Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Desertdog on November 09, 2008, 10:01:28 PM
-
Obama to use executive orders for immediate impact
Nov 9 03:51 PM US/Eastern
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press Writer
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94BK0HO0&show_article=1
WASHINGTON (AP) - President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.
John Podesta, Obama's transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush's executive orders on those issue and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own.
"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."
Podesta also said Obama is working to build a diverse Cabinet. That includes reaching out to Republicans and independents—part of the broad coalition that supported Obama during the race against Republican John McCain. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been mentioned as a possible holdover.
"He's not even a Republican," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said. "Why wouldn't we want to keep him? He's never been a registered Republican."
Obama was elected on a promise of change, but the nature of the job makes it difficult for presidents to do much that has an immediate impact on the lives of average people. Congress plans to take up a second economic aid plan before year's end—an effort Obama supports, But it could be months or longer before taxpayers see the effect.
Obama could use his executive powers to at least signal that Washington is changing.
"Obama's advantage of course is he'll have the House and the Senate working with him, and that makes it easier," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. "But even then, having an immediate impact is very difficult to do because the machinery of government doesn't move that quickly."
Presidents long have used executive orders to impose policy and set priorities. One of Bush's first acts was to reinstate full abortion restrictions on U.S. overseas aid. The restrictions were first ordered by President Reagan and the first President Bush followed suit. President Clinton lifted them soon after he occupied the Oval Office and it wouldn't be surprising if Obama did the same.
Executive orders "have the power of law and they can cover just about anything," Tobias said in a telephone interview.
Bush used his executive power to limit federal spending on embryonic stem cell research, a position championed by opponents of abortion rights who argue that destroying embryos is akin to killing a fetus. Obama has supported the research in an effort to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's. Many moderate Republicans also support the research, giving it the stamp of bipartisanship.
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."
Two top House Republicans said there is a willingness to try to work with Obama to get things done. But they said to expect Republicans to serve as a check against the power held by Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress.
"It's going to be a cheerful opposition," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. "We're going to carry those timeless principles of limited government, a strong defense, traditional values, to the American people."
Pence, of Indiana, is expected to take over the No. 3 leadership post among House Republicans.
In other transition matters, Obama's new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, would not say whether Obama would return to the Senate for votes during the postelection session this month. Obama's presence would be extraordinary, given his position as president-elect, especially if Congress takes up a much-anticipated economic stimulus plan.
"I think that the basic approach has been he's going to be here in Chicago, setting up his economic, not only his economic team, but the policies he wants to outline for the country as soon as he gets sworn in, so we hit the ground running," Emanuel said.
Also, Emanuel would not commit to a Democratic proposal to help the auto industry with some of the $700 billion approved by Congress to for the financial bailout.
Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a letter Saturday to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that the administration should consider expanding the bailout to include car companies.
Podesta appeared on "Fox News Sunday," as did Pence, and CNN's "Late Edition," where Reid also was interviewed. Emanuel spoke on ABC's "This Week" and CBS' "Face the Nation."
-
That whistling sound you hear is a shoe dropping...
-
Aren't all you republicans glad you let Bush grab so much power yet?
-
executive orders predate bush rumours to the contrary not withstanding
-
"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,"
Ok this was rather disturbing but this
Executive orders "have the power of law and they can cover just about anything," Tobias said in a telephone interview.
was worth a shudder.
-
I wonder if all the lefties that complained about President Bush using too much power will do the same when Hussein does it next year?
jk.
-
Basis in U.S. Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)#Basis_in_U.S._Constitution
Leland-Boker Authorized Edition of the Emancipation Proclamation, printed in June 1864 with a presidential signatureU.S. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3. Most executive orders are orders issued by the President to US executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office.
Other types of executive orders are:
National Security Directives
Homeland Security Presidential Directives (presidential decision directives)
[edit] History and use
Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. However, the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for executive orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. That order became necessary when Union forces captured New Orleans; Lincoln issued the order to establish military courts in Louisiana. Today, only National Security Directives are kept from the public.
Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.
Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton's second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues, although all Presidents since its passage have complied with the terms of the Resolution while maintaining that they are not constitutionally required to do so.
More information at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)#Basis_in_U.S._Constitution
-
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool, huh?"
