Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

BDKJMU wrote:"Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'



WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the "Do Nothing Congress" almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.......

......Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don't require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.

Obama has made prolific use of memoranda despite his own claims that he's used his executive power less than other presidents. "The truth is, even with all the actions I've taken this year, I'm issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years," Obama said in a speech in Austin last July. "So it's not clear how it is that Republicans didn't seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did."

Obama has issued 195 executive orders as of Tuesday. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders.

He's already signed 33% more presidential memoranda in less than six years than Bush did in eight. He's also issued 45% more than the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who assertively used memoranda to signal what kinds of regulations he wanted federal agencies to adopt.

Obama is not the first president to use memoranda to accomplish policy aims. But at this point in his presidency, he's the first to use them more often than executive orders.

"There's been a lot of discussion about executive orders in his presidency, and of course by sheer numbers he's had fewer than other presidents. So the White House and its defenders can say, 'He can't be abusing his executive authority; he's hardly using any orders," said Andrew Rudalevige, a presidency scholar at Bowdoin College. "But if you look at these other vehicles, he has been aggressive in his use of executive power."....

....Whatever they're called, those executive actions are binding on future administrations unless explicitly revoked by a future president, according to legal opinion from the Justice Department.
The Office of Legal Counsel — which is responsible for advising the president on executive orders and memoranda — says there's no difference between the two....."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /20191805/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

houndawg wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:"Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'



WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the "Do Nothing Congress" almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.......

......Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don't require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.

Obama has made prolific use of memoranda despite his own claims that he's used his executive power less than other presidents. "The truth is, even with all the actions I've taken this year, I'm issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years," Obama said in a speech in Austin last July. "So it's not clear how it is that Republicans didn't seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did."

Obama has issued 195 executive orders as of Tuesday. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders.

He's already signed 33% more presidential memoranda in less than six years than Bush did in eight. He's also issued 45% more than the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who assertively used memoranda to signal what kinds of regulations he wanted federal agencies to adopt.

Obama is not the first president to use memoranda to accomplish policy aims. But at this point in his presidency, he's the first to use them more often than executive orders.

"There's been a lot of discussion about executive orders in his presidency, and of course by sheer numbers he's had fewer than other presidents. So the White House and its defenders can say, 'He can't be abusing his executive authority; he's hardly using any orders," said Andrew Rudalevige, a presidency scholar at Bowdoin College. "But if you look at these other vehicles, he has been aggressive in his use of executive power."....

....Whatever they're called, those executive actions are binding on future administrations unless explicitly revoked by a future president, according to legal opinion from the Justice Department.
The Office of Legal Counsel — which is responsible for advising the president on executive orders and memoranda — says there's no difference between the two....."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /20191805/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thats what happens when you deal with the do-nothingest congress of all time.

dbackjon wrote:Well, if the GOP had any desire to even begin to work with Obama, this may not be necessary.


But they don't. Haven't since 1 minute after Obama was declared the winner in 2008.

dbackjon wrote:Well, if the GOP had any desire to even begin to work with Obama, this may not be necessary.


But they don't. Haven't since 1 minute after Obama was declared the winner in 2008.

VictorG wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Well, if the GOP had any desire to even begin to work with Obama, this may not be necessary.


But they don't. Haven't since 1 minute after Obama was declared the winner in 2008.

I remember Rush L. saying when "O" 1st got elected that the goal of the GOP was to make him a 1 term President and also to prevent ANYTHING the Dems wanted to pass from passing and to fight them tooth and nail on everything no matter what.

So who is surprised now?

Ivytalk wrote:

houndawg wrote:



Thats what happens when you deal with the do-nothingest congress of all time.

Thanks to Harry Reid, hounddouche.

dbackjon wrote:Well, if the GOP had any desire to even begin to work with Obama, this may not be necessary.


But they don't. Haven't since 1 minute after Obama was declared the winner in 2008.

dbackjon wrote:Well, if the GOP had any desire to even begin to work with Obama, this may not be necessary.


But they don't. Haven't since 1 minute after Obama was declared the winner in 2008.

andy7171 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Well, if the GOP had any desire to even begin to work with Obama, this may not be necessary.


But they don't. Haven't since 1 minute after Obama was declared the winner in 2008.

And how many bills passed by the House got voted on in the Senate in the last several years?

andy7171 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Well, if the GOP had any desire to even begin to work with Obama, this may not be necessary.


But they don't. Haven't since 1 minute after Obama was declared the winner in 2008.

