Who does Obama's Executive Orders actually legally apply to?

[The_Golden_Turd]

I don’t get the news everyday, neither internet nor cable at my house, but I do a full review of country and international news every few days on the net. I have to ask, since when did Executive Orders apply to free americans? I was always under the impression they were Executive Branch agency directives, and beholden only to them… as the president, being the head of the executive branch, was already in charge of them, and inherently has the power to enforce his will upon them, as far as the scope of preexisting law is concerned, and that law always trumps executive orders, and the constitution trumps the laws.

I recognize the president’s power to do silly shit, like announce anyone in the Post Office under 5 feet tall must wear pointy gnome hats so people on the other side of the counter know they are there… wacky pointless stuff if he cares to… but his power to envoke executive orders outside of a wartime scenerio- like the American Civil War, and even then it was very sparingly- just doesn’t exist. Its why we’re a republic, and not a Monarchy, we’re deeply opposed as a people to massive powergrabs by executive powers, muddling with our laws and way of life. If we didn’t vote on it, or have laws saying otherwise, it’s not just best to leave our laws, and our lives alone, it’s the law of the land, and expected of a president to obey and respect our will.

I don’t think most of his orders i’ve seen so far have any force of law period. If Congress decided to enact laws structured on them, SOME of them might, but even then… we got this thing called a constitution, and it trumps him, and anything he might charismatically say to a hyped up audience of political loyalists.

We’re left with a awkward situation- if Obama’s Executive Orders are declared legal, then Obama has effectively launched a insurrection against the constitution on two fronts. One, the interpretation of the Second Admendment that claims everyone has a right to weapons. I don’t agree with this, but it is effectively- given the structure of our supreme court’s decision making process, De Facto and De Jure the Second Admendment. Secondly, his overstep is a outright seizure of unprecedented legislative power independent of his constitutional role as president. His very office, and his authority, is dependent upon that constitution he is systemmatically repressing.

As of this moment, the US may effectively be without a legal Executive power, as Obama has systemmatically violated his constitutional role, and has made classic grabs for power that paralells classical models of Tyrants both ancient and modern. His insurrection puts the successionalist movement squarely in his camp.

We’re now witnessing the first days of what will over time more than likely develope into open civil strife. I don’t think there is much of a chance of peace- far too many americans have received military training in the last few wars, putting any attempt of serious enforcement of the Anti-Constitutionalist camp’s policy into serious effect with military backing- most troops aren’t going to support a FRAGO that requires them to systemmatically disarm a population. I don’t expect ‘defections’ or a counter movement that seizes territory for a constitutional front developing, but rather some impressive lethargy on the part of any military deployment to put down ‘riots’ or reinforce federal branches such as the FBI or CIA. Obama can’t really rely on most of the Army in this regard- the branches of the military most naturally inline to support him are the airforce, and half of their bases are in very close proximity to a Army Airborne Unit, and our smart missles are not really that effective on our tanks and mech infantry units… the curvature and uranium folding, and ceramic frame shell in them makes missles largely bounce off or implode before damage can occure to the chassis. Besides, I suspect most of the pilots will flee to Mexico or Canada before bombing a American column putting down a clear and present federal upsurption.

the strategic realignment of troops- mostly to Alaska for the Army and Guam for the Marines, well above Cold War levels in both theaters, puts the homeland at risk in several areas where those forces would be expected to be the least accepting of Obama’s Policies. China’s threat to the Phillipines is a poor justification for the strategic realignment that shifted most of our combat troops roughly12 timezones opposite of Iraq when the policy was announced- the threat was decades old, and amaturely enacted upon by China, well before 9-11.

