Executive Orders of Obama

[Salty]

President Obama has issued to date 217 Executive orders.

If you were to become POTUS in Jan 2017- which ones would you rescind.

(if you "All of them" then explain how long it took you to read all 217.)

 

[Revmitchell]

I would not read any of them and I would rescind them all simply because of his ideology means the likelihood of them would be bad for the country.

 

[just-want-peace]

I would not read any of them and I would rescind them all simply because of his ideology means the likelihood of them would be bad for the country.

My kind of thinking! Anything he's done that was "good" for the country, was just a side issue that happened without any intention on his part! :sleeping_2:
JMHO of course!!

 

[Crabtownboy]

President Obama has issued to date 217 Executive orders.

If you were to become POTUS in Jan 2017- which ones would you rescind.

(if you "All of them" then explain how long it took you to read all 217.)

Hey Salty, my friend, would you rescind the 297 executive orders that G. Bush put out? Just curious.

 

[carpro]

I would not read any of them and I would rescind them all simply because of his ideology means the likelihood of them would be bad for the country.

Exactly. :thumbs:

 

[wpe3bql]

Hey Salty, my friend, would you rescind the 297 executive orders that G. Bush put out? Just curious.

I don't know how many of G.W. Bush's Executive Orders Salty would want to rescind. I'll let Salty answer that himself.

If I could, I'd MOST CERTAINLY rescind group of W's ill-concieved executive orders that are collectively associated with the post-9/11 hysertia that resuted in the unconstitutial Patriot[?] Act.

"W" did the US a HUGE DISSERVICE to freedom-loving Americans when those bunch of blatantly unconstitutional and very burdensome federal regulations--all of which apparently were supported by majorities of both parties in the legislative branch--were laid on the backs of the hard-working middle class American people who had little or no say at all in their subsequent, difficult attempt to comply with an already burdensome set of federal regulations, of which most common Americans considered to be of questionable value.

I don't know if there's a statute of limitations regarding how far back a new POTUS can go in the attempt to rescind the executive orders of those who preceded him in the Oval Office, but if there isn't, whoever the next POTUS is, he needs to go back some 50+ years and re-examine the subsequent effects that the previous half dozen or so POTUS adminstrations' executive orders have had on our nation (especially its private sector economies). I'm sure there's a bunch of executive orders he ought to rescind--and the sooner the better!

 

[Salty]

Hey Salty, my friend, would you rescind the 297 executive orders that G. Bush put out? Just curious.

Crabby - the answer would be the same - I would consider my decision based on the merits of each individual order.

I don't know if there's a statute of limitations regarding how far back a new POTUS can go in the attempt to rescind ...

I doubt there is any SOL.

But WP does have a good point

..., whoever the next POTUS is, he needs to go back some 50+ years and re-examine !

 

[Crabtownboy]

Crabby - the answer would be the same - I would consider my decision based on the merits of each individual order.

Salty, I knew you were a reasonable man. That is what I would do also.

 

[carpro]

Crabby - the answer would be the same - I would consider my decision based on the merits of each individual order.

I'm betting that means you would rescind them all. Or very close to it.

 

[Revmitchell]

However I would especially focus on everything with regards to illegal immigration and environmental. They would all go.

 

[carpro]

However I would especially focus on everything with regards to illegal immigration and environmental. They would all go.

And Obamacare.

 

[Crabtownboy]

And Obamacare.

ROFL .... Obamacare was not an executive order.

 

[carpro]

ROFL .... Obamacare was not an executive order.

No kidding?

The illegal changes he made to the legislation were.


http://www.galen.org/newsletters/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/

By our count at the Galen Institute, more than 51 significant changes have been made to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, at least 32 that the Obama administration has made unilaterally, 17 that Congress has passed and the president has signed, and two by the Supreme Court.

 

[OldRegular]

President Obama has issued to date 217 Executive orders.

If you were to become POTUS in Jan 2017- which ones would you rescind.

(if you "All of them" then explain how long it took you to read all 217.)

All of them and I would not read any of them!

 

[OldRegular]

ROFL .... Obamacare was not an executive order.

It amounts to the same thing since it was deemed to be passed by Congress Furthermore it is unconstitutional since it is a revenue bill which can only originate in the House.

