Obama to sign executive orders

[sdbrown]

President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.


John Podesta, Obama's transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush's executive orders on those issues and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own.


"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said. "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set."


Bush used his executive power to limit federal spending on embryonic stem cell research, a position championed by opponents of abortion rights who argue that destroying embryos is akin to killing a fetus. Obama has supported the research in an effort to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's. Many moderate Republicans also support the research, giving it the stamp of bipartisanship.

:woot:


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA?SITE=VASTR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[saysmydoctor]

At least he isn't planning to overuse his executive authority. Approved.

[ForeverDelayed]

This made me happy. I always thought the stem cell ban was ridiculous.

[loveisdead]

This made me happy. I always thought the stem cell ban was ridiculous.
It is. I don't get it.

[xshady121]

It is. I don't get it.

George Bush doesn't want you having 2 Shaky's Pizzas.

[nevets]

George Bush doesn't want you having 2 Shaky's Pizzas.


hahaha. yes!

[windmillninja]

Govern from the center, Mr. Obama. Please.

[Jason Tate]

Govern from the center, Mr. Obama. Please.
No. Govern as the country has mandated - progressively.

[saysmydoctor]

Govern from the center, Mr. Obama. Please.
Govern as the majority asked.

[CrenshawPunch]

At least he isn't planning to overuse his executive authority. Approved.


5 in the first 3 days of office? That's more than the last 5 presidents combined in their first 3 days.

[saysmydoctor]

5 in the first 3 days of office? That's more than the last 5 presidents combined in their first 3 days.
So. What?

[x togepi x]

5 in the first 3 days of office? That's more than the last 5 presidents combined in their first 3 days.

well bush did hundreds of signing statements so..........

[CrenshawPunch]

So. What?



"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said.


You don't see a problem with this? This is not an overuse of executive orders? Executive orders were created much in the vein of the title of Dictatorship in Republican Rome. To be used as a last resort. I think this sets a dangerous precedent.

[CrenshawPunch]

well bush did hundreds of signing statements so..........

Oh, and you enjoyed this? Is that some sort of justification? Bush has nothing to do with this.

[Kurt Retenauer]

dun dun dun..

[CrazyBlue]

As long as he's open minded centre right you'll hear no complaints here.

[saysmydoctor]

You don't see a problem with this? This is not an overuse of executive orders? Executive orders were created much in the vein of the title of Dictatorship in Republican Rome. To be used as a last resort. I think this sets a dangerous precedent.
One executive order was removing special interest from government positions and one ended torture and one closed down a facility where torture took place. What a vicious dictator Obama is.

[J.C.]

You're going to have to inform me which one of Obama's executive orders has been beneficial/advantageous to him and his administration or dictatorial in nature, CP.

[CrenshawPunch]

One executive order was removing special interest from government positions and one ended torture and one closed down a facility where torture took place. What a vicious dictator Obama is.

What were the others? Not worth mentioning I guess.

You're going to have to inform me which one of Obama's executive orders has been beneficial/advantageous to him and his administration or dictatorial in nature, CP.

Look, I'm not saying the orders themselves were malicious. All I'm saying is that he started his presidency in a way that no other president in history ever has. He side-stepped congress immediately on various issues with executive orders. It worries me.

[saysmydoctor]

Wait, so his reversal of some of Bush's policies--torture--which ignored international law was sidestepping Congress? Rectifying executive mistakes within the executive seems ideal.

[CrenshawPunch]

Wait, so his reversal of some of Bush's policies--torture--which ignored international law was sidestepping Congress? Rectifying executive mistakes within the executive seems ideal.


You are missing the point.

[saysmydoctor]

I think I'm not. I don't see any sidestepping. This is what the voters expected and wanting and what he was mandated via his election to do. Also, the Presidential Records order is pretty standard.

[Adeniz19]

some things needed fixing right away and the fastest way to do that is with a executive order. i see nothing wrong with it and i see no over-abuse of his power yet. FDR signed many executive orders within his first 100 days to get this country back on the right track and obama needs to do that same

[Jason Tate]

:rotfl:

We all knew this was coming. No other way to complain about the President ... so this is what they choose? Hilarious.

[Adeniz19]

:rotfl:

We all knew this was coming. No other way to complain about the President ... so this is what they choose? Hilarious.
omgz obama is using the powers that is constitutionally given to him. fascist!

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

So is America a socialist paradise yet?

not yet but we have another 4 years so one can hope

[Burn That Shit]

You are missing the point.

