Sign in to follow this  
Emmanuel Goldstein

The Excuse of all Tyrants

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

Executive orders are a blatant violation of the principle of separation of powers, to be used only in times of the most extreme need. Only a fool or a despot would take advantage of a pandemic of a relatively mild disease in order to tighten the reins. We stand a real chance of losing our free society. Already the morality police are fretting and wringing their hands about those troglodytes who, for some unknowable reason, don't want to wear masks.

Executive orders aren't immune from separation of powers. That's why we have courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Godless said:

Executive orders aren't immune from separation of powers. That's why we have courts.

Executive orders are threats to our democracy and destroy the foundation of our republic. 

But if the executive order is from a president I agree with, they are the best possible ways to get things done and I support them totally. Because then, they just bypass the obstructionst senate and congress! 

 

That's how it works.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Godless said:

Executive orders aren't immune from separation of powers. That's why we have courts.

I'm not sure what "immune from separation of powers" means. Executive orders are, by definition, legislation by the executive. They may be allowable in some circumstances, but their use is undeniably a violation of the separation of powers. The existence of courts doesn't change that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

I'm not sure what "immune from separation of powers" means. Executive orders are, by definition, legislation by the executive. They may be allowable in some circumstances, but their use is undeniably a violation of the separation of powers. The existence of courts doesn't change that fact.

Further than that, executive orders are often challenged.  And sometimes they are overturned or denied or whatever the appropriate legal term is.  

So, assuming he meant that executive orders are "not subject to checks and balances" that too would be incorrect.

It would be correct to say that executive orders are "not as easily" checked by the standard methods outlined in the Constitution.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Further than that, executive orders are often challenged.  And sometimes they are overturned or denied or whatever the appropriate legal term is.  

So, assuming he meant that executive orders are "not subject to checks and balances" that too would be incorrect.

I apologize if my phrasing was confusing. What I meant is that, as you said, there are ways to challenge and overturn executive orders to satisfy the need for checks and balances. It's not unbridled tyranny, as some people (on both sides) like to suggest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Godless said:

I apologize if my phrasing was confusing. What I meant is that, as you said, there are ways to challenge and overturn executive orders to satisfy the need for checks and balances. It's not unbridled tyranny, as some people (on both sides) like to suggest

I'd agree.  And let's face it, MG was correct.  Most of us are fine with executive orders that fit our agenda.  But we hate them when they don't fit our agenda.

But regardless of all that, the only basis in the Constitution for executive orders is to do what is "necessary and proper" to actually enforce laws that have been duly passed by Congress.  It is quite another thing for an executive to issue an executive order that has nothing to do with any law that has been passed.

So, regarding the executive order that you posted, what law was it based on?  If there was one, then the governor need only provide sufficient argument to get the courts to agree with him.  If there was no legislation upon which it was based, then he is overstepping the bounds placed upon him in a free society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'd agree.  And let's face it, MG was correct.  Most of us are fine with executive orders that fit our agenda.  But we hate them when they don't fit our agenda.

But regardless of all that, the only basis in the Constitution for executive orders is to do what is "necessary and proper" to actually enforce laws that have been duly passed by Congress.  It is quite another thing for an executive to issue an executive order that has nothing to do with any law that has been passed.

So, regarding the executive order that you posted, what law was it based on?  If there was one, then the governor need only provide sufficient argument to get the courts to agree with him.  If there was no legislation upon which it was based, then he is overstepping the bounds placed upon him in a free society.

Presumably, this EO (and others like it) were extensions of Trump's emergency declaration. Not a law, necessarily, but it's something that can be used in court. Emergency situations call for emergency actions. If needed, the courts can decide if the emergency actions were warranted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Godless said:

Presumably, this EO (and others like it) were extensions of Trump's emergency declaration. Not a law, necessarily, but it's something that can be used in court. Emergency situations call for emergency actions. If needed, the courts can decide if the emergency actions were warranted. 

Sounds good.  Let's take a closer look at that emergency declaration.  March 13, 2020.

Quote

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) and consistent with section 1135 of the Social Security Act (SSA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5), do hereby find and proclaim that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes a national emergency, beginning March 1, 2020. Pursuant to this declaration, I direct as follows:

Section 1. Emergency Authority. The Secretary of HHS may exercise the authority under section 1135 of the SSA to temporarily waive or modify certain requirements of the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance programs and of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule throughout the duration of the public health emergency declared in response to the COVID‑19 outbreak.

