Comments on: Executive orders: Part of the framers’ grand plan Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: dencal26 Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:21:08 +0000 Executive orders were not intended to sidestep existing law

By: tmc Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:59:18 +0000 Thanks @carnivalchaos. Perhaps your right, but I’m still a bit leery about it. The national democratic party could have helped out with the states facing gerrymandering if they wanted to. I remember reading an article a few years ago on the topic that said deals were made. I don’t think corporate America cares much about who’s in power as they know they themselves are. I don’t believe there is a group, but as I’ve posted before its more like a very loose joint venture in controlling the government. Often there are corporate interest on both sides of an issue and they have to “fight it out” by seeing who can gain the most support. Democratic in some evil sense I guess.

Thanks for your discussion. This is why I troll Reuters.

By: carnivalchaos Sun, 23 Mar 2014 04:24:43 +0000 tmc: I don’t really understand where you’re getting this from. What are you basing your conclusion on? Right now the Republicans are doing everything they can to win back the majority in the Senate. And clearly the Republicans are doing everything they can to destroy Obama’s Presidency. There’s nothing they would like more than to have a majority in the House, the Senate, and to have a Republican in the White House. And if you have any doubts about that, please note that it wasn’t that long ago that they had just that with Bush. Consider the Clinton Presidency. During his 2nd term the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate, and then they impeached him over a blow job. Obviously they weren’t too concerned about balance of power, now were they?

tmc, you write a lot of good posts, but I think you’re off base on this issue. I’ve never heard anyone make that claim before. However, I will say this. Our government has been bought out by a loose organization of plutocrats, some very wealthy industry execs who DO want to maintain the illusion of a balance of power, provided that the Republicans dominate. They’ve pretty much gotten their way on that. Perhaps that’s where you’re coming from. I just don’t think the politicians themselves are willing to sacrifice seats held by their party simply to maintain a balance of power. To the contrary, I think the pols in both parties are doing everything they can to get as many of their guys into power.

Why would they allow some of those districts? Because they don’t have a choice. The gerrymandering takes place in state legislatures that are dominated by one party or the other. They’re not asking the opposition party for permission, because they sure wouldn’t get it. Besides, they don’t need the other party’s permission. If one party dominates a state legislature they can redistrict pretty much any way they want. They can redistrict once every 10 years. Once it’s set, it’s good for 10 years. It just wouldn’t make sense for the Democrats to make a deal with Republicans to allow them to gerrymander districts that give the Republicans a numbers advantage in Congress so that the Democratic President can’t get anything done. But as I said, the corporate folks who are really in power DO want Americans to remain appeased and docile, and maintaining the appearance of a balance of power and a functioning democracy is important to their game plan. They pretty much have things just the way they want them now, though they’d probably rather see a Republican in the White House because that would make it easier for them to get everything they want. As it is now, they probably get about 90% of what they want. It’s absurd and Americans had better wake up and do something about it.

By: tmc Sat, 22 Mar 2014 19:01:10 +0000 Well, if you both agree that politicians are purchased, then you must agree that it is very likely not their decision about gerrymandering and keeping the balance of power. Why would they allow some of those districts? It wouldn’t have been to hard to get public support to stop them. I believe deals were made so republicans could proceed with gerrymandering.

By: carnivalchaos Sat, 22 Mar 2014 05:07:28 +0000 tmc: I seriously doubt that Democrats are fretting over the possibility of being in complete control of the country. I don’t know anyone who thinks that the entire country is swinging over to the Democratic camp, or even a sizable migration. Heck, Democrats can’t even pass universal background checks for gun purchases when 90% of the country supports doing it.

Nor have I heard of any Democratic politician who wants the Democrats to lose seats to the Republicans for fear of having too much political influence. The Democrats are culpable about a lot of things, but sanctioning the GOP’s democracy-killing gerrymandering is not one of them. For sure, they’re not strangers to gerrymandering themselves, but not to the extremes that the Republicans have recently.

Pols switch parties when they see that switching parties will improve their chances of staying in office. That’s the only reason. I just don’t think they’re doing it to make sure the opposition party doesn’t lose too many seats.

But I completely concur with you on the point regarding who both parties are receiving money from. You’re right, both parties eat from the same pig trough. Our system is corrupt and not longer works for the American people. Unfortunately, either not enough Americans are aware of it, or not enough Americans care.

By: Riobrava Sat, 22 Mar 2014 02:15:42 +0000 @JL4, thank you for note. Yes, you are correct that the Framers could not have “addressed every single possible eventuality.” However, they were extremely clear on not wanting to place too much power in the hands of any one branch of government. Our current and previous Presidents have used executive orders far too frequently. Regarding Ms. Gorod’s “qualifications”, having also been a appellate law clerk, I am not at all impressed with her editorial. She does not cite anything except a few quotations to justify her very expansive claim of a very large extension of executive power. That simply doesn’t cut it and she knows that. I use your words that Ms. Gorod’s is nothing more than her opinion.