Dude, what the fuck is YOUR point? You're not making any fucking sense.

[Roboman]

Dude, what the fuck is YOUR point? You're not making any fucking sense.

No, he is. He's concerned that Obama might be exerting too much power (despite it being perfectly legal to do so) and setting a "dangerous precedent" for future presidents, while the rest of us are fine with that. See, was that so hard? And it only took me a short amount of time and some reading comprehension to gather that.

[saysmydoctor]

The Executive Order is never mentioned in the Constitution...but yeah.

[Lueda Alia]

some things needed fixing right away and the fastest way to do that is with a executive order. i see nothing wrong with it and i see no over-abuse of his power yet. FDR signed many executive orders within his first 100 days to get this country back on the right track and obama needs to do that same
People seem to forget the current state of the US.

[Adeniz19]

The Executive Order is never mentioned in the Constitution...but yeah.
well not directly

[Burn That Shit]

No, he is. He's concerned that Obama might be exerting too much power (despite it being perfectly legal to do so) and setting a "dangerous precedent" for future presidents, while the rest of us are fine with that. See, was that so hard? And it only took me a short amount of time and some reading comprehension to gather that.

I seriously doubt future presidents will look back on Obama and say "Wow, he really set the standard for abusing power in office. Might as well follow suit!", especially considering the countless amount of presidents who already have abused their power to no end (George Bush ring a bell, sir?)

The fact that someone could claim Obama is abusing power because he's being pro-active on reversing the ban on stem cell research is truly unfathomable. Don't be such a pretentious fuck.

[Machu505]

Good. But I'm still patiently waiting for the socialism I was promised.

[Roboman]

I seriously doubt future presidents will look back on Obama and say "Wow, he really set the standard for abusing power in office. Might as well follow suit!", especially considering the countless amount of presidents who already have abused their power to no end (George Bush ring a bell, sir?)

The fact that someone could claim Obama is abusing power because he's being pro-active on reversing the ban on stem cell research is truly unfathomable. Don't be such a pretentious fuck.

A pretentious fuck because you think I agree with CrenshawPunch, or because of the way I insulted your intelligence? If it's the former then you deserved the belittling, as nowhere in my post was I agreeing with him. If it's the latter, then eh, fine with me.

Also, the fact that you find such a claim simply "unfathomable" further displays your inability to see/acknowledge more than one side of the matter.

The Executive Order is never mentioned in the Constitution...but yeah.

So anything that's not in the Constitution is not legal?

[saysmydoctor]

I never said that once.

[Burn That Shit]

A pretentious fuck because you think I agree with CrenshawPunch, or because of the way I insulted your intelligence? If it's the former then you deserved the belittling, as nowhere in my post was I agreeing with him. If it's the latter, then eh, fine with me.

I can easily assume you've gotten the insult more than once so I probably won't have to explain to you why, no?



Also, the fact that you find such a claim simply "unfathomable" further displays your inability to see/acknowledge more than one side of the matter.



Yep, Guantanamo Bay is a great vacay spot I bet, and stem cell research is clearly unimportant and won't help tons of people. This Obama guy must have some sort of hidden agenda.

[asmolitor]

Govern as the majority asked.

this, more than...

No. Govern as the country has mandated - progressively.
I think I'm not. I don't see any sidestepping. This is what the voters expected and wanting and what he was mandated via his election to do. Also, the Presidential Records order is pretty standard.

that. although it's my only disagreement with the contents of the thread (i see the executive orders signed so far as beneficial) - i think it's a bit presumptuous to give him a "mandate" - like bush with social security reform in 2004-05.

[saysmydoctor]

I see a mandate as winning by more than just a slim margin.

[saysmydoctor]

I can easily assume you've gotten the insult more than once so I probably won't have to explain to you why, no?





Yep, Guantanamo Bay is a great vacay spot I bet, and stem cell research is clearly unimportant and won't help tons of people. This Obama guy must have some sort of hidden agenda.
Nope, shark infested bay.

[asmolitor]

I see a mandate as winning by more than just a slim margin.

and i don't necessarily see 7% as large enough of a margin to claim mandate, hence the disagreement - that's all.

[saysmydoctor]

and i don't necessarily see 7% as large enough of a margin to claim mandate, hence the disagreement - that's all.
I see your rationale.:shrug: Ultimately, the point is he was elected to do these things and these are not an executive gone crazy.