Paul Begala--Clinton admin official
-
The real question is, will Obama step beyond the already tenuous authority concerning executive orders as "granted" in the Constitution? I believe he will, issuing what amount to presidential decrees. It does not bode well for America.
-
The real question is, will Obama step beyond the already tenuous authority concerning executive orders as "granted" in the Constitution? I believe he will, issuing what amount to presidential decrees. It does not bode well for America.
Of course he will. George bush did so, and the lefties were told to shut up and support their president in wartime.
That's why it's a good idea to keep a leash on your president when he exceeds his authority, even if you like him.
Think of how much harder it'd be for Obama to abuse executive orders if we impeached the last president(s) that did so? And no, Clinton doesn't count; we didn't impeach him for that; we impeached him for lying about a B.J.
-
The idea of one man making law is not within the Constitution.
Let's say a future El Presidente issues an order that all men in the USA shall wear neckties on Friday.
Can he establish a penalty of jail time for those who don't?
Fines?
If he can't establish penalties, then his decrees are pretty much meaningless.
The President has some power over how existing laws are enforced, and he certainly can exert control over foreign policy, but I don't see that he has authority to do anything new domestically that directly impacts Americans, aside from those working within the Executive branch of government.
-
bill got impeached for lying under oath it might not matter to you but that under oath thing can be a sticky point
-
The President has some power over how existing laws are enforced, and he certainly can exert control over foreign policy, but I don't see that he has authority to do anything new domestically that directly impacts Americans, aside from those working within the Executive branch of government.
That's the way it's supposed to be, yes. That's not how it is.
Remember all of those thousands of Federal laws? Most of them give the Executive Branch (or some official in it) the power to issue some form of regulation under that law.
Take gun laws, for example. Under the Gun Control Act, 1968, it is within the authority of the Treasury to rule any given shotgun a Destructive Device if it is not 'sporting', or to ban the importation of any firearm under the same grounds. This is how they classified USAS-12 [IIRC] as a Destructive Device.
Similarly, there is also an authority to remove any given firearm, by make and brand, from the Act's purview.
A similar effect exists in the Controlled Substances Act, empowering the DEA (IIRC) – to assign classifications to drugs, from over-the-counter to verboten.
As the scope of government expands, there are more and more agencies that have to issue such regulations simply because Congress cannot directly oversee every issue that arises.
However, the President is in charge of all of these agencies.
As such, he can, under current law, do a lot of shiny things.
Consider the 1989 anti-importation EO (still in force), and multiply that by the thousands of issues the Federal Government is now involved with.
THIS is now, de-facto, the power of the President.
This, in my mind, is a very bad thing –but it is made a bit better by the fact that a pro-freedom President, if someone like that were by some miracle elected, could throw a MAGNIFICIENT wrench in the works.
-
Perhaps some more constructive discussion would be to list specifics on all the potential avenues that a President could use EO's to advance gun control (or the other way). That might be better than pontificating about Emperor Obama. Micro gave it a start.
-
If he can't establish penalties, then his decrees are pretty much meaningless.
His decrees can change what the penalties apply to. Before the Stockton shootings in 1989, it was not illegal to import a FAL in its normal configuration. After Bush's executive order prohibiting import, it was illegal. The penalty for the action was that for any similar violation of the 1968 GCA.
-
Perhaps some more constructive discussion would be to list specifics on all the potential avenues that a President could use EO's to advance gun control (or the other way). That might be better than pontificating about Emperor Obama. Micro gave it a start.
from my understanding, a president, via EO could ban import of any ammo/gun parts. So he could ban ANY gun/ammo imports.
All that'll do is make a booming domestic gun industry. MORE US JOBS!
It'll hurt those used to getting cheap milsurp ammo though.
-
Perhaps some more constructive discussion would be to list specifics on all the potential avenues that a President could use EO's to advance gun control (or the other way). That might be better than pontificating about Emperor Obama. Micro gave it a start.
Instructing ATF to change the sportings purpose test so that smaller handguns (i.e. Glock compacts and subcompacts) could not get the required points for importation, or so that any weapon capable of accepting a military magazine would not be allowed.
Instructing Customs and ATF to prohibit the importation of any military surplus ammunition.
Instructing ATF to require that any FFL have a retail store (similar to what Clinton did without the executive order).
