give effect.”
The only technical difference is that executive orders must be published in the Federal Register, while presidential memoranda and proclamations are published
only when the President determines that they have “general applicability and legal effect.”
In the narrower sense Executive orders and proclamations
are written documents denominated as such.... Executive orders are generally directed to, and govern actions by, Government officials and agencies. They usually affect private individuals only indirectly. Proclamations in most instances affect primarily the activities of private individuals.
Since the President has no power or authority over individual citizens and their rights except where he is granted such power and authority by a provision in the Constitution or by statute, the President’s proclamations are not legally binding and are at best hortatory unless based on such grants of authority.
Congress may revoke all or part of such an order by either directly repealing the order, or by removing the underlying authority upon which the action is predicated. Either of these actions would appear to negate the legal effect of the order.
Congress can similarly revoke an executive order issued by the president by passing repeal legislation stated that “[t]he provisions of Executive Order XXXXXXX ... shall not have any legal effect.
This whole EO thing is misdirection. That's how people are getting played. The changes are so-called unconstitutional Administrative Actions.
Operation Wetback— Dwight Eisenhower. It worked with apprehensions of illegals and deportations.... but it did not stem the flow of illegals into the US.
Comments from wikipedia:
1,078,168 apprehensions made in the first year of Operation Wetback, with 170,000 being captured from May to July 1954. The total number of apprehensions would fall to just 242,608 in 1955, and would continuously decline by year until 1962, when there was a slight rise in apprehended workers. During the entirety of the Operation, border recruitment of illegal workers by American growers continued due largely to the inexpensiveness of illegal labor and the desire of growers to avoid the bureaucratic obstacles of the Bracero program; the continuation of illegal immigration despite the efforts of Operation Wetback was largely responsible for the failure of the program.
The Bracero program was an agreed labor employment contract by the US to Mexico for temporary work permits to work in the US (in absence in WWII of pickers, laborers, due to our drafted servicemen/women). That program largely worked and was fair to workers. This is NOT what obamaumao proposes— he proposes to import more people to be on the govt. tit.
And be dependent and then be... dem voters.
I am sharing what FoxNews reported and shared a photo that captioned as they were talking that Obama signed the executive orders (their words). It showed him on the plane signing. I am not going to use my energy to argue there is no Amnesty for the illegals. I will say to all, the republicans are only angry because Obama boxed them into a political corner. They wanted this issue in January and got outmaneuvered. Explains why the talking heads are saying, be calm don’t engage Obama. Bachmann even isn’t claiming what you are claiming.
You are conflating two ideas.
There are Constitutional Administrative Actions.
There are unConstitutional Administrative Actions.
Do you really want me to illustrate an example of each?
Show me the 'administrative actions'. If they aren't in writing, they aren't there.
/johnny
Thanks...interesting.
Obama is no closer to Amnesty today than he was a month ago. He was 'not deporting' illegals months ago. Nothing changed.
You got played.
/johnny
Perception tends to be reality. I do not think we will have to wait too long to see if ‘prosecutorial discretion’ is allowed to stand as defacto law and policy.
Thusfar I see little if anything to lead me to believe holding Obama to account will happen.
It’s a modern-day version of watching Von Hindenburg cede power to Hitler’s reinterpretation of how the government is supposed to operate.
...”My point is we are all getting played”...
Might explain why the Republicans left town without much more than a few words.
Thanks
Obama is no closer to amnesty today than he was a month ago.
He was unlawfully not deporting illegals then. Nothing changed, except he gave a speech and stampeded people.
/johnny
Congress can similarly revoke an executive order issued by the president by passing repeal legislation stated that “[t]he provisions of Executive Order XXXXXXX ... shall not have any legal effect.
And of course Obama would veto any repeal.
Defunding or legal action would be required.
Which is my point.
Things would indeed have changed if Obama issues those executive actions on amnesty.
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.