Sec. 2. Certification and Notice. In exercising this authority, the Secretary of HHS shall provide certification and advance written notice to the Congress as required by section 1135(d) of the SSA (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5(d)).

Sec. 3. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fourth.

That doesn't really say anything about closing parks or arresting people because they open a place of business.  Was there another one?

He later issues social distancing guidelines.  But I have not yet seen anything where he says such guidelines should be enforceable through fine or imprisonment.  If you know of anything where he said that, I'd be happy to look at it.

Barring that, I don't see how anything Trump did has caused these state and local officials to go to the extreme measures that we hear these (admittedly isolated) incidents portray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Sounds good.  Let's take a closer look at that emergency declaration.  March 13, 2020.

That doesn't really say anything about closing parks or arresting people because they open a place of business.  Was there another one?

He later issues social distancing guidelines.  But I have not yet seen anything where he says such guidelines should be enforceable through fine or imprisonment.  If you know of anything where he said that, I'd be happy to look at it.

Barring that, I don't see how anything Trump did has caused these state and local officials to go to the extreme measures that we hear these (admittedly isolated) incidents portray.

One might argue that this is where states' rights come into play. After all, the measures needed to contain a virus in New York may differ from the measures needed in Wyoming. 

To be clear, I'm not defending EOs closing parks and businesses. I'm just saying that orders like those are lawful until ruled otherwise by the judicial branch. It's understandable that people would be apprehensive about such forms of legislation, but to call it tyranny or authoritarianism is a bit of a reach, imo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Godless said:

One might argue that this is where states' rights come into play. After all, the measures needed to contain a virus in New York may differ from the measures needed in Wyoming. 

To be clear, I'm not defending EOs closing parks and businesses. I'm just saying that orders like those are lawful until ruled otherwise by the judicial branch. It's understandable that people would be apprehensive about such forms of legislation, but to call it tyranny or authoritarianism is a bit of a reach, imo.

Yes, and one would be right to do so.  In fact, many conservatives have praised Trump for being more federalist on this issue than many others would have been.

But then there's another important piece of the puzzle.  Each state has constitutions and laws and separation of powers as well.  Are these abiding by their own state rules?  I really don't know.  I'm sure it depends on the state.  But I'd bet most of them are not obeying those rules.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Godless said:

One might argue that this is where states' rights come into play. After all, the measures needed to contain a virus in New York may differ from the measures needed in Wyoming.

For the record, states don't have rights. People have rights. I know the term "states' rights" is thrown around a lot by the conservative side, but it's a misnomer. If we conservatives are going to take issue at stupid phrases like "gay right" or "women's rights" or "animal rights", then "states' rights" should never, ever be uttered.

1 hour ago, Godless said:

I'm just saying that orders like those are lawful until ruled otherwise by the judicial branch.

I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that this is incorrect. An unlawful order is unlawful, period. It may be prosecuted and treated as criminal or otherwise unlawful, but if a higher court finds it not so, then the adverse judgment is vacated. Awaiting confirmation/correction from JAG or other list participant lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Vort said:

For the record, states don't have rights. People have rights. I know the term "states' rights" is thrown around a lot by the conservative side, but it's a misnomer. If we conservatives are going to take issue at stupid phrases like "gay right" or "women's rights" or "animal rights", then "states' rights" should never, ever be uttered.

I disagree completely with this.

You are a Confederation of States.  In a Confederation of States, States Rights is the term that LIMITS the Federal Government or any other State from infringing on a State's Constitution.

This is completely separate and distinct from People/Citizen/Human Rights.  You see this distinction clearly in the bicameral organization of Congress where one group represents States and the other group represents People.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

States Rights is the term that LIMITS the Federal Government or any other State from infringing on a State's Constitution

Then it's a stupid term. That's not what rights are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2020 at 8:40 PM, prisonchaplain said:

The police then, look like pawns. My sympathy is even greater for the state troopers that were ordered to issue $500 tickets to attendees of a drive-in church service

A policeman's lot is not a happy one (happy one)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this