Bush issues executive order overturning Supreme Court Ruling

[RickSp]

Quote by: RVonse Executive orders may not technically be laws....but as a practical matter I think that executive orders have the force of law. If for no other reason, the President has total control over the military to ensure enforcement.

If the President uses the military to enforce executive orders then he has overthrown the government and established a dictatorship, not among his powers ennumerated in Article 2.

[Scribbler1]

I agree, Rick. "the President has total control over the military to ensure enforcement" sure looks like some S. American dictatorship to me.

[RVonse]

Quote by: RickSp If the President uses the military to enforce executive orders then he has overthrown the government and established a dictatorship, not among his powers ennumerated in Article 2.

If executive orders can not be interpreted or enforced, then they must all be worthless.

I don't see the point to creating any of them then.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: RVonse If executive orders can not be interpreted or enforced, then they must all be worthless. I don't see the point to creating any of them then.

Executive orders DO have the force of law, but there are limits as to what a president can do with such an order. Bush does not have the power to overturn laws passed by Congress (and signed BY a president) nor can he overturn Supreme Court rulings.


He just THINKS he can.

[RVonse]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Executive orders DO have the force of law,

RickSp just explained to us that executive orders are not laws, do you dissagree with him? Even if executive orders are laws or have the force of law, just exactly who does the enforcement? The secret service? :confused:

[Scribbler1]

Yes, I do disagree.

Executive orders, as long as they are not in themselves illegal or unconstitutional become law a month after they are published in the federal register. After that, the same people who enforce all the OTHER laws do the enforcing.

[RickSp]

Scrib is right. Executive orders do have the force of law based on previous Congressional or Constitutional authorization. They do not however have the ability, for example, to overrule the Supreme Court or to overturn existing legislation.

One of the worst abuses of an Executive Order was Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 putting Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II. Scarily, the Supreme Court ruled four times during the war on the camps and each time found in favor of the government, effectively saying that herding US citizens into concentration camps was legal. To my knowledge these rulings have never been overturned.

It appears the original intention of Executive Orders was to allow the President to deal with administrative matters without requiring legistation. No one should cheer use of Presidential power by Executive Order. Nevertheless the EO in question does nothing to overturn the Kelo decision.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: RVonse No, you must be confused about this. Because that is not the way it works in the real world. I know that California has legalized marijuana usage, yet the federal government has successfully challanged this. And there is nothing in the federal law that specifices California or any other of the 10 states (such as Alaska) can't use this drug.

I'm afraid you're the one who is confused... Because the federal government has a law that is mutually exclusive with a state law, they overrule it. In this case (eminent domain), however, the federal government has a law (executive order) that says what the federal government can do. This doesn't restrict states or localities in any way.
What I said before (the three types of situations) is the factually correct application of federalism. That's coming from someone with a law school education in federalism.

RickSp just explained to us that executive orders are not laws, do you dissagree with him? Even if executive orders are laws or have the force of law, just exactly who does the enforcement? The secret service?

The executive branch is responsible for carrying out all laws, including executive orders. Why would the secret service have to do it? Every federal government agency, with a few limited exceptions, is under the executive branch. Part of the beauty of our government is the respect (usually) paid to other branches of government when they make laws. By your argument, what does the Supreme Court even matter? They don't have an army to enforce their judgments...

[Boetie]

The Executive Branch cannot make laws, only the Legislative Branch can make laws. That should have been clear enough for everyone.

What the Executive Branch can do is make policies. Policies is a different creature from laws. Policies can never be ruled as unconstitutional because policies are not laws.

Yet policies can be quite the devil. Here is an acutal case where policies can be used like a knife in the back. When Bush Sr was president he played out this photo opt signing the Disability Act. Does anyone need to worry, not at all, because Bush Sr then goes behind the scences and changes a policy which is, "what constitutes a disability?" By eleminating just about every disability on the books he left it at a point where the only people that can receive services from the Vocational Rehabilitation Dept are those whom are so disabled they couldn't work even if they wanted to. Problem solved, disabled Americans are shut out from entering the mainstream. A knife in the back with a little twist of the knife added to it.

By the way for those whom made it through by other ways, Bush Sr gave companies a tax break, good only for ninety days. There was then this huge firing of disabled Americans after nintey days and this happened all across the country. Ten years later people wondered why the unemployment rate never changed, it should have improved and it didn't. Not to worry. The columnists wrote the usual bullshit that it was all the disabled Americans fault. Note: unemployement amongst disabled Americans is approx 65 percent an higher. Those that are employed most are grossly underemployed. Another side note: the conservative leaning stacked United State Supreme Court actually rewrote the Disability Act, which is not their job.

My point here is be careful about what a Bush does. Be sure of one thing and that is they will always wash your back with dirty water.

[brien]

Mr Vic; POI The Kelo case originated in New London, Connecticut. She just settled with the city to move. The gutless Connecticut Legislature has refuse to set a state statute on Eminent Domain so far, and the session has recessed for the summer.

I think to date, something like 28 states have set legislative legal guidelines that prevents government from taking private property for private developmet through eminent domain.