I think Obama recognizes this, and that is why he’s been excellerating the overseas buildup- so those forces least reliable in any insurrection on his part would increasingly be the most distant. If he could deploy them on the moon, he would. I also don’t think his first attempts at enforcing this will be on a international level, but in territories and locals most in line with his political agenda, using local police forces, so he can deny any direct influence, allowing the measure over a few months once the pretend timetable comes into play (remember, the executive orders are for the most part inherently illegal and unconsitutional) in providing precedent when it doesn’t turn violent for how ATF and FBI is to police the policies, and further when it turns violent- as it is most just and right for people to resist this with the full force at their disposal against any tyrant foolish enough to encourch upon them, or lackies stupidy and twisted enough to enforce it without reading the constitution, or paying attention to the Oath they swore to the constitution- to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, be they renegade police or military backing a president acting well outside of the parameters of his office, without congressional backing- he will use it as a further means to demonize the people to a isolated, socially dependent urban population that has been systemmatically brainwashed to live in fear and dependency.

I don’t see a actual enforcement of this policy by most police forces. His executive orders limit policy ammo to seven rounds, same as civilians (not to mention military- hate to be the poor guy in the guard tower in afganistan behind a 50 cal. with but 7 rounds ready to go, it applies to them as well, that’s what executive orders do when you don’t limit the scope), so most policy sieges are going to end disaster on the police end if they are actually going to enforce it on themselves as well. Of course, arguements on police and military being immune to the effects will arise- but since it wasn’t laws enacted by a democratic congress, but rather a decree declared by King Obama, first King of the Americans since the revolutionary war supposedly snubbed out this outrageous, monarchial behavior behavior of legislating the civilian population via by unsolicited, unwanted decrees- I don’t see how the police who care to enact these invalid laws can justify enforcing them on the populating- who violate NO LAWS in not abiding by them, can justify the dictonomy of their superior right to extra ammunition over the needs and claims of others.

If you want to limit ammo- so be it. A consitutional admendment and, if your wise, follow up by congress is required. Bowing in subservience to a upsurper, throwing away centuries of democracy is unwarranted, and deeply disasterous to the survival of democracy not just in the US, but the world over. If we descend into a civil war over this- or worst in the long term, DON’T, then all the countries we’ve been propping up- the socialist nations of Europe who barely maintain militaries, and require the US to effectively police their border areas and fight their wars- such as Libya, and discourage Russia from pushing back in- or in Asia, who’s cultures are up until recently Fascist (including taiwan, south korea, phillipines) you can expect the domino effect to ripple very fast over the next two generations in causing a collapse of the democratic police and a recurrance of mass suppression, mass militarization, and the emergence of hostile military pacts in many parts of the world currently at peace.

Those evil hillbilly gunslinging cowboys everyone mocks and puts down have been the best Check and Balance, and at this point the only reliable one since Obama took office, effectively breaking the Three Divisions of Government Check and Balance, in existence. It’s one of the few things keeping us from turning the US landscape into some fucked up, Greek Civil War scenerio. Yes- other governments have done the same as Obama- but those governments either are historically dictatorships, or are heavily propped up by the US and ride our coattails in policy and their engine of economics. They don’t have a very bright future if they suddenly find their old rolemodel has gone down hill faster than shit into a backwards, suppressive tyranny.

People- this is how it starts. It’s no longer a hypothetical future. It’s here. It’s starting, by and through his actions. The circumstances are now, however nebulas the full form it will eventually become, it’s literally starting now. It will be in the future traced back to now. History will judge us on our actions. Don’t support this insurrection. Have nothing to do with the policies, if you can avoid supplying material or financial support to the insurrectionalists backing Obama, do so. We have a right to our lives and our liberty, and if they come for it, flee if you can, fight if you can’t. Don’t support Obama’s machine anymore, don’t feed the cycle of violence he’s taken us on the path of. If alternatives exist, to limit his campaign against the people, take them- but also defend the long term against his encroachment- he’ll play many a trick on us in the offtime legally splicing his supposed legal meanings and policies of encorfement peacemeal until we’re left with nothing to resist with. We need to back a return to the consitution, to democracy, to our republic. If you back a tyrant, your a enemy to your own people. We must strive to live in a world without enemies.

