jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (40 posts)

How to limit Growing Executive Power?

  1. ptosis profile image77
    ptosisposted 6 months ago

    The poorly crafted Executive Order without consulting the people who have to enforce it seems - hamfisted.

    "Mr. Schneiderman said that the executive order was unconstitutional and that he and other attorneys general were exploring the possibility of legal action. “There may be grounds for a claim that this does damage to a state, if they’re damaging our state institutions” like universities and hospitals, he said.

    The president has broad power to control immigration. A federal law allows him to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants” if he determines that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

    But another law appears to limit that power, saying that “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/p … order.html

    " When Mr. Trump first proposed a Muslim ban in 2015, it was condemned almost universally, including by fellow Republicans. Mike Pence, who is now the vice president, wrote on Twitter at the time, “Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional.” - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/p … m-ban.html

    " Obama decreed that five million illegal aliens would be exempt from deportation. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0, including Obama’s own liberal appointees, that Obama could not constitutionally make recess appointments while the Senate was in session." - https://vtdigger.org/2017/01/02/john-mc … er-needed/

    Growing Presidential power has been going on since George Washington. The following is just a bit from the past as to how Congress tried to limit exec power,
    http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13386142.jpg

    1. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

      I will say that it was ham handed. From what I read, he issued this immigration decree in the cover of night foolishly not managing possible outcomes and considering the blowback from his rash and impulsive manner.

      What happens if Iraq in retaliation insist that U.S nationals vacate their country? He manages to get the whole world in a tizzyover this when a little reflection prior would have gone a long way.

      If this is the way that he is going to do thing he can expect many more crowds with tar/feathers and pitchforks in the future.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image28
        Castlepalomaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Lo

        Hate and fear from his casinos mafia style is all he knows. Getting everyone running around like chickens with their heads cut off, make things easier to entre into his black hole of no souls. There is always a greater bad ass to take it away from him, that he has experienced on many occasions. At this level and at his age, his fall is really going to hurt this time

        1. Credence2 profile image87
          Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

          Yes, this guy thinks that he can run the executive branch of the Government in the way that helords over washed up actors and entertainers in 'The Celebrity Apprentice'. This time, there are ramifications for being a pompous ass on the new stage where he now finds himself. Not so many are around to just kiss his tRump in the way that he is accustomed.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      I believe we as a nation DO need to take a hard look at the growing ability of Presidents to use their power to accomplish what Congress should be doing.

      BUT.  Not until our legislators come to understand that they are there to do a job, not to posture for their party and not to provide for their power base or pocketbook.  Until that point, having a President that can't or won't take actions necessary for the country would mean that nothing at all will be done.  Say, like ignoring illegal aliens for decades.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image28
        Castlepalomaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Trump is 1000% behind Israel zionist. Zionist are running every aspect of capital and Congress. You would think it's would be a match made in heaven.

        Oh, I know why, good cop and bad cop politrick. Government the same and like all Corperations that create an delustion of competition like pesi and coke own by the same Corperation, fools the public everytime. I know too much, I better shut up like Steve Bannon says.

      2. Marisa Wright profile image93
        Marisa Wrightposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        I think this is a good point.   As an Australian and an ex-Brit, I'm horrified at how much power the President is able to wield without consultation.  By contrast, our Prime Ministers are more like a Chairman of the Board - they are the spokesperson and the leader, but they don't have the legal power to sign off on anything without the approval of the Cabinet.  And then, of course, it has to be approved by Parliament. 

        BUT I know what you mean about that process resulting in an impasse.  Opposing political parties have always delighted in opposing each other, that's a given - but in the past, it seems to me, they were more willing to compromise in order to get things done.  In the last few years there's been a steady trend towards implacable opposition for the sake of it, whether a proposal has merit or not.  This is happening in Britain and Australia as much as in the US.  The result is stalemate - either that, or one party gets its legislation in, then the next lot waste time dismantling what's been done and installing their own version, then..... it's disappointing, they all behave like big babies when someone has taken their toys.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          That is indeed the point.  Partisanship has always existed, and that's all right - I would expect differing ideologies to disagree and fight for their own agenda.  But the last 10 or 20 years has seen a steady increase, and a steady decrease in cooperation and compromise to the point that nothing gets done.  Obama's term in office was the latest, and without a fully Democratic congress he accomplished very little as a result.  They won't even listen to each other, let alone work towards a common goal of governing the nation.

          Every time the power base changes it's always "Well, they were mean so we'll be mean too!".  Our democratic legislators are currently playing the game well by refusing to even consider approval of a new Supreme Court judge, with the stated reason being that it was done to them.  That the country needs a judge isn't a consideration; only revenge matters, not the needs of the nation.

          1. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

            Wilderness,  Republicans should have been thinking about the 'big picture'  last year  as now they deliberately brought this  current gridlock of the Supreme Court nominee upon themselves. Why is running the country always associated with the Dems and their agenda being set on the side while if we say something about hard right GOP candidate we are obstructionists.

