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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: You know I hated it when Bush bypassed Congress [View all]SoFlaJet
(7,770 posts)2. I keep thinking
about what would the response be in the media if it were the democrats playing the same way. There would be a LOT more light being shone on the fact that it's the congress that is trying to destroy this presidency caring not whether the country gets hurt by it or not. I've never seen it so bad-and I am old enough to have lived through Watergate. I thought THAT was about as bad as it could get but this, THIS is ten times worse. I hate the republican party and all they stand for-not the people ( I have a lot of republican friends who are great people), the policies
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
There is a document that forbids him from doing that. We don't elect kings in the United States.
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#5
The President had two years with both houses of Congress to do this. Why didn't he?
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#7
Why did it take a back seat? I was in favor of the legislation, as were a majority of Democrats in
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#20
And I answered yours. It wasn't politically favorable to do so at the time. Now the President
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#24
What does the Catholic/Mormon comment have to do with what we're discussing? President Obama
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#28
Thank you for putting that silly lie to rest. I hear it all the time on talk radio, and usually....
Tarheel_Dem
Jun 2012
#31
Bush Jr tried to do immigration reform and he was stopped in the same manner.
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#14
The majority has the option of changing the rules at the beginning of each session.
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#16
Absolutely. The Founding Fathers never envisioned the use of a filibuster at all, let alone a 60
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#22
When Lincoln used the executive pen to suspend Habeus Corpus, he was reviled for it. Historians to
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#23
"Forbids"? Obviously, you're completely wrong, as he did it. And it's been done before.
Tarheel_Dem
Jun 2012
#30
That's fine. Let's have this debate, but you used the word "forbid", and that's simply not true. nt
Tarheel_Dem
Jun 2012
#33
The US Constitution *does* forbid the President from using executive orders to skirt Congress.
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#35
When the President writes an executive order that directs a department to *not* enforce a law, then
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#39
You and I cannot/will not settle this. There's a thread in this very forum where an atty general...
Tarheel_Dem
Jun 2012
#42
So after these "temporary stays," they will be rounded up and sent back to their countries?
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#44
No. This is the first time that a president has issued an executive order to prohibit enforcing
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#46