Executive Order Possibility?

[AshleeLC]

Seeing as recently the President issued an Executive order regarding the minimum wage, I was wondering what your opinonis are of him issuing an Executive Order on Gay and Lesbian marriages as well as issues regarding the trans community, such as recognizing marriages on the federal level, if the states wont allow it, or something of that sort.

[Hikari]

Well, even I don't think the president could legitimately exercise that much authority on an executive order, and I generally support that sort of thing. Also he doesn't stand to really gain much politically from it, especially since he is mindful of trying not to rock the boat to hopefully make it easier for. Hilary to win in 2016.

It is going to get solved in the courts I am nearly sure, we really can't depend on the executive or legislative branch these days.

[amZo]

TEI, Obama's executive order only requires a minimum hourly wage of $10.10 for companies that are to receive federal work contracts. He can't legally require a different minimum for companies beyond these type of situations.

[Jamie D]

Seeing as recently the President issued an Executive order regarding the minimum wage, I was wondering what your opinons are of him issuing an Executive Order on Gay and Lesbian marriages as well as issues regarding the trans community, such as recognizing marriages on the federal level, if the states wont allow it, or something of that sort.

It's not quite a dictatorship ... yet.  Getting there though.

[amZo]

It's not quite a dictatorship ... yet.  Getting there though.

Professor Turley has some more good comments before congress recently about this. He mentioned something I feel sums up a lot of people's frustration, he essentially said the founding fathers never contemplated a congress and judicial branch so willing to allow this from the executive branch.

Regarding marriage, I'd like to see the government get out of the marriage business entirely. Marriage would be a purely private matter any consenting adult wishes to enter. No more government tax breaks, each person files taxes separate, will your property to whom you desire, etc. Problem solved.

[skin]

It's not quite a dictatorship ... yet.  Getting there though.

President Obama has been issuing executive orders in a manner no different and at no greater frequency than they have been used since 1900 or so.  If you want to talk about government surveillance, that is an entirely different discussion, but to say we are heading towards a dictatorship in reference to an executive order on the minimum wage is quite absurd. 

[MadeleineG]

Regarding marriage, I'd like to see the government get out of the marriage business entirely. Marriage would be a purely private matter any consenting adult wishes to enter. No more government tax breaks, each person files taxes separate, will your property to whom you desire, etc. Problem solved.

+1

legal marriage = slavery

[amZo]

President Obama has been issuing executive orders in a manner no different and at no greater frequency than they have been used since 1900 or so.  If you want to talk about government surveillance, that is an entirely different discussion, but to say we are heading towards a dictatorship in reference to an executive order on the minimum wage is quite absurd.

It's not about frequency of the orders, it's the nature of them that has many legal scholars (including liberal ones) concerned. The executive branch can't do the legislative branch's job or ignore the laws they pass.

[Jamie D]

President Obama has been issuing executive orders in a manner no different and at no greater frequency than they have been used since 1900 or so.  If you want to talk about government surveillance, that is an entirely different discussion, but to say we are heading towards a dictatorship in reference to an executive order on the minimum wage is quite absurd.

Take a look at the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case, concerning President Truman's Executive orders in the absence of legislation or an emergency.

Justice Robert Jackson, in concurrence wrote about the legitimacy of Executive orders:

1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.  In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government, as an undivided whole, lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.

2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least, as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables, rather than on abstract theories of law.

3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject.  Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.

Mr 0bama has no independent authority to issue executive orders concerning same-sex marriage.  Period.

Mr 0bama bypassed Congress to raise the minimum wage for federal contract workers.  "First, his power grab signals a remarkable new brazenness in his already contentious dealings with the legislative branch.  Not only that, it marks a sudden and stunning reversal of his previous position on this issue.

"This has always been done legislatively," White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month when asked about raising the wage unilaterally, "and it has been done with support from Republicans and not just Democrats in the past."

Mr. 0bama's unilateral decisions to ignore existing law regarding immigration, dates for 0bamacare implementation, etc, are simply extra-constitutional.  This is what borders on dictatorship.

[skin]

Mr 0bama has no independent authority to issue executive orders concerning same-sex marriage.  Period.

He hasn't.

Mr 0bama bypassed Congress to raise the minimum wage for federal contract workers...

Mr. 0bama's unilateral decisions to ignore existing law regarding immigration, dates for 0bamacare implementation, etc, are simply extra-constitutional.  This is what borders on dictatorship.

