I really do think it is time that Texas leadership issue a non-EO declaration. Basically we need to put a stake in the ground saying we are no longer following one-man edicts that have not been legislatively enacted by due political process of our representatives in congress.
I agree, but the Texas Leg is not interested in limiting the governors power. From what I am reading they have given Democrats significant power. The Texas Republicans aren't conservative. They are Progressives in sheep's clothing. Conservatives need to ID and replace these guys.
BOSE You are talking about Biden right.? Good idea but how could a state control things like what he is doing at the border.?
Did any of Trump's EOs cause unemploment? Deny existing contracts and harm to companies? Cause a massive crisis at our boarder?
BOSDe, I agree that the EOs are over the top, but this problem isn't new. It reeks of partisanship to call for something radical now. I'd rather just see them challenged in court and see if the judicial branch will do its job.
Certainly EOs can be challenged. In fact they're easier to challenge than federal statutes are, because not only does the EO have to be a proper assertion of federal power, it has to be a proper assertion of executive power. Who can challenge EOs depends on the EO. The normal standing rules apply, so the person suing has to have been harmed or will imminently be harmed by the EO; there was must be causation between the EO and the harm; and it must be likely that court action will redress the harm. (There are some twists and turns in standing that I need not get into here, but those are the general requirements.)
thanks So could a rancher on the border who has vids of illegal aliens crossing his land in increased numbers in 2021, killing is cattle, tearing down his fences, destroying property be one who could sue? There is a licensed Foster family couple in Ca who were engaged by a Catholic charity to live in one of the charity owned houses to foster teen age kids. They have been ordered to move out with the charity not providing for the American fosters. The charity even admitted in a letter they would get more money from the feds ( us taxpayers) to house the illegal aliens in the house . Would they have a case?
actually i wasn't fine with them. out of the conservative bunch here I'm one of the most critical of Trump for his lazy approach to POTUS. I criticize him all the time for doing things that don't follow the legislative process. EOs are inherently a band aid for one side or the other. They give temporary satisfaction but in the long term they (both sides) hurt us because they cause us to swing wildly from one side to the other in practice and application which causes us to be as inefficient and ineffective as possible. I did agree with Trumps policies much of the time. I also think his execution sucked most of the time. But make no mistake, your guy has been the MOST ABUSIVE president in the history of our country with respect to EO's and skirting the process that involves engaging and winning the appropriate support for his policies.
BOSE Bubba won't likely respond. After he snarked that we were ok wuth Trump issing EOs I asked him which of Trump's EOs caused unemployment or rise i gas prices or surge in illegal aliens or any EO destructive to people and economy Crickets
Texas and several joining states have sued over the EO banning, or shutting down, the pipeline. Will be interesting to see how that goes.
This site has a pretty good search function. I find no record of your criticism of executive orders from 1/20/17-1/19/21. I only find record of you bemoaning that executive orders would be reversed. ...Sad face... List of United States federal executive orders - Wikipedia Here is a listing of executive orders. LBJ (6 years): 324 Nixon (5 years): 346 Ford (3): 169 Carter (4): 320 Reagan (8): 381 Bush1 (4): 166 Clinton (8): 364 Bush2 (8): 276 Obama (8): 276 Trump (4): 220 Biden: 37 A number of Biden's were simply to reverse or "unfuck" things. This is the "most abusive president in history of the country"??? Do tell.
bubba It is not the number, It is the devestating effects of them on America. For instance do you think reversing ban on Catch and Release was a good move? How about keeping them out of country until their aslyum claim can be reviewed?
I recommend you click on my username to the left here (under the Switzer picture). That will bring up a window. You can then click the "ignore" hyperlink. It's a feature, not a bug. Trust me.
An individual rancher might have a hard time gaining standing, but the state governments would have an easier time.
Barry, I know arithmetic isn't a common skill in Mobilhoma, but Biden has only been president for about two months. If you do the math on that, Biden would do over 800 EOs in 4 years. Having said that, the number of EOs isn't evidence of EO abuse. As I've said before, Congress is somewhat to blame. There shouldn't be this much ambiguity or room in the law for there some of these EOs to exist. For example, why is catch and release a policy that administrations can just arbitrarily choose or decline? A policy with that big of implications should be statutory. The White House shouldn't have discretion on something like that.
Fake news. On Asylum, “Catch and Release” is the Big Lie | America's Voice 83% show up to their hearings. 96% of those who were able to obtain an attorney show up to their hearings.
First, I highly doubt the numbers of this very inflammatory and obviously partisan source. I've seen numbers even in mainstream media sources that were wildly different. Second, it's irrelevant to my point. My point is whether illegal immigrants should generally be detained or released shouldn't be something decided by EO. It should be statutory, whether 99 percent show up or zero percent show up.
On the face of it it's stupid. People who are in this country illegally are trespassing. If someone is on someone's else's property without permission, do we give them a slip of paper to tell them to show up at a hearing, then let them stay on the property? It's failure by design. Everyone knows there's little chance they will ever show up - why would they? There's no penalty for not showing up. So illegals can then stay in the country to do the bi-partisan task of voting Democrat and working Republican (for less than minimum wage, no benefits, and if you get hurt on the job, 20 bucks to buy some medicine and you're off the site).
In testimony before Congress ICE reports nearly 87% do NOT show up Nearly 9-in-10 Illegals Released into U.S. Not Showing Up to Court Dates (breitbart.com)
This is the kind of thing that bugs me here. Switzer posted some very questionable stats (which wouldn't have been relevant even if they had been totally reliable) from a Left-wing group as a diversion. Then others rushed to prove his numbers wrong (which I understand), and in the midst of the pissing match, my underlying point got lost.
Mr D No your point is still on point Bubba tried to show no lege is needed since illegal aliens show up for hearings. ICE showed Congress why lege IS needed.
No I heard you Deez - Congress almost never actually writes followable laws. It's a series of policy goals, by design and laziness, then they let the endless alphabet soup agencies write 10 pages of regulations for every 1 page of law. It's a way to get out of town without doing hard work, them being able to blame the agency for things you don't want, and also letting them expand far further things that you know you could not get written into law.
