The nature and history of Executive Orders

[Outis]

For starters, every unilateral delay in enforcing Obamacare. Where does the president have the power to temporarily suspend laws?

The Executive Office has the authority to "prescribe all needful rules and regulations" in enforcing tax laws. The individual and business mandates (the business mandates are the only parts of ACA enforcement that have had any scheduling delays) were ruled as taxes by SCOTUS. THe president, therefore, has the authority to delay enforcement of those specific portions of the law. This provision “does not allow Treasury to grant transition relief indefinitely, or otherwise not implement a change in the tax law," but it does allow specific delays for a stated period of time.

Second, his Executive Order end-around the DREAM Act he didn't get (and this after he claimed he didn't have the power to do that).

You're confusing Rubio's accusation with reality. Obama did not legalize anyone. He is allowed (just as Bush was allowed before him, and wrote an EO to that effect) to prioritize prosecution and deportation, and (just as Bush did before him) defer prosecution.

So what's you're problem--that prosecution was deferred (in which case you should be angry at both Bush and Obama), or that it was deferred by Obama?

[Cow Poke]

So what's you're problem--that prosecution was deferred (in which case you should be angry at both Bush and Obama), or that it was deferred by Obama?

My problem is that BOTH parties seem to complain when they're out of power that the other guy is abusing the power -- and Obama, in particular, as a "constitutional lawyer" was particularly concerned with George Bush's "abuses", and promised to reverse that trend.

And, yes, I'm angry at BOTH parties.

[Outis]

My problem is that BOTH parties seem to complain when they're out of power that the other guy is abusing the power -- and Obama, in particular, as a "constitutional lawyer" was particularly concerned with George Bush's "abuses", and promised to reverse that trend.

And, yes, I'm angry at BOTH parties.

You are. OBP seems to be indicating that it's fine when Republicans do it, but not otherwise, and I'm waiting for him to clarify that appearance.

[Cow Poke]

The Executive Office has the authority to "prescribe all needful rules and regulations" in enforcing tax laws.

When is Obamacare NOT a tax? When the libs don't want it to be, so they can sell it to the public.
What IS Obamacare a tax? When the libs want it to be, so they can regulate/implement/delay it by executive order.

(The Constitution mandates compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7), that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives.)

[Zymologist]

When is Obamacare NOT a tax? When the libs don't want it to be, so they can sell it to the public.
What IS Obamacare a tax? When the libs want it to be, so they can regulate/implement/delay it by executive order.

(The Constitution mandates compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7), that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives.)

Obama, when asked if the individual mandate was a tax: "I absolutely reject that notion."

[Cow Poke]

Obama, when asked if the individual mandate was a tax: "I absolutely reject that notion."

Yeah, it had to NOT be a tax to pass it, but it DOES have to be a tax to implement/modify/delay it.

[Outis]

When is Obamacare NOT a tax? When the libs don't want it to be, so they can sell it to the public.
What IS Obamacare a tax? When the libs want it to be, so they can regulate/implement/delay it by executive order.

(The Constitution mandates compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7), that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives.)

Parts of the health care law originated in the House, parts in the Senate. NONE of the bill was intended to be a tax, but SCOTUS over-ruled it. Please spare me the talking points and address the issues.

[Cow Poke]

Parts of the health care law originated in the House, parts in the Senate. NONE of the bill was intended to be a tax, but SCOTUS over-ruled it. Please spare me the talking points and address the issues.

Meh.... the bill in the House was a rider to other bills, and the Dems claim the Repubs forfeit the right to protest, because they did not protest it at the time. I don't think you can honestly make a case that this was not an Obama/Reid/Pelosi thing.

As for SCOTUS ruling it was a tax, yes -- but that doesn't change the fact that the liberals were screaming it was NOT in order to get it passed, but now they hide behind that "ruling" in order to foist it on the American People, and bend/shape/delay/modify it at will. Why is it necessary to do ANY of this? Because it was a stinkin pile of horsiepoo to begin with, full of all kinds of unintended consequences.

[Darth Executor]

The Executive Office has the authority to "prescribe all needful rules and regulations" in enforcing tax laws.