When executive orders have in the past ordered a prohibition of possessing gold coins, imprisonment of people of Japanese descent, military action without congressional approval, and warrantless wiretaps among many other severe actions, to suggest raising the minimum wage for federal workers or delaying implementation of part of a law is bordering on dictatorship is hyperbolic.  I would imagine people that have suffered under actual dictatorships would take issue as well.  Executive orders are quite the grey area, Justice Robert Jackson's opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer makes that clear.  If you believe Obama is misusing the EO, your opinion is very valid.  However, considering the scope of his orders, especially in the context of the current congress being completely inept, to suggest dictatorship is going way too far.

[Jess42]

I think it's a really bad idea on many levels. The first and worst being it could and probably would cause resentment. I mean in a lot of the places it has been left up to the people it was voted in. I believe in states rights and if I don't like what one state will allow then I move to another. 'BIG BUT' states that do not allow should recognize the marriage just like marriage licenses between two hetero people.

The very biggest one for me, why the crap would anyone want to get married? It truly is an institution but more like a prison or insane asylum. But seriously though give it time and stop pushing so hard for it. It is an upward trend in which more and more people are agreeing with. If the President comes in and forces by pen people to accept it, then it will cause a lot more problems than it will solve. How about making it a law that states don't have to marry these couples but rather at least recognize the marriage. Yes that would cause a little bit of resentment but not near as much as forcing them to issue the licenses themselves. Personally I believe in another 5-10 years the gay marriage debate will be over and accepted across all 50 states.

[Jamie D]

He hasn't.

When executive orders have in the past ordered a prohibition of possessing gold coins, imprisonment of people of Japanese descent, military action without congressional approval, and warrantless wiretaps among many other severe actions, to suggest raising the minimum wage for federal workers or delaying implementation of part of a law is bordering on dictatorship is hyperbolic.  I would imagine people that have suffered under actual dictatorships would take issue as well.  Executive orders are quite the grey area, Justice Robert Jackson's opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer makes that clear.  If you believe Obama is misusing the EO, your opinion is very valid.  However, considering the scope of his orders, especially in the context of the current congress being completely inept, to suggest dictatorship is going way too far.

What do you call an executive who assumes legislative powers?

[Yukari-sensei]

And what pray tell do you call a legislature that is incapable of legislation?

Consider the Republican block of extension of Veteran's Benefits... if Congress is incapable of even something that so painfully simple and sensible, I would place the blame for the situation on the legislature... and to be perfectly candid the most intransigent , inconsiderate, and incomprehensible elements seem to be coming dis proportionally from the Republican/Tea Party...

Say what you will about Obama... but he's not a dictator. I'm also disappointed because I thought I was getting a liberal! If you have issues with his politics, just wait till the remnants of the defunct Republican party get trounced in the next election cycles...

And on the main issue:

This will never be an executive order issue. Rather thanks to an interesting aspect of Scallia's ruling in DOMA, this will be more a series of dominos falling in the judicial circuit. It's just a matter of time before marriage equality is in all 50 states. Heck, by the time it's a majority, the legislature might actually seal the deal for the rest of them and accelerate the process!

[Jamie D]

And what pray tell do you call a legislature that is incapable of legislation?

Consider the Republican block of extension of Veteran's Benefits... if Congress is incapable of even something that so painfully simple and sensible, I would place the blame for the situation on the legislature... and to be perfectly candid the most intransigent , inconsiderate, and incomprehensible elements seem to be coming dis proportionally from the Republican/Tea Party...

Say what you will about Obama... but he's not a dictator. I'm also disappointed because I thought I was getting a liberal! If you have issues with his politics, just wait till the remnants of the defunct Republican party get trounced in the next election cycles...

And on the main issue:

This will never be an executive order issue. Rather thanks to an interesting aspect of Scallia's ruling in DOMA, this will be more a series of dominos falling in the judicial circuit. It's just a matter of time before marriage equality is in all 50 states. Heck, by the time it's a majority, the legislature might actually seal the deal for the rest of them and accelerate the process!

It takes two to tango, hon.  Gridlock is the result of the past couple of general elections.  I would much rather have a Congress that holds the line against the excesses of 2009-2011.  And things look like Harry Reid will be the Minority leader in the Senate starting January 2015.

[amZo]

And what pray tell do you call a legislature that is incapable of legislation?

Let me tell you something else they didn't do. The congress didn't abuse numerous conservative groups and individuals with the IRS for purely political reasons and lie about it and to this day stonewall investigations. The congress didn't leave four good men to die in Benghazi and then lie to the American people about it and to this day have stonewalled investigations. The congress didn't seize journalist's phone records without their knowledge. The congress isn't collecting all emails and phone call records. The congress didn't threaten imprisonment of a conservative news reporter (Jay Rosen) for doing his job.

