[Napoleon17]

According to this person, executive orders are judicially unenforceable. That being said, I don't know how reputable this source is, but what she's saying in the article makes sense to me, I guess. At the very least, the executive order seems like a pretty weak move, designed to placate the pro-life pro-health care bill people, giving them a way to cover their butts come election time. The bigger question for all these pro-lifers who are mad is how does this health care bill fund abortion? I still haven't figured that out after much researching on Google... and I am a notoriously good Googler.

Originally Posted by nolidad

So let me get this straight-- Rep. Stupak was against teh bill because when he said the bill allowed funding for abortion He was WRONG! When president Obama signed an exedutive order (to appease pro life dems to get them to vote for the bill) forbidding fed funds to be used fro aboretions--this executive order was totally uneccesary because the bill doesnt allow for fed funds for abortion. So all this bluster by pro life dems was in error and the nice phot o op of Pres Obama signing that uneeded exec order was just kabuki theater?? Wow they sure did waste a whole lot of time over a fallacy then and got a whole lot of people worked up over nothing. But that just shows that if these assumptions I just made are true that the dems don't even know what is in the bill they passed into law actually contains!!!

Actually, Robert Gibbs came out and basically said that the executive order was just reiterating what was in the bill.

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well I can only tell you what I have heard from tea partiers and saw on Beck. It was a catalyst- granted things Obama did were the the straws that pushed to action- but many things that Bush did pushed people to start teh ball rolling.

This is true. The last 2 years of Bush's idiocy really did start getting people sick of the federal government. Then, remember the election campaigns leading up to the 2008 election? Those who voted for and donated to Ron Paul did so because of their nausea over what Bush was doing. Then someone who wants an even bigger and more influential government gets elected, and those same people get really "galvanized". It wasn't just Obama. It was the last 2-4 years of Bush's presidency as well.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Napoleon17

According to this person, executive orders are judicially unenforceable. That being said, I don't know how reputable this source is, but what she's saying in the article makes sense to me, I guess. At the very least, the executive order seems like a pretty weak move, designed to placate the pro-life pro-health care bill people, giving them a way to cover their butts come election time. The bigger question for all these pro-lifers who are mad is how does this health care bill fund abortion? I still haven't figured that out after much researching on Google... and I am a notoriously good Googler.



Actually, Robert Gibbs came out and basically said that the executive order was just reiterating what was in the bill.



This is true. The last 2 years of Bush's idiocy really did start getting people sick of the federal government. Then, remember the election campaigns leading up to the 2008 election? Those who voted for and donated to Ron Paul did so because of their nausea over what Bush was doing. Then someone who wants an even bigger and more influential government gets elected, and those same people get really "galvanized". It wasn't just Obama. It was the last 2-4 years of Bush's presidency as well.

Well to the first part-- then the EO was just a useless piece of stationary if it just restated things inthe bill- it was unneeded.

To your second part- Yes the tea arty was born under Bush but coalesced and became a movement with th erise of Obama.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well to the first part-- then the EO was just a useless piece of stationary if it just restated things inthe bill- it was unneeded.

Unneeded stuff gets passed all the time.

For example: in 1975 we passed laws making racial and age-based discrimination illegal. Then in 1977, we passed another anti-disctrimination law that made (among others) age and racial discrimination illegal.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Unneeded stuff gets passed all the time.

For example: in 1975 we passed laws making racial and age-based discrimination illegal. Then in 1977, we passed another anti-disctrimination law that made (among others) age and racial discrimination illegal.

That is why I like TExas style government-- meet for about 90 days every couple of years- get the business done- and go home and only come back if an emergency requires it.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

That is why I like TExas style government-- meet for about 90 days every couple of years- get the business done- and go home and only come back if an emergency requires it.

No doubt why Texas law-enforcement spends your tax dollars doing sting operations on people who sell vibrators.

Also likely why patent trolls always file in TX.

On the topic however: Yes, the EO is basically to appease a certain sub-section of the legislature... it's not actually neccessairy.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No doubt why Texas law-enforcement spends your tax dollars doing sting operations on people who sell vibrators.

They get federal money for that nonsense?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

They get federal money for that nonsense?

I honestly don't know. In theory "no", in practice....

I'm working under the assumption that noli wouldn't dare live anywhere but "true America" Texas... therefore his taxes.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I honestly don't know. In theory "no", in practice....

I'm working under the assumption that noli wouldn't dare live anywhere but "true America" Texas... therefore his taxes.

Ahh, okay.

I thought noli lived in Massachusetts for some reason. Now I'm not sure.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

I thought noli lived in Massachusetts for some reason. Now I'm not sure.

He might, I didn't actually check first

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Ahh, okay.

I thought noli lived in Massachusetts for some reason. Now I'm not sure.

Well slap J you get teh prize for paying attention to the numerous times I mentioned what state I lived in.

No doubt why Texas law-enforcement spends your tax dollars doing sting operations on people who sell vibrators.

So you made this up to what????

What are patent trolls??

Well I looked it up- whats the big deal- If someone owns the rights to something- it is theirs to do or not do with it what they want. It is theoir property whether intellectual or physicial. Someone infirnges on it- they need to pay, just like royalties on music.

I'm working under the assumption that noli wouldn't dare live anywhere but "true America" Texas... therefore his taxes.

Don't ever go into mind reading for a living-- you really are lousy at it!

If I had to choose a state I would pick Florida- just to be near you who loves me so much!!!!!

[tlj009]

Posted By OiBoyz
They're too afraid to lose goodies if it's a failed attempt.

The States have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Posted By Nolidad
But it would take 2/3 of both houses and then 3/4 of the states enacting it to overturn any decision. Tough way to go --usually years long.

It would take 3/4 of the states to make any constitutional amendment that they wanted and overturn any laws that they want. It would take 34 states to call the convention and 38 states to pass any laws. Apparently there are 37 states upset about this new health care law and are considering laws to oppose it. Fourteen (last time I checked) are actually suing. As for taking years, I believe lawsuits take a long time too. I don't know why this method would take any longer. And the states wouldn't even have to pass anything. I suspect that if a convention was called, the Feds would give the states pretty much what they want out of fear of what laws may get passed. I just really want the states to rein in the Feds at this point, health care bill or not.