Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (70569)	6/30/2014 12:46:57 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

There’s just one problem. Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any other president since Franklin Roosevelt, according to Gerhard Peters, co-founder of the American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Peters and his co-founder, John Woolley, are among the nation’s leading authorities on the use of presidential executive power, going back to George Washington. “In the modern era that most presidential scholars believe began with Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, Obama has issued the least number of executive orders per year,” Peters tells Newsweek, after updating and crunching out the numbers. "Crunching" the numbers? THAT's "crunching numbers"? Okay, that aside, this argument is being tossed around by the Left and represents a rather obviously lousy one. Because any thinking person can see that not all executive orders are the same. Some are more egregious than others. And Obama's have been far more egregious than those of any predecessor. When you hear this comment on the numbers -- and it has been around for months -- you immediately recognize it as shallow and meaningless. For example, a president has NEVER had the power to waive the enforcement of an income tax provision. There have been exceptional circumstances where presidents were able to delay filing deadlines and ministerial functions; but tax law is statutory. The president can't just "waive" a statute. Yet, Obama has done so time and again, including the waiver of the deadline for implementation of the employer mandate. Blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. As a "constitutional law professor" (yuk, yuk) he should know that. Last week's 9-0 slap down of Obama's recess appointments is the beginning of a long line of Supreme Court decisions that will put it all in perspective. And the liberals will howl that the Court is being "political" (in spite of the fact that liberals will participate in it). The big one will be the Sissel case, which could well throw out the entire ACA, lock, stock and barrel. The more of these blatant violations he commits the more likely the Court will decide the ACA was a bridge too far. If the Constitution has ANY meaning at all, this time next year the ACA could well be history. Hopefully. We'll return to the status quo ante and then perhaps we can start seeing some progress toward restoring the American system of health care. These signing statements, at least the important ones, are not going to stand, and I think the Court's decision last week was putting the president on notice that he needs to stop it.