-
"Sensitive, fragile lands in Utah"
UTAH?! Sensitive, fragile lands? I've BEEN there.
This is most of what I saw, places like this.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hickerphoto.com%2Fdata%2Fmedia%2F188%2Fmoab_utah_t3245.jpg&hash=8d693c9975088e4b2bf6f5fc807b22b7f2848d57)
It's the freaking MOON in a lot of places. I still think the Mormons pushed their handcarts over the hills, looked down into the valley where SLC is now, and said something that was not recorded.
-
some areas are indeed sensitive. go up pikes peak the tracks the early pioneers wagons left in the lichen are visible more than a 100 years later
-
some areas are indeed sensitive. go up pikes peak the tracks the early pioneers wagons left in the lichen are visible more than a 100 years later
Yes, I'm sure that's precisely where they wanted to drill. ;/
So .1% is "sensitive". Something like 99.9% is NOT. There's a whole lot of rock, a whole lot of abandoned ghost towns in the middle of nothing, and that's where you might just find gas and oil. So drill.
-
from my understanding, a president, via EO could ban import of any ammo/gun parts. So he could ban ANY gun/ammo imports.
All that'll do is make a booming domestic gun industry. MORE US JOBS!
It'll hurt those used to getting cheap milsurp ammo though.
Also, if you want some model that's not made in the US because maybe like 10 people want one, you = screwed.
Also, he could declare any shotgun a DD by executive fiat.
s
-
Look, Congress will just pass the Enabling Act and make it all legit.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
-
Nature abhors a vacuum; it also abhors a tyrant. If The He wants to be widely despised he knows what to do. Or try to do. None of this will occur without significant repercussions. While he's playing footsie with Rebecca Peters and the Brady and Joyce types he's going to be dealing with a lot of tumult both here and abroad on economic and military matters.
-
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool, huh?"
Paul Begala--Clinton admin official
OK...
What am I missing here?
The power to make laws is vested in the Congress not the executive.
I can see how an executive order can direct departments within the excecutive branch, provide budgeting guidance, administrative direction maybe even stuff like enforce this law vigorously, blow that one off etc etc
But once an EO crosses over into the realm of making law then that's not constitutional.
So for you lawyer types - what gives? It's got to be more than just tradition or the congress ignoring presidential transgressions into their domain as long as he plays tit for tat?
-
The power to make laws is vested in the Congress not the executive.
you know that, I know that, the GOP knows that: but does that mean Obama and the Democrats really give a damn and won't try it?
-
from my understanding, a president, via EO could ban import of any ammo/gun parts. So he could ban ANY gun/ammo imports.
All that'll do is make a booming domestic gun industry. MORE US JOBS!
It'll hurt those used to getting cheap milsurp ammo though.
Now you're for liberal protectionism too?
Do you have a secret Obama shrine in the closet or something?
-
But once an EO crosses over into the realm of making law then that's not constitutional.
And you think that makes any difference ...? :rolleyes:
:mad:
-
After talking to a former State Rep. about EOs, she said that an unwritten rule of Presidents was not reverse or nulify a former Presidencial EOs and couldn't recall if any President reversing or nulifiying a former Presidents EO.
If anyone has info on to the contray, please speak up.
-
clinton reversed reagan at least once
-
All that'll do is make a booming domestic gun industry. MORE US JOBS!
Says who?
That same EO could say the sporting purposes clause applies to domestically-manufactured firearms.
Obama is already on record for wanting AK-47s off the streets.
To him, the 2nd Amendment is all about hunting. That's it. =|
-
Precedent is irrelevant. Previous Presidents weren't The One.
-
Obama had best worry about gangsta control, not gun control. He can start in Chicago for his test program; plenty to work with there. Then he can work his magic in all the other Democrat-controlled cities.
I sit reading about What Obama Might Do. He ain't gonna do anything we don't really want him to.
-
you know that, I know that, the GOP knows that: but does that mean Obama and the Democrats really give a damn and won't try it?
Agreed.....with the respect that the Dems have shown the Constitution before, I have no doubt that they'll push it to the wall....and then break down the wall by appointing SCOTUS justices that will vote their way....
-
The power to make laws is vested in the Congress not the executive.
It still won't stop either from attempting to devise a way to neuter Heller.