Please explain...if you can!

guntech59

February 08, 2009 12:39

How can this statement be true, unless they are reading a different Constitution/ Bill of Rights than I have read?

While the Executive Order may sound too powerful, experts in Constitutional law state that it is not actually un-Constitutional

Is this not "Infringing"?

Executive order, my ass!

0

• 

  wsfiredude

  February 08, 2009 17:32

  It's the whole 'make up the rules as you go along' mindset.
  
  Can't get it through the Congress? Hell, we'll just sign an E.O.
  
  Those 'experts' in Constitutional law need to get a refund on the money they spent for the schooling to become 'experts'.

  0
• 

  sarge_3ad

  February 08, 2009 21:08

  I for one, believe that the power to write an executive order should only be limited to citations of valor or heroism, as all other executive orders fall into a unconstitutional category.

  0
• 

  1911 Gunslinger

  February 09, 2009 03:42

  An executive order is the same thing as a decree issued by a dictator. It is completely contrary to the system that was established by the Founding Fathers. They(FF) knew firsthand what it was like to live under a dictatorship, and to have a lack of representation in the gov. that is why they set things up as they did. Too much power in the hands of one person ultimately leads to tyranny. There is an old saying "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

  0
• 

  jpwolf

  February 09, 2009 07:41

  quote:Originally posted by 1911 Gunslinger
  An executive order is the same thing as a decree issued by a dictator. It is completely contrary to the system that was established by the Founding Fathers. They(FF) knew firsthand what it was like to live under a dictatorship, and to have a lack of representation in the gov. that is why they set things up as they did. Too much power in the hands of one person ultimately leads to tyranny. There is an old saying "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".
  
  
  
  But but, we have non-violent "handing over of power" every 4-8 years.
  
  Whatever.
  
  Our choices are selected(remember McSwine polling at ZERO% and ready to drop out? Somehow wins the nomination? Yea, ok. He wasn't "selected".) for us to "choose" from every 4-8 years ensuring that the same agenda moves forward. POTUS is nothing more than a representative of those who control that agenda and wish to control us. The body filling the "representative" suit, does not matter one bit.

  0
• 

  guntech59

  February 09, 2009 13:38

  I pulled the quote (in red above), from a locked post, to see if I was the only one that thought it was as stupid as it sounds.
  
  I actually had to read it 4 or 5 times to see if I read it right.
  
  Thank you for confirming my thoughts.

  0
• 

  jpwolf

  February 10, 2009 07:25

  An EO is in and of itself un-Constitutional as it circumvents the checks and balances of a republican form of government.

  0

Please sign in to leave a comment.