And how many bills passed by the House got voted on in the Senate in the last several years?

dbackjon wrote:

andy7171 wrote: And how many bills passed by the House got voted on in the Senate in the last several years?

LOL - what, the 300 repeals of Obamacare?

The popular judgment that Washington's dysfunction is the result of "partisanship" misses a crucial point. Washington is currently gridlocked because of the particular partisanship of one man: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. And Republicans are warming to the power of making that case to voters.

It's often said the 113th Congress is on track to become the "least productive" in history—but that tagline obscures crucial details. The Republican House in fact passed more than 200 bills in 2013. Some were minor, and others drew only GOP votes. But nearly a dozen were bipartisan pieces of legislation that drew more than 250 Republicans and Democrats to tackle pressing issues—jobs bills, protections against cyberattack, patent reform, prioritizing funding for pediatric research, and streamlining regulations for pipelines.

These laws all went to die in Mr. Reid's Senate graveyard. Not that the Senate was too busy to take them up. It passed an immigration and a farm bill. Yet beyond those, and a few items Mr. Reid was pressed to pass—the end-year sequester accord; Hurricane Sandy relief—the Senate sat silent. It passed not a single appropriations bill and not a single jobs bill. Of the 72 (mostly token) bills President Obama signed in 2013, 56 came from the House; 16 came from the chamber held by his own party.

This is the norm in Mr. Reid's Senate, and for years he has been vocally and cleverly blaming the chamber's uselessness on Republican filibusters. This is a joke, as evidenced by recent history. Mr. Reid took over the Senate in early 2007, and it functioned just fine in the last two years of the Bush administration. It didn't suddenly break overnight.

What did happen is the Senate Democrats' filibuster-proof majority in the first years of the Obama administration—when Mr. Reid got a taste for unfettered power—and then the GOP takeover of the House in 2011. That is when the Senate broke, as it was the point at which Mr. Reid chose to subvert its entire glorious history to two of his own partisan aims: Protecting his majority and acting as gatekeeper for the White House.

Determined to protect his vulnerable members from tough votes, the majority leader has unilaterally killed the right to offer amendments. Since July, Republicans have been allowed to offer . . . four. Determined to shield the administration from legislation the president opposes, Mr. Reid has unilaterally killed committee work, since it might produce bipartisan bills. Similarly, he's refused to take up bills that have bipartisan support like approving the Keystone XL Pipeline, repealing ObamaCare's medical-device tax, and passing new Iran sanctions.

Here's how the Senate "works" these days. Mr. Reid writes the legislation himself, thereby shutting Republicans out of the committee drafting. Then he outlaws amendments.

So yes, there are filibusters. They have become the GOP's only means of protesting Mr. Reid's total control over what is meant to be a democratic body. It isn't that the Senate can't work; it's that Sen. Reid won't let it.

Pushed over the brink by Mr. Reid's November power play—scrapping the filibuster for Obama nominees—Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell began 2014 with a rip-roaring Senate-floor speech. On Wednesday he set the record straight on the Reid tactics that have created Senate dysfunction. He then outlined how a GOP majority would restore regular order and get Washington working. This is a "debate that should be of grave importance to us all," he said.

Baldy wrote:Strassel: Harry Reid's Senate Shutdown

The popular judgment that Washington's dysfunction is the result of "partisanship" misses a crucial point. Washington is currently gridlocked because of the particular partisanship of one man: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. And Republicans are warming to the power of making that case to voters.

It's often said the 113th Congress is on track to become the "least productive" in history—but that tagline obscures crucial details. The Republican House in fact passed more than 200 bills in 2013. Some were minor, and others drew only GOP votes. But nearly a dozen were bipartisan pieces of legislation that drew more than 250 Republicans and Democrats to tackle pressing issues—jobs bills, protections against cyberattack, patent reform, prioritizing funding for pediatric research, and streamlining regulations for pipelines.

These laws all went to die in Mr. Reid's Senate graveyard. Not that the Senate was too busy to take them up. It passed an immigration and a farm bill. Yet beyond those, and a few items Mr. Reid was pressed to pass—the end-year sequester accord; Hurricane Sandy relief—the Senate sat silent. It passed not a single appropriations bill and not a single jobs bill. Of the 72 (mostly token) bills President Obama signed in 2013, 56 came from the House; 16 came from the chamber held by his own party.