By: JL4 Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:38:47 +0000 @tmc, I don’t agree with you on the point that Democrats “allow” such things as gerrymandering – at least not at the state level, which is where it all begins. A Republican state gerrymanders in favor of their party, and there isn’t a lot the Democrats can do about it. Then that Republican goes to the House and the rest is history.

But yes, all politicians are guilty of being purchased, as is evidenced by the lack of Democrats pushing to institute some kind of campaign/lobbying reform.

@Riobrava, just because something isn’t expressly mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional. Can you imagine a Constitution that addressed every single possible eventuality of governing for the President AND Congress? I get what you’re saying, but you have to allow for the fact that the Framers understood they couldn’t cover EVERYTHING.

It’s accepted that Presidents have Executive Power and has been since, literally, George Washington. Now, take a look at Ms. Gorod’s qualifications, the facts of history, precedents, etc., and then tell us that your opinion is more than just that – opinion.

By: FroboseTF Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:35:06 +0000 carnivalchaos: “Next time you disagree with someone’s post, try refuting specific points that they make rather than just resorting to lobbing insults and saying they’re wrong”
OK Here goes.

carnivalchaos: “This is a democracy. (… It’s a type of democracy where we vote on people to represent us in a government that is bound by a Constitution.”
NEWS FLASH: A type of government where we vote on people to represent us in the government is called a R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C! Look it up.

carnivalchaos: “…the only reason conservatives are complaining about Obama’s use of executive privilege is because they are opposed to anything and everything he does.”
Guess what? That’s what opposition parties do. Every president (and governor) in history that has had a legislative branch controlled by the opposition party has managed to work WITH them to get things done. For some reason THIS president can’t seem to do it. Why is that? Maybe it’s because early on they were told “they can come along for the ride, but would have to sit in the back of the bus.” Obama style Bipartisan inclusion.

carnivalchaos: “they have shut down the government for partisan purposes”
You mean the “Shutdown” that occurred because the D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T controlled Senate refused to bring all those bills that the Republicans in the House passed to fund everything in the government EXCEPT OBAMAcare to the floor for debate, and consideration?
Is that the shutdown you’re talking about??????

tmc: “… I think the democrats are happy to oblige the republicans and indeed have helped them.”
They sure are. When the Republicans accept money from the Democrats to help to rid them of TEA party members (The only people in the Senate who are actually opposing them.) I, and many others are through with both major parties.

tmc: “As we know, without gerrymandering the republican party would not hold a majority at the federal level”
Get off your high horse. Democrats have, and no doubt will again use gerrymandering to gain seats wherever, and whenever possible.
The fact that they don’t have the opportunity at the moment is just a piece of good luck.

Riobrava: “The duty of the executive to “enforce” the nation’s laws …”
Most of us would be happy if he would just enforce the laws already on the books. Especially people living in southern border states.

By: PatFields Fri, 21 Mar 2014 18:48:27 +0000 What nearly every examination of this kind neglects to remember, is that all Statute is Municipal, bearing on the ‘Members of the Polity’.

In researching ‘The Whiskey Tax’, I discovered two fascinating elements … Washington requested and received permission from the Senate (only), to extend federal “district” jurisdictions over the States, and in the use of those jurisdictions, Hamilton, who was assigned by Washington to actually execute the statute, STILL couldn’t accomplish the task … without FIRST securing from the ‘Rebels’, their … Oath of Allegiance to the United States … under the false bravado of threatened prosecution, rather than FIRST filing charges. Why? Because the alleged ‘Rebels’, as State Citizens, were Lawfully outside the Polity of the federal division, existing under original, ordinary jurisdictions of their States and thus had to be tricked into Traverse under the unique, separate federal ‘district’ jurisdictions to become Properly Liable.

I too, hold that the Constitution (of 1787; distinct from its simile adopted by the foreign ‘Government of the District of Columbia in 1871) can only be the amended Articles. Nevertheless, both documents pertain only to administration of governance, not ‘rule and regulation’ over The Sovereign People (Agent can not command the Principal). ‘The Law’ is the Common Law conscribed by The Maxims … applicable to People and divisions of their institute of government, alike.

So, on point, Executive Orders are pertinent only under the federal division’s particular jurisdictions and even then, only upon ‘Persons’ under Oath (or Contract) to the United States and thus within it’s municipal Polity.

“People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative.” (Lansing v. Smith (1829) 4 Wend. 9,20)

“A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government …” (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383)

“The United States Government is a foreign (municipal) corporation with respect to a state.” Volume 20: Corpus Juris Secundum, (P 1785: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.Ct. 1973, 41 L. Ed. 287)

By: Jon_Roland Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:29:19 +0000 This article strikes a level of abstraction that obscures several important issues.

Yes, the Founders contemplated that executives could issue directives to those under their supervision, but also empowered Congress to restrict whom he could supervise and how. All a president can do to someone who defies an order is to fire him, and he does not have the power to fire all those he may appoint. Some, once appointed and confirmed, are independent of his supervision, and must make their own decisions about which statutes are constitutional and which are not. The president has no authority to order civilians to do anything unless they are called up as militia, and there are limits on that as well.

There are limits to what any president can lawfully or practically do using executive orders. The subject needs to be discussed at the level of detail appropriate to each.