So NOT enforcing tax laws is now "prescribing all needful rules and regulations in enforcing tax laws"? Your posts would make a great sitcom.

You're confusing Rubio's accusation with reality. Obama did not legalize anyone. He is allowed (just as Bush was allowed before him, and wrote an EO to that effect) to prioritize prosecution and deportation, and (just as Bush did before him) defer prosecution.

So what's you're problem--that prosecution was deferred (in which case you should be angry at both Bush and Obama), or that it was deferred by Obama?

So your argument that Obama didn't do something unconstitutional is that Bush did it too? Is Bush God or something? When did Bush get the authority to not just defy the constitution himself but warp the very fabric of reality so that anything he does is de facto constitutional? Bush and the Republican Party in general are a disaster on immigration, probably because they're just a manufactured foil so progressive overlords can dupe the rubes into thinking there's an alternative.

[robrecht]

Meh.... the bill in the House was a rider to other bills, and the Dems claim the Repubs forfeit the right to protest, because they did not protest it at the time. I don't think you can honestly make a case that this was not an Obama/Reid/Pelosi thing.

As for SCOTUS ruling it was a tax, yes -- but that doesn't change the fact that the liberals were screaming it was NOT in order to get it passed, but now they hide behind that "ruling" in order to foist it on the American People, and bend/shape/delay/modify it at will. Why is it necessary to do ANY of this? Because it was a stinkin pile of horsiepoo to begin with, full of all kinds of unintended consequences.

All of which is off topic. I, for one, appreciate the explanation about executive orders. But it's your thread so I guess you can't be off topic!

[robrecht]

So NOT enforcing tax laws is now "prescribing all needful rules and regulations in enforcing tax laws"? Your posts would make a great sitcom.



So your argument that Obama didn't do something unconstitutional is that Bush did it too? Is Bush God or something? When did Bush get the authority to not just defy the constitution himself but warp the very fabric of reality so that anything he does is de facto constitutional? Bush and the Republican Party in general are a disaster on immigration, probably because they're just a manufactured foil so progressive overlords can dupe the rubes into thinking there's an alternative.

Somehow I don't really think that was his argument. I dunno, maybe I'm dense.

[Darth Executor]

Somehow I don't really think that was his argument. I dunno, maybe I'm dense.

Can you be more specific? I was responding to two different points.

[Outis]

Somehow I don't really think that was his argument. I dunno, maybe I'm dense.

I don't interact with DE.

[Outis]

Meh.... the bill in the House was a rider to other bills

That's incorrect, CP. Both houses passed or added certain aspects of the legislation, but it started in the House as H.R. 3590.

, and the Dems claim the Repubs forfeit the right to protest, because they did not protest it at the time. I don't think you can honestly make a case that this was not an Obama/Reid/Pelosi thing.

Cut the twaddle, CP. You were incorrect as a point of fact, don't bring in extraneous points not addressed to make it seem like you weren't in error. I mean, I know you're familiar with bovine feces, but clean your boots so you don't track it all over the thread.

As for SCOTUS ruling it was a tax, yes -- but that doesn't change the fact that the liberals were screaming it was NOT in order to get it passed, but now they hide behind that "ruling" in order to foist it on the American People, and bend/shape/delay/modify it at will. Why is it necessary to do ANY of this? Because it was a stinkin pile of horsiepoo to begin with, full of all kinds of unintended consequences.

That "stinking pile of horsepoo" involves a lot of ideas developed by, and championed by, Conservatives. Then all of a sudden when a so-called "liberal" starts using their ideas, the conservatives--even those who had championed those ideas in the first place--all of a sudden say that the ideas that they developed are "unconstitutional.

I'm going to ask a very blunt question, CP--would you oppose the ACA so strenuously if you hadn't listen to five years of Republicans lying about it? (And yes, I can document that accusation, in full detail.)

[Cow Poke]

I'm going to ask a very blunt question, CP--would you oppose the ACA so strenuously if you hadn't listen to five years of Republicans lying about it? (And yes, I can document that accusation, in full detail.)

I am fully against unfunded mandates. So, yeah -- forcing people to buy something that the government thinks you need is just flat out wrong. On TOP of that, it became necessary to replace what people HAD simply because the liberals decided it wasn't good enough.