Thread: Executive Order

Regardless of were you stand on the gun control issue, do you think President Obama should go through the normal channels to make gun laws, or do you think that it is ok for him to make Executive Orders on something so controversial?

I guess we will soon find out if those of us who said before he was re-elected that he would start pushing things through by executive order were right or not. Of course these kind of things should be legislated through Congress.

I'm 100% fine with him using an Executive Order to get gun control legislation created. And I didn't vote for Obama in this last election or the one before it. I've never voted Democrat, in fact.

Republicans have proven that they won't work with ANYthing, even when common sense mandates that they ought to, so he needs to go over their heads to get anything done. This isn't about Obama, this is about obstinate republicans who have dedicated themselves to gridlock and non action, even when it works against the best wishes of their constituents and the nation at large, IMO.

I'm also hugely in favor of gun control, Obvs, so clearly that skews my opinion on the matter. If you hate the idea of your "rights" to weapons of mass destruction being limited in any way, of course you are going to be against this idea.

Originally Posted by Potter75

I'm 100% fine with him using an Executive Order to get gun control legislation created. And I didn't vote for Obama in this last election or the one before it. I've never voted Democrat, in fact.

Republicans have proven that they won't work with ANYthing, even when common sense mandates that they ought to, so he needs to go over their heads to get anything done. This isn't about Obama, this is about obstinate republicans who have dedicated themselves to gridlock and non action, even when it works against the best wishes of their constituents and the nation at large, IMO.

I'm also hugely in favor of gun control, Obvs, so clearly that skews my opinion on the matter. If you hate the idea of your "rights" to weapons of mass destruction being limited in any way, of course you are going to be against this idea.

I agree with this, except that of course I did vote for Obama. However, while I am a registered Democrat, I actually do believe that the country benefits from having both sides work together. I think that having a diversity of thought and focus is beneficial to all of us, and I believe that having sane, thoughtful Conservatives and sane thoughtful Liberals working together and coming up with compromises is the best scenario for our country. However, it seems to me that most of the current batch of Republicans are not interested in working with anyone except to "Just Say No" as they have so proudly proclaimed. If someone won't work with you and is actively stopping you from getting anything done at all, you may have to side step them. That's a shame because your projects may well suffer from the lack of a different perspective, but it's better than never being able to get anything at all done.

I do think there should be some basic gun control laws put into place, such as back ground checks and waiting times. However, I feel the proper way to get it done is through the checks and balance of Congress. The very reason there is a balance of power is so that no one person has that much control.

I will confess that I am ignorant on exactly how it works. Is there anything Congress can do to over ride an executive order?

Would you feel the same about Executive Order if it was a Republican president making an executive order banning abortion? Do you not feel that it would be better for major controversial issues to go through the proper channels?

ETA - What if the shoe was on the other foot. What if it was a Conservative president with a very sweeping conservative agenda that went against everything you believed in? Would you not want your representatives to dig their heals in and represent what you wanted and to say no change is better than change for the worse? If the issues were not gun control and universal healthcare, but instead were banning abortion, federal bans on gay marriage, removing minimum wage and other issues that you were really against. Wouldn't you hope that the president would work through Congress and not just give Executive order on huge controversial big ticket items? Keep in mind that what Obama does now will set the precedent for the future when it might not be a president that you support.

I think it is a horrible precedent for the President to make.. pun intended .
I do not think Executive Orders should be used for large policy. For one Executive Orders can be changed with the president, as far as I know.
Secondly, it should be reserved for emergencies and for issues that the public should or can not for some reason be privy too. I see the latter in cases of Executive Pardons. And the first in cases of war or national disasters of a high enough magnitude as to not wait to deal with.
It is way better in the long run for both sides of the issue to go through the Senate and the HOUSE.. There is a reason that there are checks and balances in our Constitution.
It just reeks again of throwing our Constitution out because there is a "better way"... Hope and Change are meaningless words ... Hope in WHAT.. Change to WHAT.. The WHAT is the important word, the rest can be used for ill or good.

Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers

I do think there should be some basic gun control laws put into place, such as back ground checks and waiting times. However, I feel the proper way to get it done is through the checks and balance of Congress. The very reason there is a balance of power is so that no one person has that much control.

I will confess that I am ignorant on exactly how it works. Is there anything Congress can do to over ride an executive order?

Would you feel the same about Executive Order if it was a Republican president making an executive order banning abortion? Do you not feel that it would be better for major controversial issues to go through the proper channels?

Well, in fairness, Republic presidents HAVE used plenty of Executive Orders, some of which were pretty controversial at the time. Here's a list of GWB's more controversial ones.

The top Bush executive orders that Obama should scrap immediately. - Slate Magazine

Having said that, I agree again that having both parties work together to come up with a compromise that hopefully everyone can live with is the best case scenario. But you can't work with people who have made it a matter of policy NOT to work with you, so that doesn't leave a lot of options if you want to get things done.

Let's add in some other things that you are opening the door to when Obama is no longer the POTUS and someone else is. Doing away with term limits? Forced military service? Anything at all. I can as Rivergallery mentioned see in emergencies using something like this, but as an everyday way to go around the balance of power and congress? Horrible decision.

Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal

Well, in fairness, Republic presidents HAVE used plenty of Executive Orders, some of which were pretty controversial at the time. Here's a list of GWB's more controversial ones.

The top Bush executive orders that Obama should scrap immediately. - Slate Magazine

Having said that, I agree again that having both parties work together to come up with a compromise that hopefully everyone can live with is the best case scenario. But you can't work with people who have made it a matter of policy NOT to work with you, so that doesn't leave a lot of options if you want to get things done.

I don't know too many people that think President Bush was a wonderful President. I do not think the fact that he did it makes something a good idea.

double post