            The GOP deliberately and in a mean spirited fashion denied Obama his Constitutional prerogative after the death of Scalia, why should we now agree to work with them? They should have been thinking about this possibility of this sort of outcome as a Democratic response last year.... You've made your bed, now you will lie in it.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              Exactly what I said, isn't it?  "They were bad so now we'll be just as bad".  Yes, R's should have worked with Obama.  But they didn't and now the D's, in a fit of rage and revenge, refuse to work with them.  And the deadlock, the non-interest in the countries needs, the refusal to govern or do their job, continues unabated.

              Sad that the idiots we elect to govern do such things, but just as sad is that millions of Americans applaud the action, feeling that revenge is superior to governance or performance.  You ask "why should we now agree to work with them" - the (obvious) answer is because the country needs it.  Far, far more than it needs leaders playing partisanship and refusing to cooperate to get a job done. 

              Are the D's big enough to work through their rage, do they put the needs of the country before themselves or will they continue the childish "temper tantrum" behavior that deprived the nation of a needed Justice? 

              The people rejected a truly GOP candidate for President, selecting one that while carrying the GOP label is as much an enemy of the party as Clinton was.  And I predict that in 2 years we will see more of the same - that the faux leaders, working only for their party instead of the nation, will also find themselves in the unemployment line.  Whether Democrat OR Republican. The people have spoken: "Either do your job or we'll find someone that will.".  The first victim was a Party President, but the next may be (we can hope) congressmen and women that put themselves OR their party ahead of the nation and it's people.

              The foolish posturing and showboating has to stop, and the people are on the road to do just that.

              1. Credence2 profile image87
                Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

                No Kumbaya unless the GOP becomes willing to put forth the olive branch and make concessions. After all, they have the Congress and the White House. They can afford to be magnanimous. Why did I not hear this 'working together' stuff from you in regards to the Dems getting a replacement for Scalia?Then, your silence was deafening. Because the GOP failed to consider the ramification of their actions,partisan  cooperation now is put at risk. And cooperation is NOTa one sided concept. The penalty is that this is going to make Trumps tenure more difficult.

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  The only bi-partisan activity that is going on is the cooperation by both to do nothing. It has not waned in Congress for the last thirty years. The finger pointing is the perfect detente. When will we ever learn?

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    Seems to me that it has actually gained speed, getting worse with every president - each time it changes the opposing party does exactly what Credence is saying. "You were mean to me and now I'll be mean to you and heck with America".  Would you disagree?

                  2. Credence2 profile image87
                    Credence2posted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    We don't learn, perhaps. But, while things never seem to get better, I can clearly see when they are becoming demonstrably worse...... January 20, 2017.

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  You probably did (hear it with Scalia).  I've never made it a secret that I think the primary job of Congress is to run the country, not play some silly political game.  But of course it was more fun to point fingers than to actually listen.

    3. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      He is going to need a plethora of lawyers during his term.  We are going to need the same. It will turn into gridlock again after 2018.

  2. profile image60
    skepticalindianposted 6 months ago

    The ban is temporary and is directed towards 7 nationalities. Exec order is cleverly worded and does not violate any laws. Constitutional experts should provide an argument on why they believe it violates the law.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image28
      Castlepalomaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      The ban is design to inject fear of any reaction from American Muslims and muzzle them. When the Israel project continues to destroy the Middle East  and steal more oil. In turn causing more Americans civil  unrest and world war continues .

    2. ptosis profile image77
      ptosisposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Wrong. You didn't read the text did you?
      Indefinitely blocks Syrian refugees from entering the US, blocks refugees from all other nations for four months, and places a 90-day ban on entry to the country from seven Muslim-majority nations


      https://qz.com/898683/can-an-executive- … e-revoked/

      "   ... courts can declare an executive order illegal or unconstitutional. Barring several notable exceptions however, the courts do not regularly overturn presidential actions. In Howell’s book Power without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action, he attempted to identify every court case that has challenged an executive order between 1945 and 1998. In 83% of them, the courts ruled in favor of the president.

      Despite the historical infrequency of executive orders being revoked within the same presidential term as they are issued, Trump’s immigration order has already changed. The US Department of Homeland Security issued an order on January 29 essentially exempting legal permanent US residents from the ban."


      Now that's what I call a poorly crafted EO!