Obamacare’s Unconstitutional Origins

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY October 5, 2013 4:00 AM

Tax legislation has to originate in the House; the health-care law didn’t. Of all the fraud perpetrated in the passage of Obamacare — and the fraud has been epic — the lowest is President Obama’s latest talking point that the Supreme Court has endorsed socialized medicine as constitutional. To the contrary, the justices held the “Affordable” Care Act unconstitutional as Obama presented it to the American people: namely, as a legitimate exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

To sustain this monstrosity, Chief Justice John Roberts had to shed his robes and put on his legislator cap. He rewrote Obamacare as a tax — the thing the president most indignantly promised Americans that Obamacare was not. And it is here that our recent debate over the Constitution’s Origination Clause — the debate in which Matt Franck, Ramesh Ponnuru, Mark Steyn, and yours truly have probed the historical boundaries of the “power of the purse” reposed by the Framers in the House of Representatives — descends from the airy realm of abstraction and homes in on a concrete violation of law.

It is not just that the intensely unpopular Obamacare was unconstitutional as fraudulently portrayed by the president and congressional Democrats who strong-armed and pot-sweetened its way to passage. It is that Obamacare is unconstitutional as rewritten by Roberts. It is a violation of the Origination Clause — not only as I have expansively construed it, but even under Matt’s narrow interpretation of the Clause.

It is worth pausing here briefly to rehearse an argument often made in these pages before the Supreme Court ruling two summers ago. The justices’ resolution, whatever it was to be, would in no way be an endorsement of Obamacare; it would merely reflect the fact that our Constitution, designed for a free people, permits all manner of foolishness. “Constitutional” does not necessarily mean “good.” What Obamacare always needed was a political reversal in Congress. Thus, it was unwise for Republicans to become passive while hoping the justices would do their heavy lifting for them — both because it was unlikely that this Supreme Court would invalidate Obamacare and because a ruling upholding it would inevitably be used by the most demagogic administration in history as a judicial stamp of approval for socialized medicine.

Contrary to Obama’s latest dissembling, the Supreme Court’s decision is far from an imprimatur. The president insisted that Obamacare was not a tax, famously upbraiding George Stephanopoulos of the Democratic-Media Complex for insolently suggesting otherwise. Yet, the narrow Court majority held that the mammoth statute could be upheld only as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax — i.e., contrary to Obama’s conscriptive theory, it was not within Congress’s commerce power to coerce Americans, as a condition of living in this country, to purchase a commodity, including health insurance. Note the crucial qualifier: Obamacare could be upheld only as a tax.

Not that Obamacare is necessarily a legitimate tax. To be a legitimate tax measure, Obamacare would have to have complied with all the Constitution’s conditions for the imposition of taxes. Because Democrats stubbornly maintained that their unilateral handiwork was not a tax, its legitimacy vel non as a tax has not been explored. Indeed, it is because Obamacare’s enactment was induced by fraud — a massive confiscation masquerading as ordinary regulatory legislation so Democrats could pretend not to be raising taxes — that the chief justice was wrong to rebrand it post facto and thus become a participant in the fraud.

We now know Obamacare was tax legislation. Consequently, it was undeniably a “bill for raising revenue,” for which the Constitution mandates compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7). The Clause requires that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Obamacare did not.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360460/obamacares-unconstitutional-origins-andrew-c-mccarthy

The Supreme Court may yet rule Obamacare unconstitutional

Posted: Saturday, April 20, 2013 12:13 pm
By Dr. HAROLD PEASE

Many may not be familiar with Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution that requires that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” This means that any law, which extracts money from the American people, can only come from the House. The problem is The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, originated in the U.S. Senate not in the House as constitutionally required. The Pacific Legal Foundation, a Sacramento, California based foundation, is pursuing the matter before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

So why does this matter, a tax is a tax? For thousands of years governments taxed their citizens with no limits. Rulers lived lavishly off the wealth extracted from their poor subjects with little or no mercy toward them—lavish physical structures and frivolous wars of conquest were too often the norm. The Founders wisely took this power from the rich and gave it to the poor themselves by requiring that the poor, then the majority, had to consent to any taxation over them. The power to tax is the only constitutional power exclusively given to the masses. The House of Representatives was the only branch of government designed to actually represent them as it is based upon population. The Senate was to represent the states, the people only indirectly.

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cypr...cle_9f10425c-a9dd-11e2-879c-0019bb2963f4.html

 

[Salty]

Lets keep in mind that his Thread is about EO's - NOT LAWS.

But am I going off OP, if I mention, throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

 

[Salty]

Paraphrasing from "we have to pass it so we know what's in it", :

We need to delete everything since we don't know what's in it.