Executive orders

[airdvr 210]

I'm of an opinion that we need to curtail all President's use of these.

"Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. Congress may pass legislation that might make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out the order, such as removing funding. Only a sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect."

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/

Thoughts?

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

19 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I'm of an opinion that we need to curtail all President's use of these.

"Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. Congress may pass legislation that might make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out the order, such as removing funding. Only a sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect."

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/

Thoughts?

 

Why?

They're pretty limited as far as what they can do.
They are often necessary for keeping the country operating.

You know, like now when the "Freedumb CooCoos" are actively blocking any legislation that benefits Biden in any way.

Also, it's kind of funny how loudly the conservatives scream about them when a D is in office, yet how silent they are about them while an R holds the position.

[airdvr 210]

ALL PRESIDENTS...regardless.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

5 hours ago, airdvr said:

I'm of an opinion that we need to curtail all President's use of these.

"Executive orders are not legislation; they require no approval from Congress, and Congress cannot simply overturn them. Congress may pass legislation that might make it difficult, or even impossible, to carry out the order, such as removing funding. Only a sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect."

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/

Thoughts?

 

This is what your legislators concerned themselves with today:

 

Probably going to need the EO so some adulting can take place.

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

6 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Why?

They're pretty limited as far as what they can do.
They are often necessary for keeping the country operating.

You know, like now when the "Freedumb CooCoos" are actively blocking any legislation that benefits Biden in any way.

Also, it's kind of funny how loudly the conservatives scream about them when a D is in office, yet how silent they are about them while an R holds the position.

Hi Joe,

Does anyone know what the very first thing Pres. Reagan did when he got to the Oval Office after being sworn in? 

He signed an EO freezing all federal hires.

As you said:  yet how silent they are

Jerry Baumchen

[kallend 2,027]

8 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

Does anyone know what the very first thing Pres. Reagan did when he got to the Oval Office after being sworn in? 

He signed an EO freezing all federal hires.

As you said:  yet how silent they are

Jerry Baumchen

But Saint Ronald still managed to triple the National Debt.

[tkhayes 348]

15 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

You know, like now when the "Freedumb CooCoos" are actively blocking any legislation that benefits America in any way.
 

felt the need to fix that.....

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, tkhayes said:

felt the need to fix that.....

Well, yeah.

 

That too.

I've seen suggestions that Greene, Johnson and a few others should be prosecuted under the Logan Act.

[brenthutch 444]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

But Saint Ronald still managed to triple the National Debt.

Yet he won the Cold War without firing a shot. A bargain at twice the price.

[brenthutch 444]

 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Yet he won the Cold War without firing a shot. A bargain at twice the price.

How does this bargain work exactly?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Yet he won the Cold War without firing a shot. A bargain at twice the price.

No kidding. Defense spending is way down and we don't need to worry about Russian nukes or irredentist claims mucking up the new and peaceful world order. Indeed, a bargain at at least twice the price....and counting.

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

How does this bargain work exactly?

Pax Americana 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Pax Americana 

Reagan ended Pax Americana and spending has decreased since then? Is that how you propose this bargain worked?

I am sure you have some numbers to add to this, you have an MBA and all.

You may also want to think about the possible scenarios if that spending right after WWII had not taken place.

[airdvr 210]

I'm constantly amazed at how the usual suspects can take a discussion and turn it into an us/them conversation.  

I'm not ok with any president's ability to spend billions of our tax money without needing approval.  Read that again ANY PRESIDENT.

You seem to have a problem with other President's use of the EO.  How about chiming in on how wrong it is for any of them.  

[billvon 2,991]

On 4/15/2024 at 11:41 AM, airdvr said:

I'm of an opinion that we need to curtail all President's use of these.

Agreed.  They are important to allow rapid action by the executive branch, but are used too often for issues that are better legislated.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

35 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I'm constantly amazed at how the usual suspects can take a discussion and turn it into an us/them conversation.  

I'm not ok with any president's ability to spend billions of our tax money without needing approval.  Read that again ANY PRESIDENT.

You seem to have a problem with other President's use of the EO.  How about chiming in on how wrong it is for any of them.  

I agree with you, largely, especially so with respect to any EO's that come with big bills. But those fairly benign housekeeping ones or even ones for presidential legacy things like national monuments seem fine to me. 

[brenthutch 444]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Reagan ended Pax Americana and spending has decreased since then? Is that how you propose this bargain worked?

I am sure you have some numbers to add to this, you have an MBA and all.

You may also want to think about the possible scenarios if that spending right after WWII had not taken place.

Yes I have. It’s called WWIII.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

I'm constantly amazed at how the usual suspects can take a discussion and turn it into an us/them conversation.  

I'm not ok with any president's ability to spend billions of our tax money without needing approval.  Read that again ANY PRESIDENT.

You seem to have a problem with other President's use of the EO.  How about chiming in on how wrong it is for any of them.  

You are just now figuring out how much of democracy is based on decorum and tradition. Based on expecting leaders to generally do the right thing.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Just now, brenthutch said:

Yes I have. It’s called WWIII.

lol, you are rambling, moving goal posts, or generally not really understanding what you are talking about.....

 

Sure, Reagan started pax americana by ending the cold war and thereby preventing WWIII.....

[brenthutch 444]

13 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

lol, you are rambling, moving goal posts, or generally not really understanding what you are talking about.....

 

Sure, Reagan started pax americana by ending the cold war and thereby preventing WWIII.....

You are adorable, Pax Americana did not end at the culmination of the Cold War, which arguably continues to this day. It is the absence of head-to-head major power wars since the U.S. became the global police man. 

Edited April 17, 2024 by brenthutch

[gowlerk 2,192]

46 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I agree with you, largely, especially so with respect to any EO's that come with big bills. But those fairly benign housekeeping ones or even ones for presidential legacy things like national monuments seem fine to me. 

There is no point to have an Executive Branch if it can’t take executive action. Congress is far too cumbersome of a tool for governing.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You are adorable, Pax Americana did not end at the culmination of the Cold War, which arguably continues to this day. It is the absence of head-to-head major power wars since the U.S. became the global police man. 

This nonsense message brought to you from red to the bone, backwoods, Pennsyltuckey USA. 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You are adorable, Pax Americana did not end at the culmination of the Cold War, which arguably continues to this day. It is the absence of head-to-head major power wars since the U.S. became the global police man. 

But America became the global police main before Raegan became president. Pax americana started before Raegan. Military spending hasn't abated since Raegan either. So to go back to your claim: What was the bargain he reached?

 

[kallend 2,027]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

But America became the global police main before Raegan became president. Pax americana started before Raegan. Military spending hasn't abated since Raegan either. So to go back to your claim: What was the bargain he reached?

 

Did Pax Americana include Vietnam and Korea?

Pax Romana lasted centuries.  Even Pax Britannica lasted 99 years.