If it were only Biden by himself, I would agree. However, I believe the Whitehouse advisors would quickly become "Unca Joe's" handlers. You can bet they wouldn't let him anywhere near a microphone without a carefully crafted and thoroughly rehearsed speech. Even the questions from the (pardon the expression) journalists and Joe's answers would be scripted.The Annoyed Man wrote:The incorrect assumption and the end of that scenario is that the newly ascended President Biden would announce a return to Constitutional government. He'd be still trying to figure out what was going on.
Whitehouse eyes restrictions without Congress..
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 6745
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
- Location: Hunt County
Re: Whitehouse eyes restrictions without Congress..
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 2574
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
- Location: Vernon, Texas
Re: Whitehouse eyes restrictions without Congress..
I have the oddest feeling that as soon as Barack departs office, she will relocate to another country, one without an extradition treaty.MeMelYup wrote:How do we get White House adviser Valerie Jarrett on the no fly list?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 3081
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 4:11 pm
- Location: Comal County
Re: Whitehouse eyes restrictions without Congress..
We've never had a moron like Biden as Vice President before.striker55 wrote:Obama does whatever he wants, Congress won't stop him no matter what he does. In my 60+ years I've never seen a President get away with the **** he does.
Lets say, just for giggles, that the Congress has had it with Obama, tired of his high crimes and misdemeanors, and decide to impeach. At this point, Biden becomes President,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b9bd2/b9bd2d54778e7f8623b190a1ebd3333fee6211fd" alt="eek6 :eek6"
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 5
- Posts: 9044
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
- Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)
Re: Whitehouse eyes restrictions without Congress..
JALLEN wrote:We've never had a moron like Biden as Vice President before.striker55 wrote:Obama does whatever he wants, Congress won't stop him no matter what he does. In my 60+ years I've never seen a President get away with the **** he does.
Lets say, just for giggles, that the Congress has had it with Obama, tired of his high crimes and misdemeanors, and decide to impeach. At this point, Biden becomes President,and would be eligible to run as incumbent twice more. At his age that is unlikely, but who wants to take the chance?
I think Biden provides unprecedented protection to the president.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 26866
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
- Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
- Contact:
Re: Whitehouse eyes restrictions without Congress..
Her boyfriend controls the list.MeMelYup wrote:How do we get White House adviser Valerie Jarrett on the no fly list?
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
-
- Banned
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 1748
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:38 pm
- Location: South Texas
Re: Whitehouse eyes restrictions without Congress..
Does a presidential executive order carry the weight of law?
I don’t know for sure but I don’t think it does. I haven’t seen one yet that lists penalties for non compliance.
I don’t know for sure but I don’t think it does. I haven’t seen one yet that lists penalties for non compliance.
God Bless America, and please hurry.
When I was young I knew all the answers. When I got older I started to realize I just hadn’t quite understood the questions.-Me
When I was young I knew all the answers. When I got older I started to realize I just hadn’t quite understood the questions.-Me
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 5
- Posts: 9044
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
- Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)
Re: Whitehouse eyes restrictions without Congress..
It's pretty much a directive to their administration and the different departments. Pretty much a memo setting out policy they want followed.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
-
- Banned
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 1406
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:47 am
- Location: San Leon Texas
Re: Whitehouse eyes restrictions without Congress..
VoiceofReason wrote:Does a presidential executive order carry the weight of law?
I don’t know for sure but I don’t think it does. I haven’t seen one yet that lists penalties for non compliance.
Is an executive order a law?
Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).
this from wiki so yea I think it does
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cc868/cc868edc984e23bc8a6b9f687e84af8080088939" alt="banghead :banghead:"
Also this
http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 1434
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:16 pm
- Location: Paradise Texas
Re: Whitehouse eyes restrictions without Congress..
I'm with mojo84. The executive branch has the power to enforce laws but that branch cannot create them. Congress creates laws.
Federalist 47 by James Madison
No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.
…these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be inferred that, in saying ”There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates,” or, ”if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers,” he did not mean that these departments ought to have no PARTIAL AGENCY in, or no CONTROL over, the acts of each other. His meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted.
The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law
Federalist 47 by James Madison
No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.
…these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be inferred that, in saying ”There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates,” or, ”if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers,” he did not mean that these departments ought to have no PARTIAL AGENCY in, or no CONTROL over, the acts of each other. His meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted.
The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law
III
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 5
- Posts: 9044
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
- Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)
Re: Whitehouse eyes restrictions without Congress..
Here is an interesting piece on the ceding of power to of the president by the ever more impotent congress.
http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/reviving- ... -congress/
http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/reviving- ... -congress/
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.