What you mean is incapable of passing the legislation you want? I believe a less active legislature is a positive. And it's the dems who have failed to get a budget passed and plan not to pass on this year... again.

I know what I call trillion dollar annual deficits the last five years... irresponsible and immoral. We have no right to spend future generation's money, it's called taxation without proper representation. Let's see, why'd the American people revolt in the 1700's again? Oh yeah, now I remember.

I also believe forcing people to lose their doctors and insurance plans and under the force of threat to purchase plans they can't afford is arrogant and immoral.

I have no idea why you want even more of this, but this will go down as a very dark period in our history.

[skin]

The congress didn't abuse numerous conservative groups and individuals with the IRS for purely political reasons and lie about it and to this day stonewall investigations.

I am so sick of this issue.  Yes, there were more conservative groups targeted than liberal, but they all deserved the extra scrutiny.  In fact, I believe that office did not go far enough - they should have denied tax exempt status to all of them, conservative or liberal. 

The congress didn't leave four good men to die in Benghazi and then lie to the American people about it and to this day have stonewalled investigations.

No, they just slashed the budget for embassy security, but I'm sure that had no effect at all.

The congress didn't seize journalist's phone records without their knowledge. The congress isn't collecting all emails and phone call records. The congress didn't threaten imprisonment of a conservative news reporter (Jay Rosen) for doing his job.

Don't get me wrong, I am extremely disappointed with the administration regarding privacy and national security.  But Congress overwhelmingly passing the PATRIOT Act and then renewing definitely contributed to the current climate.

What you mean is incapable of passing the legislation you want? I believe a less active legislature is a positive.

Please explain how the government shutdown and repeatedly going to the brink on the debt ceiling is a positive thing?

And it's the dems who have failed to get a budget passed and plan not to pass on this year... again.

It takes two sides to cause gridlock.

I know what I call trillion dollar annual deficits the last five years... irresponsible and immoral. We have no right to spend future generation's money, it's called taxation without proper representation. Let's see, why'd the American people revolt in the 1700's again? Oh yeah, now I remember.

To suggest we are in the same situation America was in pre-Revolution is again hyperbolic and irresponsible.  It is extreme statements like this from both sides that have caused America to become so polarized and politicians unwilling to compromise.

I also believe forcing people to lose their doctors and insurance plans and under the force of threat to purchase plans they can't afford is arrogant and immoral.

There are definite problems with the ACA, but reform was needed.  Maybe if the opposition actually put forth ideas that could lead to bettering America instead of wasting legislative time holding dozens and dozens of purely symbolic votes repealing the act, it could be improved.

[Hikari]

Lol Skin I agree completely, I also would like to note that mention of Obama doing something has provoked such a visceral response for no real reason. It could just be said that it probably wouldn't be legal to try and use an executive order in that way. I understand being angry at the situation and even the policies, I was quite frustrated when they decided waterboarding somehow wasn't torture when the US wanted to do it, but that didn't make George Bush responsible for the common cold. No president has the power or authority to justify the level of blame pushed on them for events that took place under their term.

[amZo]

I am so sick of this issue.  Yes, there were more conservative groups targeted than liberal, but they all deserved the extra scrutiny.  In fact, I believe that office did not go far enough - they should have denied tax exempt status to all of them, conservative or liberal. 

No, they just slashed the budget for embassy security, but I'm sure that had no effect at all.

Don't get me wrong, I am extremely disappointed with the administration regarding privacy and national security.  But Congress overwhelmingly passing the PATRIOT Act and then renewing definitely contributed to the current climate.

Please explain how the government shutdown and repeatedly going to the brink on the debt ceiling is a positive thing?

It takes two sides to cause gridlock.

To suggest we are in the same situation America was in pre-Revolution is again hyperbolic and irresponsible.  It is extreme statements like this from both sides that have caused America to become so polarized and politicians unwilling to compromise.

There are definite problems with the ACA, but reform was needed.  Maybe if the opposition actually put forth ideas that could lead to bettering America instead of wasting legislative time holding dozens and dozens of purely symbolic votes repealing the act, it could be improved.

My comments seem to be getting under your skin skin.   

[skin]

Not your comments in particular, because your comments are unfortunately all too common.  The shift in the political climate that has lead to your comments being common is what gets under my skin.

[amZo]

Good, I was beginning to think you were going to dissect and analyze everything I say here. I just have no problem seeing the truth for what it is, no matter how uncomfortable it is to me or others. No offense.