[Moreno]

Executive orders can affect pretty much everything and anyone on the planet. The ones that have been made about martial law like situations assign powers in relation to every single facet of all life in the US to this or that agency etc. And Obama has shifted this over to the non-elected Homeland Sec instead of Fema - and also taken elected officials out of the process. IOW Homeland can now decide there is an emergency coming IN THE FUTURE and do pretty much anything locally or nationally. Before, when it was FEMA’s baliwick, Fema had to be invited into a state or county by the government officials, presumable elected ones. It’s a little commented on power of the executive and both party’s presidents have used it and both have allowed for what any rational person would call a coup and shift to fascism to be a smooth and legal one.

[tentative]

There has been 13600+ executive orders issued beginning with Abraham Lincoln. It’s hardly a new concept. GW Bush issued 172 exec orders in 8 years. Obama has issued 145 so far. Many of these orders are just housekeeping orders clarifying existing law. Some are more controversial such as Roosevelt’s executive order that resulted in the interrment of Japanese american citizens during WWII. Critics always scream that the constitution is being violated, but the constitution grants executive powers. Who screams the loudest depends on who can profit or lose money by the order. I don’t recall much bitching and moaning on the executive orders that allowed Halliburton to rake in billions of dollars in Iraq. The validity of any order can be contested, it just depends on who’s ox is being gored.

[Moreno]

@tentative

There has been 13600+ executive orders issued beginning with Abraham Lincoln. It’s hardly a new concept. GW Bush issued 172 exec orders in 8 years. Obama has issued 145 so far. Many of these orders are just housekeeping orders clarifying existing law. Some are more controversial such as Roosevelt’s executive order that resulted in the interrment of Japanese american citizens during WWII. Critics always scream that the constitution is being violated, but the constitution grants executive powers. Who screams the loudest depends on who can profit or lose money by the order. I don’t recall much bitching and moaning on the executive orders that allowed Halliburton to rake in billions of dollars in Iraq. The validity of any order can be contested, it just depends on who’s ox is being gored.

I think some people object to specific EO on other than who gets money issues. In fact I do object to some on moral and practical grounds.

Further, it’s got a hazy Constitutional justification, and this becomes very weak when the Orders go against the constitution, in that they are not simply about clarifýing the enforcement or application of a previously existing law - if, that is, they don’t go against the constitution directly, not simply against the weak support for the orders that exists in the Constitution.

[tentative]

@Moreno

@tentative

There has been 13600+ executive orders issued beginning with Abraham Lincoln. It’s hardly a new concept. GW Bush issued 172 exec orders in 8 years. Obama has issued 145 so far. Many of these orders are just housekeeping orders clarifying existing law. Some are more controversial such as Roosevelt’s executive order that resulted in the interrment of Japanese american citizens during WWII. Critics always scream that the constitution is being violated, but the constitution grants executive powers. Who screams the loudest depends on who can profit or lose money by the order. I don’t recall much bitching and moaning on the executive orders that allowed Halliburton to rake in billions of dollars in Iraq. The validity of any order can be contested, it just depends on who’s ox is being gored.

I think some people object to specific EO on other than who gets money issues. In fact I do object to some on moral and practical grounds.

Further, it’s got a hazy Constitutional justification, and this becomes very weak when the Orders go against the constitution, in that they are not simply about clarifýing the enforcement or application of a previously existing law - if, that is, they don’t go against the constitution directly, not simply against the weak support for the orders that exists in the Constitution.

I agree. There have been executive orders that have sent us into wars not declared by congress as well as other orders of questionable intent. There has only been one executive order overturned and that was a Truman EO. Granted, the constitutional justification is fuzzy. That’s why presidents use it. Today, they are reasonably careful to align the orders with reference to existing precedence in law, so the line of what is or isn’t constitutional is just an ideological pissing contest. If you look at the criticism of presidential EO’s, it seems to always come from the party not in power. Curious that, huh?

[lizbethrose]

An executive order is a way of telling agencies within the government how to do their jobs. The President is the Executive–the CEO–of the Federal government. Presidents since George Washington (not Lincoln, tent) have used them to direct the various agencies on those things that fall under their job descriptions. President Obama issued 3 Presidential memos to agencies concerning gun control:

1. direct federal law enforcement to trace all guns taken in federal custody in the course of a criminal investigation
   2)direct the Department of Justice to ensure that all applicable information from federal agencies is made available for background checks
   3)and direct the Department of Health to "conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it. (nymag.com)

There’s nothing in the Constitution that disallows either executive orders or Presidential memos unless they go against the tripartite structure of the government with it’s checks and balances. Even then the strictures are implicit rather than explicit.

