After defeat of cybersecurity bill, Obama weighs executive order

[hogger129]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/after-de...ive-order.html

Aug 5, 2012

Senate Republicans recently blocked cybersecurity legislation, but the issue might not be dead after all.

The White House hasn’t ruled out issuing an executive order to strengthen the nation’s defenses against cyber attacks if Congress refuses to act.

“In the wake of Congressional inaction and Republican stall tactics, unfortunately, we will continue to be hamstrung by outdated and inadequate statutory authorities that the legislation would have fixed,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in an emailed response to whether the president is considering a cybersecurity order.

“Moving forward, the President is determined to do absolutely everything we can to better protect our nation against today’s cyber threats and we will do that,” Carney said.

Isn't this the bill that had all the assault weapon stuff attached to it? So basically he's gonna circumvent the democratic process and force this on us... How is that legal?

[carver]

It's not legal, but the real question is if America will just sit by and let it happen?

[CampingJosh]

Executive orders are common and legal. They are simply a directive from the executive (in this case, the President of the United States) to those who work under him.

I am the CEO of a small non-profit, and I issue executive orders nearly every day. Just this past week, I ordered my staff to fix all kinds of issues: cleaning, painting, cooking, mowing, etc. I also made a few "policy" orders: always put every tool away every day even if you're just going to get it back out first thing the next morning, etc.

Did my executive orders affect you? Of course not; you don't work for me, and I don't direct how you do your job.
If President Obama issues executive orders, those orders affect how his employees (all federal government workers) do their jobs. It doesn't (cannot) cause you to change any part of your life except how you interact with his employees.

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

Executive orders are common and legal. They are simply a directive from the executive (in this case, the President of the United States) to those who work under him.

I am the CEO of a small non-profit, and I issue executive orders nearly every day. Just this past week, I ordered my staff to fix all kinds of issues: cleaning, painting, cooking, mowing, etc. I also made a few "policy" orders: always put every tool away every day even if you're just going to get it back out first thing the next morning, etc.

Did my executive orders affect you? Of course not; you don't work for me, and I don't direct how you do your job.
If President Obama issues executive orders, those orders affect how his employees (all federal government workers) do their jobs. It doesn't (cannot) cause you to change any part of your life except how you interact with his employees.

My point is, how is this Constitutional? Using an executive order to force a piece of legislation into law? One which our elected representatives didn't pass?

[jedwil]

Originally Posted by hogger129

My point is, how is this Constitutional? Using an executive order to force a piece of legislation into law? One which our elected representatives didn't pass?

It happens because the Legislative and Judicial branches allow it. And the ignorant masses say nothing.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by hogger129

My point is, how is this Constitutional? Using an executive order to force a piece of legislation into law? One which our elected representatives didn't pass?

My point is that it's not law. It's not binding on us because we are not employees of the federal government.

He can make his employees act like it's the law; that doesn't mean he can make me do anything.

[jedwil]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

My point is that it's not law. It's not binding on us because we are not employees of the federal government.

He can make his employees act like it's the law; that doesn't mean he can make me do anything.

I think you have it wrong.
http://www.answers.com/topic/executive-order-1

[johnnyehlers]

Here's one to think about.

"All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not Human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process..." RODRIQUES vs RAY DONAVAN (U.S. Department of Labor ), 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)


As for me I am flesh & blood created by God, and have an Affidavit of Status to that effect Recorded in book 614 page 3115 by the recorder of deeds Benton co, Mo.

Grantor: JOHNNY R. EHLERS

Grantee: Johnny Ray Ehlers

It's public record, with a Certificate of Authority for a Notary Public from the Secretary of State, and stands as Truth & Fact in any Article 3 Court, unless rebutted. Thing is, it can't be rebutted.
So if there's no injured party......

[BlackEagle]

0 has been making end runs around congress for a long time now. He said he was going to do that in so many words.

[barmstrong2]

I don't think this is the most recent cyber security bill. This one is from 2011. The newest one, as far as I know, has not come up for vote or discussion in the senate yet. It's S.3414, introduced by Sen Lautenberg. Here's a link.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112...comment_page=1

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by jedwil

I think you have it wrong.
http://www.answers.com/topic/executive-order-1

Originally Posted by http://www.answers.com/topic/executive-order-1

Executive orders are regulations issued by the President. Provided that they are based either on his constitutional powers or laws passed by Congress, they have the force of law. Federal courts will enforce them just as if they had been enacted by Congress, provided that they do not conflict with federal laws. An executive order that carries out a law may later be revoked by new legislation. An executive order can be nullified, or canceled, if the Supreme Court or lower federal courts find that it is unconstitutional. For instance, in 1952 the Supreme Court ruled that President Harry Truman's seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War violated the due process clause of the Constitution because the President had seized property without being given statutory authority by Congress.

Emphasis added by me.

Executive orders are just that. The executive orders the things that are already under his control to act in certain ways. If something isn't under his control, his orders mean nothing.

[gvw3]

All the Presidents have done this. George Bush did more then most.

[jedwil]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

Emphasis added by me.

Executive orders are just that. The executive orders the things that are already under his control to act in certain ways. If something isn't under his control, his orders mean nothing.

A bit of Executive Order history. I'll leave it at this:
http://www.cato.org/publications/com...nomy-our-lives

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-plan-seize-control-our-economy-our-lives

The Supreme Court tried to establish some limitations. It asserted the principle that an executive order (1) “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself” and (2) “an executive order must not be “incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress.”

The President can't order himself new authority in a way that has power of law.

He can claim whatever he wants. He can issue an executive order that declares him the King of America, the Viceroy of the Trade Federation, and the Commissioner of the National Football League, but none of it would mean anything unless it relates to a power already granted to the President by the Constitution or the Congress.

I'm an executive. My orders only matter in regards to things under my control. My executive orders matter to the staff in my kitchen; they don't matter at all to the staff at the local Pizza Hut.

Even the totalitarian (and war criminal) Lincoln didn't believe that he had authority to declare law in areas that were not at war. His Emancipation Proclamation is the most well-known executive order in American history, but he still pushed for the Thirteenth Amendment because he knew his order didn't count for jack squat in areas that weren't in rebellion, and it wouldn't count for jack squat after the war ended.

We may have to just agree to disagree here. I know many want to see Obama's orders as crossing the line, going further than any before, and being evidence of his desire to become emperor.
But there are too many power-hungry Congressmen, Senators, and judges to let such a weakling take total control. Caesar? Yes. Obama. Wouldn't happen even if he tried.

[jedwil]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

The President can't order himself new authority in a way that has power of law.

He can claim whatever he wants. He can issue an executive order that declares him the King of America, the Viceroy of the Trade Federation, and the Commissioner of the National Football League, but none of it would mean anything unless it relates to a power already granted to the President by the Constitution or the Congress.

I'm an executive. My orders only matter in regards to things under my control. My executive orders matter to the staff in my kitchen; they don't matter at all to the staff at the local Pizza Hut.

Even the totalitarian (and war criminal) Lincoln didn't believe that he had authority to declare law in areas that were not at war. His Emancipation Proclamation is the most well-known executive order in American history, but he still pushed for the Thirteenth Amendment because he knew his order didn't count for jack squat in areas that weren't in rebellion, and it wouldn't count for jack squat after the war ended.

We may have to just agree to disagree here. I know many want to see Obama's orders as crossing the line, going further than any before, and being evidence of his desire to become emperor.
But there are too many power-hungry Congressmen, Senators, and judges to let such a weakling take total control. Caesar? Yes. Obama. Wouldn't happen even if he tried.

I guess we'll agree to disagree, agreeably.