http://biggovernment.com/smotley/20...ongress-to-institute-death-panel-discussions/
Obama Administration Bypassing Congress to Institute Death Panel ‘Discussions’
by Seton Motley
On Monday, I wrote here of how President Barack Obama would pretend to work in bipartisan cooperation with the new Congress in deference to the shellacking he received in the November election – while behind the scenes dictatorially ramming through as many rules and regulations, directives and orders as he possibly can – and with which he can get away:
(Obama) will do his best to put on a public show, but his Big-Government-At-All-Costs agenda will continue unabated. It will just be done behind the scenes via rampant, abusive expansion of the vast regulatory authority at his disposal.
Obama to Rule by Executive Fiat
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, Jan 1, 2011.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
Obama has nothing to do with this. It's the CMS director. Furthermore, all the new rule says is: "The new rule would pay doctors to consult with Medicare patients who want voluntary counseling about health-care options in the case of terminal illness."
That's it. Of course, facts don't matter to Carpro. -
JohnDeereFan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
He also waited until Congress was in recess to appoint six new ambassadors without the advice and consent of Congress.
He is allowed to do that under the Constitution (although his appointments can only serve sixty days) in an emergency, but this was no emergency and he specifically waited until Congress was in recess.
I think we're going to see a whole lot more of this from Emperor Obama once the Republicans take over. -
Politics par usual. Nothing at all new here. -
-
The devil quite often overplays his hand resulting in additional "shellakings".
*IF* he continues to bypass congress it could well result in a Constitutional Crisis resulting in an impeached president.
Because, I don't think any of the power mad demoncrats or repugnantcans will stand for him taking thier power, even if they agree with the end result. -
-
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)
Until the early 1900s, the term "Executive Orders" had not even been invented. Presidential instructions to executive branch staff that would later be characterized as "Executive Orders" went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. However, the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for Executive Orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. The documents that later came to be known as "Executive Orders" probably gained their name from this document, captioned "Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana."[3]
Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an Executive Order other than, of course, the US Constitution which reserved all federal legislative authority to Congress. This issue was paramount in the Supreme Court ruling in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws under which they are acting when issuing new Executive Orders.
Despite the provisions of Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution that reserves all federal legislative authority to congress, Presidents have increasingly used Executive Orders as if they were equivalent to an act of Congress. Presidents have even issued Executive Orders to start entire wars despite the fact that Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically reserves to Congress the sole authority to declare war. -
This time is no different. -
-
Check this interesting theory on Wikipedia
Besides if Congress did declare war (& the President would have to sign the bill) what Country are we fighting against - that we could declare war on?
-
You commented only on Monday night’s announcement by the Administration’s Dr. Donald M. Berwick – administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as if that was all there was.
You smply ignored the other obvious examples or , in your blind support of Obama, simply didn't notice them.
Tunnel vision. -
-
-
>Besides if Congress did declare war (& the President would have to sign the bill) what Country are we fighting against - that we could declare war on?
If we don't know who we are fighting how do we know when we have won - or lost? Or is the real purpose of war to clean the gene pool? -
And you're in favor of using the NLRB to ban secret ballots in union elections, since he couldn't get that one through Congress either? -
-
This the total opposite of reforming the Union System as it would ensure that they could continue to "enforce" their will without any recourse by those of us who are automatically enrolled whether we want to be or not.
At least I am not forced to pay dues, at this time, anyway...
But, obama wants to take even this away... -
IOW Like Obama,You'll take it by executive fiat if that's the only way you can get your way? -
Don't leave now.
There are more examples to come. We haven't even touch on the LOST.
Page 1 of 2