Obama's Transition Chief: Bush's Executive Orders Under Review

I would think that any new president upon taking office would review all the previous executive orders. Seems only prudent to do so. Bush used the Executive Order for his own purposes and I see no reason not to believe Obama will do the same. I would if I were president and I expect everyone on the board would do the same.

 

Good! for Obama and his transition team

Good! for Obama and his transition team

Bush is trying to pull a fast one, with trying to do some last minute rape of the nation, good for Obama for playing hardball and keeping 'em honest.


65 million plus voted him in to do just that and reject Bush and what he has done, Amen!

 

And just what "fast one" is that?

 

He can not alter or change anything prior to Jan. 20th. But that does not mean that he and his team cannot start reviewing what has gone on before his start in office. He has no power to issue an executive order prior to taking office. But as I said, if I were elected president I certainly would have my 'team' start the review process prior to my formally taking office. This seems only prudent to me.

You ask about what presidents changed previous presidents executive orders. It would take some research. Below are just a few examples.

President Reagan used an Executive Order to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Clinton reversed this order when he came into office.

G. Bush has amended a number of Executive Orders that were put in place during Clinton's term in office, possibly some before Clinton. I have not researched this deeply yet. You can find this easily by doing a google search on Bush Executive Orders.

My guess is that most presidents change prior administrations Executive Orders either by amending them or by reversing them.

I think it shows he is hitting the ground running. Clinton dawdled and had a terrible transition period. I am glad to see that Obama and his advisors are wasting no time.

Am I an American .... I guess so. My family, on both sides can be traced back to the 1600 in what is now the USA. One line back to 1630. I have had ancestors in every war this country has ever fought. I was in the Army. So, I suppose I qualify as an American.

Are you telling me that if you were elected president you would not review what had been done prior to your taking office to find out what you want to keep and what you want to change?

 

I would strongly recommend that before any decide to make other stupid statements.... that a little education might help you keep feet off your menu.

GO HERE TO SEE ALL EXECUTIVE ORDERS BY PRESIDENT BUSH SINCE 2001 ....excepting those considered classified for security reasons. Please note..... that in screening through the first executive orders in the year 2001..... many were merely ammending extensions of dead line dates of previous orders. Remember President Bush did not have a 70 something preorientation date before assuming office and the Clinton Whitehouse staff were less than receptive and cooperative with the new administration.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php list all executive orders by year going back more than a century.

I would suggest that nothing is more unbecoming people of whatever creed or faith or morality than carelessly impuning the reputation of another with false allegations without evidence to support. Such is based in meanness and hate. Killing a persons reputation based on falsehood is the equivalent of murder. Once a person deceases or ceases from public position, all which remains is what he invested his life doing.... and it is equivalent to murder to falsely charge or support false charges against a person.

 

Give me a break. A new president from the other party is going to take office with the incumbent having about a 25% approval rating. I would hope he would review the decisions of his predestine. Not to do so would be ridiculous.

 

Ppst... he said he campaigned saying he would reverse the Bush tax cuts. Why does this surprise you?

 

You preface all the large bold print with this statement?

Kind of hypocritical isn't it?

 

Certainly not!

You should check your mirror before judging!












Certainly not like your post, when you take my post out of context which was a reply to a post which was quoted and was stupid and did make a unsubstantiated allegation against your current President.

 

I was merely making the point that there are changes that must be made given the country's dire condition and the lack of support of the current President. Is that so hard to understand?

 

I'm not sure what 'theories' you are taking about. The EO's I listed were from a web site and Bush did amend a number of Clinton EO's. I think this is normal for any president. Not sure I have time to research it further. It might make a very interesting term paper for someone.

The Prague, Czech Republic will change in January when I return home. I have come here each year from 2005 until now to work as a volunteer in the library of the International Baptist Theological Seminary (IBTS). I do not know if I will return. That is up to the Lorda and the seminary. There was a Ph.D. student here last week from Romania and he said they may need my spouse and I to help them with a collection of several thousand English theogical books in one of their seminary libraries. I would love to visit and work in Romania....I've never been there.

Here is a web site that lists ten of the Executive Orders by G. Bush that change EO's by previous presidents:

http://solarkismet.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/ten-bush-executive-orders-to-toss/

These ten are ones this web site believes should be changed by a new president. You may or may not agree with them. My point only is that presidents do issue EO's that change, in one way or another, the EO's of previous presidents. So it is not surprising that Obama will do the same.

 

There is a vast difference. The people of the U.S. voted Obama into office with a huge majority of the votes. They also voted in vastly more democrats into the Congress than they did republicans. This shows that the Democratic Party is more desirable to the American people than are the republicans.

 

I would say it means that most Americans are too dumb to do their own research on the candidates, the issues and the pros and cons of each and instead depend upon polls and mass media for their info. Excepting present company, of course.

 

I second this.