Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Serious questions for DUers (Original Post) malaise Jan 2017 OP
1.) As of yesterday it was 6 True Dough Jan 2017 #1
That's two questions. trof Jan 2017 #2
I did malaise Jan 2017 #3
Reagan had 380 Angry Dragon Jan 2017 #4
I know but the RW courts overturned some of Obamas malaise Jan 2017 #5
Executive Orders are not, in and of themselves, illegal. Ms. Toad Jan 2017 #6
I know malaise Jan 2017 #7
Likely - but not as many as you might expect. Ms. Toad Jan 2017 #8
President Obama was trying to destroy America ElkeH Jan 2017 #9
Yes indeed - nice post - drop the oxy -they're 'morans' malaise Jan 2017 #11
Legal is in the eyes of the beholder. N/t lisa58 Jan 2017 #10
M$Greedia is discussing this today malaise Jan 2017 #12
You can track those at the link below: MineralMan Jan 2017 #13
Excellent point malaise Jan 2017 #15
It is, indeed. MineralMan Jan 2017 #16
as of jan.24th...The 12 executive actions Trump has signed (so far) spanone Jan 2017 #14
Thanks bro malaise Jan 2017 #17
👍🏼😎 spanone Jan 2017 #18

malaise

(268,702 posts)
5. I know but the RW courts overturned some of Obamas
Wed Jan 25, 2017, 06:36 PM
Jan 2017

They treated Obama really badly -racist scumbags

Ms. Toad

(33,997 posts)
6. Executive Orders are not, in and of themselves, illegal.
Wed Jan 25, 2017, 06:38 PM
Jan 2017

The President is allowed to direct, within the parameters of the law, the actions of the executive branch. They are only illegal if the President signs one that is inconsistent with the law (e.g he is legislating or adjudicating), and enforces as if it had the weight of law.

Ms. Toad

(33,997 posts)
8. Likely - but not as many as you might expect.
Wed Jan 25, 2017, 06:58 PM
Jan 2017

Selective investigation and enforcement of the laws, for example, is something every president does. There aren't enough resources to investigate and prosecute every Federal crime - so President Obama's justice department ordered a stand-down on prosecution of federal marijana laws in states in which medical marijuana use was allowed under state law. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/dag-guidance-2011-for-medical-marijuana-use.pdf (My recollection is that there was an executive order, as well, but I couldn't find it quickly.)

Trump can, within the traditional power of the presidency, shift enforcement resources back to marijuana (or elsewhere - like enforcement of Federal laws that Sanctuary cities might be breaking)

 

ElkeH

(105 posts)
9. President Obama was trying to destroy America
Wed Jan 25, 2017, 07:09 PM
Jan 2017

President Obama was trying to destroy America. Therefore, President Obama's EOs were illegal.

Trump is trying to Make America Great Again. Therefore, Trump's EOs are legal.

Well, at least that is the logic of the right wing, but "right-wing logic" is an oxymoron anyway.

malaise

(268,702 posts)
11. Yes indeed - nice post - drop the oxy -they're 'morans'
Wed Jan 25, 2017, 07:22 PM
Jan 2017

many of whom used to much 'oxy'.



Welcome to DU

malaise

(268,702 posts)
12. M$Greedia is discussing this today
Thu Jan 26, 2017, 02:47 PM
Jan 2017

They want to know how he gets Congressional money for the wall when no bill was passed since it's an Executive Order

They also want to know how ReTHUGs attacked Obama for EOs but cheer on Groper Don the Con.

MineralMan

(146,255 posts)
13. You can track those at the link below:
Thu Jan 26, 2017, 03:17 PM
Jan 2017
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

I suggest that we all check that page daily and actually read those orders closely. In fact, I think it's crucial that we do so.

MineralMan

(146,255 posts)
16. It is, indeed.
Thu Jan 26, 2017, 03:36 PM
Jan 2017

I've been reading them. I'm not an expert on such things, but they appear to leave gaps for the exclusive use of the Trump Administration. I guess that's typical, maybe.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Serious questions for DUe...