Obama's executive orders 144, Clinton 364, Bush 291, Hoover 968 why is said he's

1. 69

   vveaseyposted 10 years ago

   Obama's executive orders 144, Clinton 364, Bush 291, Hoover 968 why is said he's issued the most?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 82

   FatFreddysCatposted 10 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      HAHAHAHA!!!! Great answer!!

      replyreport
   2. 82

      FatFreddysCatposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      (tips hat, takes bow, exits stage left)

      replyreport
   3. 84

      M. T. Dremerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      They use the same logic for the amount of vacations he takes. Nevermind that every president takes vacations, these are evil Obamacations!

      replyreport
   4. 0

      mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly.
      
      Just as those an administration ago bent on doing the same thing to George Bush avoided all possibility of fact-checking.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Daveadamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      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! :-

      replyreport
3. 67

   LandmarkWealthposted 10 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Oh please!
      
      Like most of the crowd criticizing the constitutionality of President Obama's executive orders even knows what the word "constitutionality" means.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Turley also thinks that are aliens at Area 51 and that the US government is a problem to be solved.

      replyreport
   4. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Whatever...I am done here.

      replyreport
   6. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
4. 61

   cjhunsingerposted 10 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So why does the constitution allow, then, for presidential orders?
      
      Hmmm???

      replyreport
   2. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Wrong.
      
      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.

      replyreport
   4. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   6. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
5. 0

   mbuggiehposted 10 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      ziyenaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      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 ...

      replyreport
   2. 0

      mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
   3. 93

      ziyenaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      mbuggieh
      
      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.

      replyreport