George W. Bush went against the Constitution when he didn’t ask Congress to declare war against Iraq. I think he was legally able to get by with it because the 1st Gulf War hadn’t ended with a treaty, but with a cease-fire. This means the invasion of Iraq wasn’t a new war, it was simply a continuation of an unsettled war.

So, Presidential orders, directives, memos–whatever they’re called–apply to the agencies within the FG to which they’re directed.

[SIATD_v2]

This is hilarious. A bunch of people who don’t want to accept that their country is basically run by the military arm of the government are nitpicking over whether executive orders per se are unusual, rather than the specific orders issued by Obama.

You have no chance. You’re all dead, it’s that simple.

[James_S_Saint]

Congress To Vote On Declaration of Worldwide Perpetual War With No Borders And No Clear Enemies

* Endless War – The war will continue until all hostilities are terminated, which will never happen.
* No Borders – The president will have the full authority to launch military strikes against any country, organization or person, including against U.S citizens on U.S soil.
* Unilateral Military Action – Full authority to invade any nation at any time with no congressional approval required.
* No Clearly Defined Enemy – The US can declare or allege anyone a terrorist or allege they are or have been supporting “hostilities” against the US and attack at will.
* Authorization To Invade Several Countries – The president would have full authority to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, along with several other nations in Africa and the Middle East and even Russia and China under the legislation all of which are “know” to have supported and aided hostilities against the United States.

New Authorization of Worldwide War Without End?

May 18, 2011

In May 2011, the House of Representatives voted to approve a version of the National Defense Authorization Bill (NDAA) with a provision that that would authorize worldwide war, and worldwide imprisonment, in virtually any country where a terrorism suspect lives, even here in America itself.

If passed, this “sleeper provision” could become the single biggest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history.

President Obama has not sought new war authority. In fact, his administration has made clear that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism.

But Congress is considering monumental new legislation that would grant the president – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere. Unlike previous grants of authority for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the proposed legislation would allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S. citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an attack. The legislation is broad enough to permit a president to use military force within the United States and against American citizens. The legislation contains no expiration date, and no criteria to determine when a president’s authority to use military force would end.

Of all of the powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” That is why, in 2002, when Congress was considering whether to authorize war in Iraq, it held fifteen hearings, and passed legislation that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective. Now, Congress is poised to give unchecked authority to the executive branch to use military force worldwide, with profoundly negative consequences for our fundamental democratic system of checks and balances. Once Congress expands the president’s war power, it will be nearly impossible to rein it back in. The ACLU strongly opposes a wholesale turnover of war power from Congress to the president – and all of his successors.

[lizbethrose]

@SIATD v2

This is hilarious. A bunch of people who don’t want to accept that their country is basically run by the military arm of the government are nitpicking over whether executive orders per se are unusual, rather than the specific orders issued by Obama.

You have no chance. You’re all dead, it’s that simple.

SIATD, we have no “military arm of the government;” we have the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The DoD is a part of the Executive Branch, as is the CoS (which falls under the DoD,) but they’re advisers to the President who’s the CiC. The military can’t move without orders from the President and the approval by Congress. At least, that’s how it’s written.

[lizbethrose]

James, where did you get the quotes making up your last post?

[Moreno]

@SIATD v2

This is hilarious. A bunch of people who don’t want to accept that their country is basically run by the military arm of the government are nitpicking over whether executive orders per se are unusual, rather than the specific orders issued by Obama.

You have no chance. You’re all dead, it’s that simple.

I completely disagree. It’s run by the corporations and the military. Your version is just paranoid.

[James_S_Saint]

The link as at the top of the second qoute, Liz.

[lizbethrose]

@James S Saint

The link as at the top of the second qoute, Liz.

