...I may not like him, but, I also believe in checking things out [as often as I can] before I jump to a conclusion that I can't recover from :laugh: Once you commit to the conclusion jump, it's a long way down,without a parachute
:wavey:
Thanks for posting that. Very interesting. The one that jumped out at me was Calvin Coolidge with over 1,200 executive orders. Silent Cal. The conservative's poster boy of the first half of the 20th century. Many of his EO's were what conservatives would call "land grabs".
3976
Mar 22
Withdrawing Lands in Isle Royale, Michigan, to Determine Advisability for Inclusion in National Monument
3983
Apr 1
Withdrawing Lands in Alaska to Determine Advisability for Inclusion in National Monument
3984
Apr 2
Withdrawing Lands in New Mexico to Determine Advisability for Inclusion in National Park or Monument
4181
Mar 24
Lands in Utah Withdrawn for Classification and Pending Legislation for Inclusion in Zion National Parka
Remember the crying on the right when Clinton designated federal land in Utah for a national monument? Although Clinton was following a law from Theodore Roosevelt's administration (BTW check out how many EO's Teddy used) conservatives cried foul, mainly because there were known coal reserves on the Utah land. Tin foil hatters called it a "huge, huge step toward the New World Order" and "the greatest single look at the tremendous threat to our individual liberties."
I guess when conservatives use EO's it's fine, but when liberals do so it's trampling on our constitutional rights and the ushering in of Communism, or something as evil.
It isn't # of executive orders that is the issue. It is the nature and scope. An executive order, of which is nothing said in the Constitution, is simply the power of the President to faithfully enforce existing law, not to make new ones.
FDR was a wannabe dictator, just like Obama.
They are all the same and the law means nothing.
It's all about inflicting their will on the American people without their consent.
The Imperial Presidency has been a threat since President Jackson. What is unique today is that Congress only has a 15% approval rating so are totally discredited and therefore virtually incapable of stopping the spread of the president's power.
Until Congress gets some credibility the executive branch will continue to grab power.
How soon we for get, he did and till he got the SC to his liking. We are still paying for FDR's decisions. We are still trying to spend our way out of debt, it didn't work for him and it won't work today. WWII got us out of the depression.
I don't think anyone would say it it 'okay' because others did it first/more often. The point is that President Obama is following a long running precedent which seems to be only increasing in intensity.
US laws are based on precedent, and with precedent being set the actions of this president are hardly surprising.
I hear ya. I'm just saying I've heard the "so and so did it first" argument before. Usually to justify an action taken by one's favored politician.
It goes like this, "your guy wants to increase government, oh yeah well your guy did it first". Meaning my guy is justified because your guy did it first. Always thought it was a foolish argument.