Obama true to his word on abortion

[Archaea]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...ion/index.html

He used an executive order, so he's not afraid of using the increased power of the executive after all.

Hmmm.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...ion/index.html

He used an executive order, so he's not afraid of using the increased power of the executive after all.

Hmmm.

I agree that I don't think Obama is going to be afraid to use the executive power Bush left him, but this is a poor example of it. There is a lot of precedent for this. Reagan started it, Clinton rescinded it, Bush reinstated it, and now Obama rescinds it. Probably the next Republican president will reinstate it again.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I agree that I don't think Obama is going to be afraid to use the executive power Bush left him, but this is a poor example of it. There is a lot of precedent for this. Reagan started it, Clinton rescinded it, Bush reinstated it, and now Obama rescinds it. Probably the next Republican president will reinstate it again.

Not the best example, but how many executive orders has he signed in his first few days in office? Is there a way to track them?

I'd be surprised if he's anything less than Bush or Clinton, because once you taste power it might be too tempting.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Not the best example, but how many executive orders has he signed in his first few days in office? Is there a way to track them?

I'd be surprised if he's anything less than Bush or Clinton, because once you taste power it might be too tempting.

By and large, his executive orders are orders RESCINDING prior executive orders. Are you really taking the position that he is inappropriately wielding executive authority by undoing what previous executives did with their authority? This isn't a bad example, Arch, it is an awful example.

FYI: the use of an executive order isn't per se an abuse of executive powers (although I can see how you would lose the distinction given the past 8 years of precedent). The CONTENT of the executive order is what you ought to be interested in, not whether or not one exists.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

By and large, his executive orders are orders RESCINDING prior executive orders. Are you really taking the position that he is inappropriately wielding executive authority by undoing what previous executives did with their authority? This isn't a bad example, Arch, it is an awful example.

FYI: the use of an executive order isn't per se an abuse of executive powers (although I can see how you would lose the distinction given the past 8 years of precedent). The CONTENT of the executive order is what you ought to be interested in, not whether or not one exists.

Why because you say so?

An executive order on the funding of abortions is content related. Not a hot topic for me, but my guess is, he will wield executive power voraciously. He's Bush in Democratic cloth.

[RedHeadGal]

I read somewhere recently that there was an executive order to ban smoking outside federal buildings within some range. I wonder if he'll rescind that one, because where's he going to smoke? (btw, I don't know what actually happened with it because I still see plenty of smoking outside federal buildings).

Edit now to add: I was thinking of a GSA reg, effective Dec 08, which is based on the executive order of Clinton back in 97.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why because you say so?

An executive order on the funding of abortions is content related. Not a hot topic for me, but my guess is, he will wield executive power voraciously. He's Bush in Democratic cloth.

So what if it is, in fact, content related? Surely you aren't taking the position that all content related orders are abuses of executive power, are you?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So what if it is, in fact, content related? Surely you aren't taking the position that all content related orders are abuses of executive power, are you?

I'm stating he will wield the executive power as expansively and pervasively as Bush. Whether it's perceived as an abuse will simply be perspective and orientation related. I don't find him any more "moral" than Bush or any other.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm stating he will wield the executive power as expansively and pervasively as Bush.

You'll like this. Apparently when asked today (by Republicans) why the Democrats get to call all the shots on the stimulus proposal, Obama said, "because I won."

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

You'll like this. Apparently when asked today (by Republicans) why the Democrats get to call all the shots on the stimulus proposal, Obama said, "because I won."

Mr. Obama, otherwise known as Bush III.