Thanks, James. I didn’t realize it was a link. Whatever happened with the vote?

[SIATD_v2]

@lizbethrose

@SIATD v2

This is hilarious. A bunch of people who don’t want to accept that their country is basically run by the military arm of the government are nitpicking over whether executive orders per se are unusual, rather than the specific orders issued by Obama.

You have no chance. You’re all dead, it’s that simple.

SIATD, we have no “military arm of the government;” we have the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The DoD is a part of the Executive Branch, as is the CoS (which falls under the DoD,) but they’re advisers to the President who’s the CiC. The military can’t move without orders from the President and the approval by Congress. At least, that’s how it’s written.

Realistically, the Pentagon is the world’s largest single institution. The government in Washington is just its fundraising department (or one of its several fundraising departments). The election is just the public choosing which guy they want to manage the Pentagon’s main fundraising department. When the manager chosen by the public does something like passing the recent NDAAs or authorising assassinations of whoever the CIA says is dangerous, they bleat and argue about the number of executive orders rather than their content.

I honestly see no logical end to this situation except your people ending up dead. I wish it were otherwise but given that the resistance are mostly concerned with bickering about who should be allowed to own machine guns, while the Pentagon figures out ways of frying people with microwaves from a supersonic jet, I just can’t see another way out. If you Americans prove me wrong on that then I will happily apologise for my statements.

[James_S_Saint]

They are going to continue murdering your people and your children until you give them what they want.

@lizbethrose

Thanks, James. I didn’t realize it was a link. Whatever happened with the vote?

I didn’t trace it back that far.

I’m more than a little busy with the Sandy Hook issues now that Anderson Cooper is being implicated in treason.

[Mr_Reasonable]

@SIATD v2

This is hilarious. A bunch of people who don’t want to accept that their country is basically run by the military arm of the government are nitpicking over whether executive orders per se are unusual, rather than the specific orders issued by Obama.

You have no chance. You’re all dead, it’s that simple.

You gotta factor in that no matter what the media hype is, things don’t change here that much when they change a law. In the US, you don’t actually have to follow all the laws so it can totally be a spectator sport if you want it to be. Plus it’ll be a few lifetimes before we run out of anything we need, so I don’t worry.

[James_S_Saint]

.
Realize that executive orders ARE law during a state of war.

And…

House Gets Ready to Vote on New Worldwide War
By Sam Milgrom, Washington Legislative Office at 1:06pm

As we blogged last week, a hugely important provision for Congress to authorize a new worldwide war has been tucked away inside the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The bill was marked up by members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) last Wednesday that poured into Thursday morning (2:45 a.m. to be exact).

A couple of minutes past midnight, Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) offered an amendment to strike Sec. 1034 — the new authorization for worldwide war provision — from the NDAA. Visibly angry that such a large sweeping provision had not yet had any public hearing whatsoever, he vigorously characterized it as a very broad declaration of war.

Rep. Garamendi was very concerned by the limitless geographic boundaries of the provision. Essentially, it would enable the U.S. to use military force anywhere in the world (including within the U.S.) in search of terrorists.

He also alluded to the idea that the HASC might not have proper jurisdiction over such a provision in the first place, suggesting that it would be an issue for the House Foreign Affairs Committee to take up. Clearly, he was beyond troubled by the fact that this markup was the very first time either committee has discussed the provision.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) was the only member to speak in support of Sec. 1034 of the NDAA. Interestingly enough he didn’t reply to the declaration of war charge by Rep. Garamendi.

In defense of Sec. 1034, and in opposition of the amendment, Rep. Thornberry said the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 was hastily written and it is no longer responsive to the threat Americans face from terrorists today. He said the provision in the NDAA updates the 2001 AUMF and it is an especially good time to address it in light of the capturing and killing of Osama bin Laden.

Debate on the Rep. Garamendi’s amendment ended when he withdrew it, and declared that he plans to introduce it again on the House floor where he expects a fully engaged debate.

So, while a new authorization for worldwide war has had its first public debate, it unfortunately only lasted a hair over 10 minutes and occurred after midnight.