[brien]

Quote by: RVonse I'm no lawyer Isbskins but this language sounds pretty clear to me: Its pretty obvious that a shopping mall buyout is not going to fall into the category of this executive order no matter how you interpret the USSC opinion.

Please note the wording which says "The Federal Government." In the Kelo case it was the Municipal Council of the City of New London Connecticut, not the Federal Goernment.

[RickSp]

Quote by: brien Mr Vic; POI The Kelo case originated in New London, Connecticut. She just settled with the city to move. The gutless Connecticut Legislature has refuse to set a state statute on Eminent Domain so far, and the session has recessed for the summer. I think to date, something like 28 states have set legislative legal guidelines that prevents government from taking private property for private developmet through eminent domain.

What I find so interesting about Kelo is that it is not dissimilar to other cases which did not generate the publicity because the victims tended to be poor and minorities.

The Justices also did exactly what the conservatives have demanded for so many years - they were not "activist" judges, they did not legislate from the bench. Justice Stephens made it clear in his majority opinion that the state laws could be changed to prevent this sort of eminent domain. Funny how what constitutes "judicial activism" seems to depend on what outcome you prefer.

[brien]

Quote by: RickSp What I find so interesting about Kelo is that it is not dissimilar to other cases which did not generate the publicity because the victims tended to be poor and minorities. The Justices also did exactly what the conservatives have demanded for so many years - they were not "activist" judges, they did not legislate from the bench. Justice Stephens made it clear in his majority opinion that the state laws could be changed to prevent this sort of eminent domain. Funny how what constitutes "judicial activism" seems to depend on what outcome you prefer.

Absolutely right on here Ric. Ms Kelo isn't by any means rich. I have been to her house. It isn't a big modern home over looking the Thames river towards Electric Boat in Groton where they build the submarines. It was a small modest pink two storey decorated in the front yard with cheesey little nomes and lawn decorations like pink flamingoes. She, herself, is a sweet woman of about 50 ish, and only wished to be left alone. But the Council wanted that land because is directly across the street from a State Park which has the revolutionary war Fort Trumbull on it, (how ironic). The City wants a private developer to build Condominiums, shopping stores, and a general redevelopment of the area between the giant Pfizer Phamacueticals company and the State Park so it would increase taxes to the city.

She fought for her rights to the proverbial bitter end. An annoucement of a settlement has been made by the state but the details are "secret." She was the very last hold out and now she has to go. I am certain she is well compensated but it will never make up for what she, and other Connecticut Yankees have lost.

And you are dead on when you write the the SCOTUS held that each state could decide what is right and proper when using the tool of eminent domain to acquire land for the public good. There is so much misunderstanding in this issue it only serves to divide citizens over laws they do not fully understand.

[eburchelli]

It would matter if the local government was using or depending upon federal funding. Then the federal law would trump local or state laws. It's been that way ever since the states lost their powers, basically from 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified and succeeding rulings by the courts based upon faulty logic.

[lsbskins1]

The truth about Kelso is that the tragedy is not in what is different in that ruling, but is in what is mind numbingly the same. Appellate courts all have one thing in common. They uphold the lower court out of deference in the vast majority of cases. On the rare occasion that they overturn, you can bet that they are defering to a government position. The government almost always gets what it wants. Usually, they are making law and order conservatives happy by erroding civil protections. This time, the government asked for something that hit a little close to home for conservatives. That, folks, is why they call it a "slippery slope".

[RickSp]

Quote by: eburchelli It would matter if the local government was using or depending upon federal funding. Then the federal law would trump local or state laws. It's been that way ever since the states lost their powers, basically from 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified and succeeding rulings by the courts based upon faulty logic.

Access to Federal funding is not a 14th Amendment issue. The principle predates the amendment. The old adge applies, "he who pays the piper can call the tune."

[Apeman81]

BWAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHA!

The USSC decides the state can take you property against your will, with tax revenue increase for justification, but its the President, by saying that the state CAN'T take your property against your will, that's pushing for a dictatorship.

Man, you guys are damn funny!

[lsbskins1]

No, I think what we are saying is that though Bush WISHES he was a dictator, his decrees do not trump the constitutional authority of the USSC, and though we do live in a country with priorities that are shot to hell, the power of the Judicial Branch is not yet null and void. That would be a more accurate reading of our point, I think.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 BWAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHA! The USSC decides the state can take you property against your will, with tax revenue increase for justification, but its the President, by saying that the state CAN'T take your property against your will, that's pushing for a dictatorship. Man, you guys are damn funny!

At least try to make it appear that you are attempting to pay attention. Jaysus. As has been previously established, the president's stupid EO did nothing to prevent local municipalities for taking property under eminent domain.

Rather telling that you prefer a government where the president's word is law and troublesome things like legislatures, courts and constitutions don't get in the way.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: lsbskins1 No, I think what we are saying is that though Bush WISHES he was a dictator, his decrees do not trump the constitutional authority of the USSC, and though we do live in a country with priorities that are shot to hell, the power of the Judicial Branch is not yet null and void. That would be a more accurate reading of our point, I think.

Dictators tend not to relinquish governmental power. Therefore, the USSC, by giving the state increased power, are the ones exhibiting dictatorial tendencies in this case.