This subject will be in the news this summer because...
In a memo addressed to his colleagues on Wednesday, Boehner officially announced his plans to introduce legislation in July that would authorize the House General Counsel to sue the Obama administration and "compel" the president to fulfill his oath of office to enforce existing law.While awaiting details of which orders will be challenged, I thought it would be good to post the Wikipedia page detailing all of the executive orders by the current and all the past presidents. At the page you can scroll down to access the content of each order by each president.
"If the current president can selectively enforce, change or create laws as he chooses with impunity, without the involvement of the Legislative Branch, his successors will be able to do the same," Boehner wrote in the memo. "This shifts the balance of power decisively and dangerously in favor of the presidency, giving the president king-like authority at the expense of the American people and their elected legislators."
Well, it's an interesting notion. But a straightforward impeachment seems more appropriate and constitutional.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, I'm glad that Boehner was able to locate something remotely resembling courage. It's just a pity that he didn't have the Sergeant at Arms of the House lock up Eric Holder until he complied with the subpoena.
It doesn't matter. It's all about doing anything to stifle the opposition. This is the same person who shut down the government rather than implement a law he didn't like so the hypocrisy is staggering.
Deleteand courage? I'll bet the kotch brothers threatened to cut a few dozen million from his brib... er, I mean campaign contributions if he didn't shut down Obama.
As you can see by the table -- they've ALL DONE IT!! So, what's the big deal now?
ReplyDeleteThe big deal is Obama.
DeleteThe big deal is that congress needed to be in recess. congress was not, he knew this, therefore illegal.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous, you say "he knew this" as if only one president had done this. George H.W. Bush only served one term, and he signed as many as previous presidents did in two terms. Then again, if the House, in particular, were to do their job and actually discuss and vote on bills, there would be less need for executive orders, would there not?
ReplyDeleteThen again, if the House, in particular, were to do their job and actually discuss and vote on bills, there would be less need for executive orders, would there not?
DeleteWhat should the executive do when the legislature declines to pass laws that it wants? Nothing. The job of the executive is to execute the laws legislated by the legislature. That's it. If the legislature does not do what the executive wants, that is its prerogative.
The Republican party is doing everything in its power to overthrow the U.S. government. But they're not declaring war, so the only thing patriotic Americans can do is stand up to them at the ballot box.
ReplyDelete@ barbwire. Please reread my statement and comprehend what is being stated. It really is not about how many orders. It's about the method that was used. He broke the law. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the details of that particular case. Jus sayin'
ReplyDeleteExactly right.
DeleteI was curious about Silent Cal, as he certainly was not viewed as a President who abused his authority. Most people wrongly think he did nothing. I was shocked at the number of his executive orders. I took the time to review Coolidge's executive orders, and found nothing controversial. As far as I can tell, the Supreme Court likewise didn't feel the need to review his executive orders.
It definitely isn't about quantity, but content. Something that oir last several Presidents could learn from.