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13386645.jpg
      http://i.quoteaddicts.com/media/q3/1543026.png
      https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6e/e4/8d/6ee48dea7b62f812aaa31db268dcfcc2.jpg
      http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/8a/a8a4ffd4-4675-521f-89c3-eaef2e5eca50/588fff9d901f1.image.jpg?resize=300

      https://thomasnastcartoons.files.wordpr … g_3467.jpg

      1. ptosis profile image77
        ptosisposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        https://www.congress.gov/congressional- … cle/S491-1

        [Pages S491-S497]
        From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          S. 240. A bill to nullify the effect of the recent executive order
        that temporarily restricted individuals from certain countries from
        entering the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
          Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor as we have
        just filed a resolution--a bill actually--with 26 cosponsors that would
        repeal the immigration ban placed by President Trump. President Trump's
        Muslim ban is unnecessary, it is unconstitutional, and it is un-
        American. It should be repealed immediately.
          The Executive order prohibits individuals from Iran, Syria, Iraq,
        Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen from entering the country. It even
        bars relatives of Americans from visiting. The order suspends the
        entire U.S. refugee program, and most egregiously, Syrian refugees are
        banned indefinitely unless they are Christian. These provisions are not
        what America is all about.
          First, the order is unnecessary. Individuals from the 7 targeted
        countries and 150 other nations are already thoroughly screened.
        Visitors fill out visa applications. They submit photographs that run
        through biometric databases. Their personal information is reviewed,
        including names, addresses, and dates of birth. They are interviewed at
        a U.S. consulate. The process could take months to complete and
        eliminates the need for the travel ban.
          In addition, the move to ban refugees has no legitimate national
        security reason because these refugees undergo an even more thorough
        screening process that can take up to 2 years to complete. The vast
        majority of refugees are women and children who have experienced the
        absolute worst of humanity.
        ...
        The First Amendment
        prohibits government from establishing a religion or prohibiting the
        free exercise thereof. The order violates this First Amendment by
        targeting Muslims and favoring Christians. The order may also violate
        the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which forbids the government
        from burdening the person's exercise of religion. The law bars any
        discrimination based on national origin in the issuance of a visa.
          Finally, detaining people at airports may violate their Fourth
        Amendment rights.
          This was an ill-considered overreach, as the courts showed over the
        weekend, and it should be repealed.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        ummm...you forgot to include the 1978 Presidential Memorandums that Obama issued (an EO by another name).  Did you not know of them, or was it an intentional lack in the meme?

        You ARE right, though that the first amendment prohibits the feds from establishing a religion.  Are you trying to give the impression that because Christians are highly unlikely to belong to ISIS, and thus given temporary preference, it means that Christianity has been established as the Official American Religion?

        ISIS is the one "burdening the person's exercise of religion".  That Act does not mean that the US is bound to facilitate religion in another country. 

        Yes, it bans discrimination based on national origin.  Good thing the ban applies to ALL people travelling from those 7 countries, not just people born in them.

        I'm sure those people detained at the airports are free to leave any time they wish...on a plane destined for another country.  The 4th amendment has nothing to do with this (unless you think Customs stole their luggage?) and even the 14th doesn't apply.

        1. Marisa Wright profile image93
          Marisa Wrightposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          You're assuming they have the money to go to another country.  Heartless.

          1. ptosis profile image77
            ptosisposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            One 'left' the country : A 75-year-old Iraqi with a green card died after Trump's order kept her off plane home, her son says  http://theweek.com/speedreads/677323/75 … e-son-says

            http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13387594.jpg

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              She also died after that crow flew over the airport.  Your point?  That her death was due to the 178 memorandums Obama signed?

    3. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
      Kathleen Cochranposted 6 months ago

      The way to limit executive branch power is to have divided government: all branches not from the same party.  We don't have that in America anymore.  If this is a concern to our citizens, then show up on election day and vote for candidates from a party other than Republican.  Hopefully, in two years people will do that.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        We did (vote for the other party this time).  And the result is people all over the country spreading hate, crying in their beer and generally causing mayhem both figuratively and literally.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image28
          Castlepalomaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          I thought Republican cry in their crackers and beer, dear.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

            You're right.  Crying in their Dom Perignon, then.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image28
              Castlepalomaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

              I saw 95% crackers at a Trump rally who were kicking out non whites and Trump offer lawyers and medicals expensive.

              Some were Trump supporters were non white that were offended. He is even offended stand-up comedian, you just turn on the TV to Trump and watch comedy fiction in action.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                Ah.  You mean those that trespassed on private property in an effort to disrupt a private meeting and cause as much disruption as possible.

                Had I been there I might have joined in kicking them out.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image28
                  Castlepalomaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                  This rally was supposed to be for everyone.

                  If they are going to have a  white nationalism private meeting. They should have signs saying non whites keep out. Also don't drink our water or do not use our toilets. Like the great white America was back in the 50s. There was no time that was great for non whites.  If you going to be harmful be honest about it.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    I do believe you are from some other planet. Planet Paloma where white doves fly. Maybe you need some black crows there! Go ahead ... you can bring some of ours back to your planet.  Then you can skip Bolivia and just go home!

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

                    Of course it was!  A rally intended to cheer Trump for President was also for those wishing to shout it down and convince people to vote Clinton.  Of course it was.

                    Your overt racism isn't worth responding to, though.

      2. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        You have a point of opposition as the balance between powers. My parents always voted for President from the opposite party as the majority in Congress or soon to change Congress. But with the influx of easy money the two party opposition is a weak argument as candidates from both parties are on the side of those who support them, namely the moneyed interests. As long as that is a factor we shall never get representation that is responsible to the people.

     
    working