This is the norm in Mr. Reid's Senate, and for years he has been vocally and cleverly blaming the chamber's uselessness on Republican filibusters. This is a joke, as evidenced by recent history. Mr. Reid took over the Senate in early 2007, and it functioned just fine in the last two years of the Bush administration. It didn't suddenly break overnight.

What did happen is the Senate Democrats' filibuster-proof majority in the first years of the Obama administration—when Mr. Reid got a taste for unfettered power—and then the GOP takeover of the House in 2011. That is when the Senate broke, as it was the point at which Mr. Reid chose to subvert its entire glorious history to two of his own partisan aims: Protecting his majority and acting as gatekeeper for the White House.

Determined to protect his vulnerable members from tough votes, the majority leader has unilaterally killed the right to offer amendments. Since July, Republicans have been allowed to offer . . . four. Determined to shield the administration from legislation the president opposes, Mr. Reid has unilaterally killed committee work, since it might produce bipartisan bills. Similarly, he's refused to take up bills that have bipartisan support like approving the Keystone XL Pipeline, repealing ObamaCare's medical-device tax, and passing new Iran sanctions.

Here's how the Senate "works" these days. Mr. Reid writes the legislation himself, thereby shutting Republicans out of the committee drafting. Then he outlaws amendments.

So yes, there are filibusters. They have become the GOP's only means of protesting Mr. Reid's total control over what is meant to be a democratic body. It isn't that the Senate can't work; it's that Sen. Reid won't let it.

Pushed over the brink by Mr. Reid's November power play—scrapping the filibuster for Obama nominees—Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell began 2014 with a rip-roaring Senate-floor speech. On Wednesday he set the record straight on the Reid tactics that have created Senate dysfunction. He then outlined how a GOP majority would restore regular order and get Washington working. This is a "debate that should be of grave importance to us all," he said.

Reid is an out of control radical hyper-partisan fucknut.

dbackjon wrote:

andy7171 wrote: And how many bills passed by the House got voted on in the Senate in the last several years?

LOL - what, the 300 repeals of Obamacare?

kalm wrote:And you poke fun at me for sources?



I think it's great that the WSJ is providing opportunities for low IQ commentators to have a voice.

Oh well, at least Shelden Adelson likes Reid.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:And you poke fun at me for sources?



I think it's great that the WSJ is providing opportunities for low IQ commentators to have a voice.

Oh well, at least Shelden Adelson likes Reid.

kalm, your #1 go-to man crush source is a habitual tax cheat who can't stay at one job for more than a few months without getting shown the door.

But I do find it admirable that an enlightened 'progressive' like you will stick up for a dirty 'right-of-center' corporatist like Harry Reid. I'm sure you're "not a fan" and all that....

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:

kalm, your #1 go-to man crush source is a habitual tax cheat who can't stay at one job for more than a few months without getting shown the door.

But I do find it admirable that an enlightened 'progressive' like you will stick up for a dirty 'right-of-center' corporatist like Harry Reid. I'm sure you're "not a fan" and all that....

I'm sticking up for Reid?

You're over your skis son...time to re-group.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
I'm sticking up for Reid?

You're over your skis son...time to re-group.

But you didn't defend Greenwald...didn't even mention him.

Interesting.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: But you didn't defend Greenwald...didn't even mention him.

Interesting.

What does Greenwald have to do with this?

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
What does Greenwald have to do with this?

You brought up sources angle.
I poke fun when you use HuffPoop or something similar. That would be like me using Brietbart or something.
I only laugh when you use Greenwald. Like you, he tries to play it like he's so centered, so I can see where the man crush thing comes into play.

Just wondering what makes you think Greenwald is more credible than Strassel, that's all.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: You brought up sources angle.
I poke fun when you use HuffPoop or something similar. That would be like me using Brietbart or something.
I only laugh when you use Greenwald. Like you, he tries to play it like he's so centered, so I can see where the man crush thing comes into play.

Just wondering what makes you think Greenwald is more credible than Strassel, that's all.

To be honest I really don't care for Huffpo but it is convenient for referencing and linking to. Many of it's headlines are actually links from other sources, and it does a better job than most at hyper-linking to fact sources within the article.

Greenwald doesn't pretend to be anything. He writes both op-pieces and investigative journalism pieces and his investigative journalism pieces are among the most well sourced and thorough to be found anywhere. Of course his op pieces are left leaning, but again well supported with facts. Don't make me bring out the tired old meme that the truth has a liberal bias...

I've only read a few Strassel articles but that was enough. Equating Breitbart and Strassel to the other two is sad.