Though it is a very troubling expansion of war authority, it has been lingering for more than three years as a “sleeper provision,” and it is finally getting the attention of some members of Congress. We hope that further debate in Congress in the weeks ahead will allow for a more in-depth examination of unchecked authority to wage worldwide war, and what the outcomes of such a provision will yield.

Stay engaged — you can help now by telling your representative to oppose any new and expanded war authority. The debate over the NDAA and its multitude of amendments will begin the week of May 23, and we suspect it will be a lively one.

So as far as Congress is concern, currently under NDAA, the USA is already in a state of perpetual war and they see no great concern over such. Thus Congress approval of executive orders is merely a formality.

House Passes Bill Authorizing Worldwide War As Momentum Builds Against It
May 26, 2011

Defense Bill Also Contains Several Other Troubling Provisions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – The House today passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains a dangerous provision that authorizes a worldwide war against terrorism suspects and against nations suspected of supporting them. The bill includes several additional troubling provisions, including one that would needlessly delay the implementation of the repeal of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and another blocking all federal criminal trials of suspected terrorists who are not U.S. citizens. The American Civil Liberties Union strongly opposes the authorization for worldwide war and many other provisions in the bill.

Earlier this week, President Obama threatened to veto the legislation, citing concerns with the worldwide war provision and provisions limiting the executive branch’s authority to transfer terrorism suspects to the United States for prosecution or for release to other countries. An amendment to strike the worldwide war provision failed despite a strong bipartisan vote.

“The tide has begun to turn against the worldwide war proposal,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Two weeks ago, very few people even knew this dangerous worldwide war provision was being considered. Yet today, a bipartisan group of 187 members voted to try to block its passage and the president has issued a veto threat against it. The Senate should now build on today’s momentum and kill off this dangerous unlimited war proposal. A new authorization of worldwide war will mean unrestricted powers to use the military at home and abroad at a time when the majority of Americans want limits on U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts. Not only will this authority make America less safe, it is unnecessary and will undermine our values and change us as a nation.”

The worldwide war provision was added to the bill by the committee’s chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), and goes much further than the current authorization of war. The new authorization would last as long as there are terrorism suspects anywhere in the world and would allow a president to use military force in any country around the world where there are terrorism suspects, even when there is no connection to the 9/11 attacks or any other specific harm or threat to the United States.

[Jayson]

I’m not really certain which Executive Order is being referred to.

The Executive Orders don’t really address anything for the citizen…the Congressional Actions being proposed do…the EO’s are all about process flow provisions on the back-end so that if the Congressional Actions are enacted the various agencies are able to comply.
See here:
nytimes.com/interactive/2013 … posal.html

[Moreno]

@Jayson

I’m not really certain which Executive Order is being referred to.

The Executive Orders don’t really address anything for the citizen…the Congressional Actions being proposed do…the EO’s are all about process flow provisions on the back-end so that if the Congressional Actions are enacted the various agencies are able to comply.
See here:
nytimes.com/interactive/2013 … posal.html

The direct order I mentioned has potential direct effects for the individual citizen. I mentioned why in that post. I would add to my post that not only do they not have to be invited, they can simply say that a crisis is coming, whereas before FEMA would be responding to a current disaster.

[Jayson]

I’m not claiming that there’s not an EO of which you are discussing, but do you have a reference to it?
I’m not familiar with the EO that you are speaking of and the current round of EO’s consequent from the shooting incident doesn’t have anything on it for that…at least, not that I’m seeing listed anywhere.

Most of the EO’s that were made in response to the shooting address the Patriot act’s removal of ATF power over Federal regulation over Federally licensed gun dealers; to include finally putting a Director back into the seat of the ATF after the position had been vacated post Patriot act, permitting law enforcement to run traces on firearms that were used in cime and reporting those results, and re-releasing the snuffed out analysis report of firearms used in crime and where they were obtained from (also removed via the Patriot act).

Things like these are what’s in the EO’s for the current issue, and I think these are good, as the Patriot act shouldn’t have had anything to do with the ATF; especially not stripping it down from being able to function over the past half a decade.