[asmolitor]

I see your rationale.:shrug: Ultimately, the point is he was elected to do these things and these are not an executive gone crazy.

agreed in full. i think it's just anytime i hear of "mandate" relating to presidents, i think of bush and social security reform, and the perils of the term and the implications stemming from it. for the record and comparison, i would say reagan '84 was a mandate, for what it's worth.

[Jason Tate]

and i don't necessarily see 7% as large enough of a margin to claim mandate, hence the disagreement - that's all.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obama-popular-vote-margin-largest-ever.html

[asmolitor]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/obama-popular-vote-margin-largest-ever.html


If looked at in percentage terms, however, Obama's 7.0-point margin is really fairly middle of the road, having been bettered 26 times overall and by 12 non-incumbents


:shrug:

[Jason Tate]

:shrug:
Not sure what your point is ... I am well aware what the link says, seeing as I posted the article. Doesn't change that I believe the word "mandate" is completely legitimate.

[J.C.]

Obama got the highest percentage of the vote from a non-incumbent party candidate since Eisenhower I believe.

[J.C.]

:shrug:

Those elections were with much less voters, making the percentage differences considerably less impressive in the scheme of things. A lot of those elections also had prominent third party candidates, which made it easier to run up a margin over the next closest vote-getter.

If we applied your definition, Clinton's 49% of the vote in '96 would be more impressive than Obama's win just because Dole got 40% of the vote.

[asmolitor]

Not sure what your point is ... I am well aware what the link says, seeing as I posted the article. Doesn't change that I believe the word "mandate" is completely legitimate.

and i don't, because i don't think that 7% is worthy enough to be deemed a "mandate" - and the piece i quoted essentially shows what i'm trying (in vain) to argue - that it's not that spectacular of a performance, percentage-wise, to be deemed as a "mandate." that's pretty much it.

Those elections were with much less voters, making the percentage differences considerably less impressive in the scheme of things. A lot of those elections also had prominent third party candidates, which made it easier to run up a margin over the next closest vote-getter.

even though that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, in that percentages are less valid because of the absolute values behind them... even in the current era, obama 08 falls behind reagan 80 and bush 88. and i wouldn't apply the mandate to any election in the last 20-30 years except reagan 84.

If we applied your definition, Clinton's 49% of the vote in '96 would be more impressive than Obama's win just because Dole got 40% of the vote.

but then if we took that stat, would clinton's 9% margin of victory be a stronger "mandate" than obama's? even with his share under 50%?

i apologize for the needless arguing over semantics, but my view of "mandate" just doesn't allow a 7% margin of victory to fall within its realm. sidenote: i also find it harder to argue in this forum with obama as president.

[J.C.]

even though that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, in that percentages are less valid because of the absolute values behind them...

It's easier to run up a higher percentage victory when there are fewer voters. Each individual person takes on less importance the more the electorate grows.

but then if we took that stat, would clinton's 9% margin of victory be a stronger "mandate" than obama's? even with his share under 50%?.

That was my point. Clinton's win isn't more impressive or more of a mandate than Obama's just because he won by a larger percentage of the vote.

[asmolitor]

It's easier to run up a higher percentage victory when there are fewer voters. Each individual person takes on less importance the more the electorate grows.



That was my point. Clinton's win isn't more impressive or more of a mandate than Obama's just because he won by a larger percentage of the vote.

fair enough - i wouldn't give either clinton/obama a "mandate" based on percentage, and the only way to effectively compare different electoral vote margin totals, is through percentages.

[x togepi x]

Oh, and you enjoyed this? Is that some sort of justification? Bush has nothing to do with this.

i'm glad gitmo is getting shutdown. i'm glad stem cell research isn't banned anymore. i'm glad he changed the rules on secrecy regarding past presidents. i'm not exactly afraid since most of these things would have passed congress anyway.

besides, the things he has done seem to fall well within the realms of executive power anyway. As the commander in chief, it should be under his discretion whether to close gitmo. As the executive, it makes sense that he would make the office of the president more transparent. Since the stem cell research ban was done via executive order, it makes sense that he would use one to repeal it. Now if Obama starts doing shit like making executive orders that say he can appoint whoever to whatever without congressional approval or repealing supreme court decisions all by himself, then i'll have a problem.

i wasn't using bush's signing statements as a justification, i was just calling into question your assertion that obama's somehow using executive power way more than the past few presidents have when signing statements have the same sort of authority. Bush does have nothing to do with it, but you made the past comparision.