Obama's executive orders 144, Clinton 364, Bush 291, Hoover 968 why is said he's issued the most?
Because those intent on characterizing Obama as an ultra-evil Illuminati powered super villain bent on world domination generally don't bother to do fact checks??
Just a thought.
They use the same logic for the amount of vacations he takes. Nevermind that every president takes vacations, these are evil Obamacations!
Just as those an administration ago bent on doing the same thing to George Bush avoided all possibility of fact-checking.
When did your president do something, that was actually good for the american people?..Look at what's happening in your country, & then look who's been running it for 100's of years..1,500,000 people we're left to die in Iraq, "after" you won! :-
I haven't hard many people accuse him of issuing the most executive orders. Only questioning the constitutionality of them. I would argue that all Presidents have issued some questionable EO's. But he has gone as far, if not further than all others. He has literally changed laws on his own, completely bypassing the legislative process. Even Jonathan Turley, whom is a fairly left wing constitutional law professor has cited this administrations power grabs as boarding on a constitutional crisis. It seems as though the process doesn't matter to this administration, and the ends justify the means.
Like most of the crowd criticizing the constitutionality of President Obama's executive orders even knows what the word "constitutionality" means.
I think Jonathan Turley would qualify as someone who knows a thing or two about what constitutionality means. For Obama to receive such harsh critique from a fairly left of center professor says quite bit.
Turley also thinks that are aliens at Area 51 and that the US government is a problem to be solved.
Can you please cite where Turley claims Area 51 contained aliens. My recollection was he represented a number of plantiffs in relation to contamination for hazardous materials. That is quite a claim requiring some evidence.
Ohh...so I assume that means there is no evidence to back such a claim. I have to admit..that was an interesting, yet strange method to discredit someone.
I have never heard anyone from the right complain of the number of Executive Order written by Obama, but that may have happened. As, Landmark has stated it is the disrespect for the Constitution contained within those Orders that is disconcerting. When the topic is brought up, on some opinion shows, it is the left that speaks to and compares the numbers to other Presidents, as if to sway the conversation away from Obama's disregard for the House and the Constitution.
Such conduct is depicted in some of the posts here, inane and juvenile.
We have a separation of powers for a reason, several, but they all come down to one thing and that is to prevent one person from becoming a king. If those of you who see fit to giggle, as five year old little girls, do not understand this, once again it is evidence of our failed educational system. It is evidence of the failure to mature into thinking and reasoning adults.
So why does the constitution allow, then, for presidential orders?
There is no such specific constitutional provision or statute. It is something that has been historically permitted to loosely as a consequence of faithfully executing the law. Not to make laws and bypass the legislative process.
Executive orders have the full force of law take and authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution; Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, grants executive privileges pursuant to governing.
Executive privileges pursuant to governance is not a provision or statute for executive orders. And it in no way grants the Exec branch the ability to legislate. That power is clearly enumerated to the legislative branch.
Executive orders are NOT legislation they are actions related to governance. Governance is NOT legislation.
If executive orders were extra-constitutional, then they would have been shut down during the Adams Presidency.
Precisely, they are an interpretation of a method to enforce the law. The issue with the Obama adm is their willingness to make/change the law via EO's. Which is permitted nowhere in the constitution. In fact it is specifically prohibited.
I think the answer is obvious:
No matter what the facts are about the Obama Presidency (good or bad or indifferent) there is operating on the current American political and media stage a complex amalgam of racism and partisan politics coupled with near-historic embrace of extremist anti-two party system and anti-progress rhetoric from the far right---particularly disciples of the Tea Party "movement'.
No matter the facts, President Obama is the victim of reactionary political assault---again from the Tea Party "movement" supported by right-wing and not-so-right-wing Republicans operatives (in the national party and national media) whose control of the extreme right-wing of their party is evaporating.
Only time and historians---professionals not noise makers and pundits on TV, will determine the successes and failures of the Obama Presidency.
I AM WHITE and REPUBLICAN but I voted for Barrack Obama in his first term. Racism exists amongst all party lines, and those who cry foul are the worst offenders. It's not about his color but his politics. HE has proven himself inept ...
Well. on the very night the man was elected---before he had ANY record of office, Mitch McConnell stated publicly that his job was now entirely devoted to derailing the president.
Unprecedented comment and for what reason?
And this man doesn't have the right to derail a man who is from another party affiliation? Seriously! What Republican or Democrat wouldn't want to derail the other if they were stalwart??? C'mon.
by Audrey Selig 4 years ago
How can PRES get away with doubling down his bypasses of Congress and making own decisions?Are these actions impeachable?
by Mike Russo 17 months ago
Can the President of the United States override the First Amendment?Here is the first amendment:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to...
by Credence2 17 months ago
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-threat … 40039.htmlMexico tells the Trump administration to 'take a hike'. Now the GOP is going to pay for it? How?Do we declare war on Mexico?https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-leaders- … 42941.htmlI say that this whole thing was a 'crock' from the very...
by Deforest 3 years ago
Then, why did Obama (the executive) made a new law by changing what the constitution stipulated anteriorly? Isn't the US becoming an absolute monarchy?
by OLYHOOCH 5 years ago
Just when is Enough, Enough. EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED. It makes no difference which way your political persuasion leans, it only matters if you believe in the constitution and the power distribution of the government. There is a reason Executive Orders have in the past been used very rarely. It is...
by Onusonus 17 months ago
When Obama was president he started whipping out a bunch of executive orders. Conservatives screamed that it was unconstitutional to bypass congress on so many issues. Are you liberals more in support of the constitution now that Trump is the one with the pen and the phone?Also are you...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|