Bush issues executive order overturning Supreme Court Ruling

[italiangm]

Quote by: RVonse You can not have federal laws that contradict local laws unless you are prepared to suceed from the union. Some local states tried that before the civil war and found out it didn't work out so well.

An executive order is not a law. It has no force of law beyond the agencies it addresses, and in no way does the executive order address local governments. Even with Federal-level limitations the order states:

Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of: (a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation; (b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity; c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right; (d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment; (e) acquiring abandoned property; (f) quieting title to real property; (g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility; (h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or (i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

[italiangm]

From http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...ut.html#orders

Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government. (emphasis mine)

The text of Executive orders appears in the daily Federal Register as each Executive order is signed by the President and received by the Office of the Federal Register. The text of Executive orders beginning with Executive Order 7316 of March 13, 1936, also appears in the sequential editions of Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp 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.

HAHAHAHAHA . Stop it!

An Executive Order is directive in nature to the Executive branch. The President's word IS law in that respect. Why should the court or the lesgislature, supposedly on equal footing, have greater weight in this matter?

The point I made is that many on this thread have made some rather inane claims of a desire to establish a "dictatorship" by the president. As evidence they cite his desire to DIMINISH the power of government.

Amusing.

[Scribbler1]

" Executive Orders Defined
An Executive Order (EO) is a directive issued to executive-level agencies, department heads, or other employees from the President under the President's statutory, or constitutional powers. In many ways, the EO is similar to written orders, or instructions the president of a corporation might send to department heads or directors.Thirty days after it is officially published in the Federal Register, an EO becomes law. While the EO does bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an EO may be illegal or unconstitutional. The first EO was issued in 1789 by none other than George Washington. Not until 1907 were EOs given official numbers."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa121897.htm

[RickSp]

Lets see Ape, an Executive Order was used to establish American concentration camps for US citizens in World War II. Not that that sort of trivia bothers you, I know.

At this point Bush is trying anything to make his gullible supporters happy - the anti-Gay marriage Amendment, the recurring Flag Burning Amendment farce and now this meaningless document that you claim means something. Whatever....you like this inane puffery, enjoy yourself.

[italiangm]

From that same reference Scribbler, you left out:

Reasons for Issuing an Executive Order Presidents typically issue an EO for one of these purposes: 1. Operational management of the executive branch 2. Operational management of federal agencies or officials 3. To carry out statutory presidential responsibilities

Nothing about state and local governments in there.

BushCo can demand his flying monkeys watch states and local governments take property according to the SCOTUS Kelo decision.

He can wag his finger at SCOTUS and state/local governments til those same monkeys fly out his ass.

But that doesn't mean the state/local governments will pay any attention since his EO does not apply to them.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Lets see Ape, an Executive Order was used to establish American concentration camps for US citizens in World War II. Not that that sort of trivia bothers you, I know. At this point Bush is trying anything to make his gullible supporters happy - the anti-Gay marriage Amendment, the recurring Flag Burning Amendment farce and now this meaningless document that you claim means something. Whatever....you like this inane puffery, enjoy yourself.

Your use of the term "concentration camp" in regard to the interment of Japanese Americans during WWII demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty. By attempting to equate the living conditions interment camps in the U.S. to Auschwitz or Birkenau is simply insulting to the U.S. as well as Holocaust survivors.

If you have to use falsehoods to advance your argument, you are plainly wrong.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Your use of the term "concentration camp" in regard to the interment of Japanese Americans during WWII demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty. By attempting to equate the living conditions interment camps in the U.S. to Auschwitz or Birkenau is simply insulting to the U.S. as well as Holocaust survivors. If you have to use falsehoods to advance your argument, you are plainly wrong.

Spare me your fool bullshit, Ape. Look up the damn terminology before you start spouting your silly insults. You might sound less hysterical if you do:
concentration camp
n.
A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.
A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.

The Japanese interment camps were concentration camps. No, they were not comparable to Auschwitz, nor did I ever say or imply they were, despite your typically nonsensical overreaction.

Of course, you have claimed that Gitmo is a virtual Caribbean resort so no doubt you think shreading the basic rights of Americans based on their ethnic hertiage is just fine and dandy during war time or under any convenient excuse.

And the camps were authorized soley by an Executive Order.

[Osborn F Enready]

Executive Order is a Kings proclamation. No president should have it in a CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED, DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.

Oh yea, forgot we don't have one of those anymore.... :rolleyes:

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: italiangm From that same reference Scribbler, you left out: Nothing about state and local governments in there. BushCo can demand his flying monkeys watch states and local governments take property according to the SCOTUS Kelo decision. He can wag his finger at SCOTUS and state/local governments til those same monkeys fly out his ass. But that doesn't mean the state/local governments will pay any attention since his EO does not apply to them.

I didn't leave them out so much as not thinking they needed to be included. What you say is right at the heart of the beginning of this thread, which is makiing White Hat Bush to be a hero for signing a meaningless proclamation. It's good for the right wingers, who are desperate for anything positive about their hero. But it means nothing except potentially good PR and once that's exhausted it can be quietly killed by simply not funding it.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Executive Order is a Kings proclamation. No president should have it in a CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED, DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. Oh yea, forgot we don't have one of those anymore.... :rolleyes:

An erroneous statement. If the legislature can enact laws, and the court, by decree, can establish laws, to exclude the presidency from being able to similarly affect change destroys the three equal branches of government as designed in this form of government.

Neither of the three branches, the Executive, Legislative nor the Judicial can be allowed to have supremacy. If the legislative attempts to enact a law, the executive has veto power to force another vote, and the Judicial may examine the legality of the law.

If the Judicial creates law (known as case law) the legislative may attempt changes by enacting a countering law, including a constitutional amendment.

If the executive issues an EO, the legislative and judicial branches have recourse and oversight to remedy perceived wrongs.

I see many such statements on this board. Many decry the efforts of the executive branch to affect public policy. Why is this? Which branch of our government should have absolute power over the other? Just which branch should be the dictator?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Executive Order is a Kings proclamation. No president should have it in a CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED, DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. Oh yea, forgot we don't have one of those anymore.... :rolleyes:

Yes Osborne, no president before BUSH ever issued an executive order in reaciton to a supreme court decision.

It's amazing, SERIOUSLY amazing, that one so demanding of "Freedom" is so full of hate you cannot acknowledge this as a good thing.

You obviously must support the taking of private land, to give to another private individual for the purpose of raising taxes. I thought you were for freedom... I guess I was wrong.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Yes Osborne, no president before BUSH ever issued an executive order in reaciton to a supreme court decision. It's amazing, SERIOUSLY amazing, that one so demanding of "Freedom" is so full of hate you cannot acknowledge this as a good thing. You obviously must support the taking of private land, to give to another private individual for the purpose of raising taxes. I thought you were for freedom... I guess I was wrong.

Yeah, Os, since you are against granting the president the power to rule the country by decree, you "obviously must support the taking of private land, to give to another private individual for the purpose of raising taxes." You just can't fool Mr V.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Do you people have any concept of Executive power, or history?

Or is it jsut the Anti-Bush syndrome is so ingrained into your brains you are incapable of rationale thought anymore?

Are any of you saying that Executive Orders are unconstitutional?

Let's hear it?

How about any of you gonna claim Bush is the FIRST president to ever do this?

Let's hear it!