What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is awful

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

I am 3 out of 4 (paternal grandma was born in Pohland) so I am stuck.

I make it by a 3 year old holding my great-grandma's hand through Ellis Island.

Wait. I misread what Coulter said.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

I'd turn that right back around on you. The President is checked by the judicial branch and the legislative branch. If the President ordered something unconstitutional, the SCOTUS will overturn it. If he did something illegal, the legislative branch can impeach him.

They aren't being taken out of the loop. At all.

And as I proved below, Executive Orders have been part of Republic since it was founded.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

And as I proved below, Executive Orders have been part of Republic since it was founded.

There you go. That kind of quashes the whole "never intended" argument.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

I'd turn that right back around on you. The President is checked by the judicial branch and the legislative branch. If the President ordered something unconstitutional, the SCOTUS will overturn it. If he did something illegal, the legislative branch can impeach him.

They aren't being taken out of the loop. At all.

To be fair though...since Hillary will get to pick the next SCOTUS theoretically she will have the advantage along ideological lines. When her guy is the swing vote it looks like the hunt is canned you know...
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

All four of my grandparents were born in Greece so that would've left me out!

I would be out too~ had 2 born here and 2 not. 2 Scots, one a generation removed from Sweden and one side that was Loyalist family that emigrated then came back down here from Canada in the late 1800s. All pasty white tho. Does that count?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

All (4) of my grandparents were born here as far as I know.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

And as I proved below, Executive Orders have been part of Republic since it was founded.

There you go. That kind of quashes the whole "never intended" argument.

What did the executive orders back in the 1790s accomplish vs. how they're used now? That never seems to come up when the they-did-it-too arguments arise. How did Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, GWB, and Obama use them, what did they accomplish with them? It was my understanding that executive orders were largely used in symbolic actions, such as declaring National Pied Piper Day, or some such other action. Then they took on the role of clarifying what/how the Executive was to carry out Congress's instructions. In the last decade or two, they've taken on yet another layer of use, of actually dictating law.

If that is true, is it a road down which we should travel?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

All (4) of my grandparents were born here as far as I know.

My 4 grandparents were all born here, but I don't think any of my 8 greatgrandparents were.

4th Generation Immigrants: we get the job done!

And speaking of immigrants... we comin' rougher.

But if you give me the invitation
To hear the bells of freedom chime
To hell with your double standard
We comin' rougher every time
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

All of my grandparents were born in the US in the 20s and 30s. Their parents all came across the pond however.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

What did the executive orders back in the 1790s accomplish vs. how they're used now? That never seems to come up when the they-did-it-too arguments arise. How did Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, GWB, and Obama use them, what did they accomplish with them? It was my understanding that executive orders were largely used in symbolic actions, such as declaring National Pied Piper Day, or some such other action. Then they took on the role of clarifying what/how the Executive was to carry out Congress's instructions. In the last decade or two, they've taken on yet another layer of use, of actually dictating law.

If that is true, is it a road down which we should travel?

The Judcial and the Legislative Branch both check the President on any issues related to Executive Orders. I don't understand the hand wringing, frankly.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

My 4 grandparents were all born here, but I don't think any of my 8 grandparents were.

My grandparents were all born in PA, but my great-grandparents were either born in PA or Deutschland. Another generation back and it becomes more diverse. After that it's pretty static with a 50-50 split between PA and various European nations for a great many generations as my father's side of the family arrived in Colonial times.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

The Judcial and the Legislative Branch both check the President on any issues related to Executive Orders. I don't understand the hand wringing, frankly.

As people like to say, we have a Do Nothing Congress and should the law be reviewed by friendly judges, then the checks and balances may not be what they seem.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

I don't understand this. Did no one here even attend a civics class in high school or college? If we are going to legislate by having the executive issue decrees, subject to later review by the courts, what exactly is the point of a legislative body?

What's the point of a legislative body who won't..................well.................legislate?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

I'm thrilled to report that I have convinced someone to vote for the first time. This person told me a couple months back that they don't vote because they don't know the races well enough. I posted this (below) on Facebook last night and it apparently made an impact. I just got a text message asking how best to find out where to vote and get more info.

Regardless of who you support, please make sure you go out and vote tomorrow. It's important. Even if you are a Republican who lives in DC or a Democrat from Kansas. It doesn't matter if you vote for Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or Vermin Supreme. It's important that you take the time to vote. It's important you take the time to understand what you believe in and who most aligns with your beliefs.

If you don't like the two mainstream candidates, seriously consider skipping the presidential ballot altogether or voting third party. But far more important are the dozens of other elections in YOUR precinct tomorrow. Elections that choose your judges, governors, and even local referendums, propositions, and constitutional amendments.

If you don't like the mainstream parties, perhaps the most important thing you can do is vote on these propositions and referendums. They include votes about how you want your state legislators to be paid, school funding, marijuana legalization, infrastructure funding, gun control, minimum wage, and even whether porn actors should be required to wear a condom. (Ok fine, not all of them are important.)

If you don't want to learn about these races, fine, I think that's shirking your duties as a citizen and ignoring the small miracle that voting represents. Certainly it's your right. But if you can't take more than 30 minutes to learn where you're going to vote and do so, then that's extremely disappointing. As Louis C.K. put it, don't be an "a__hole", go out and vote tomorrow.

Apathy cannot be fixed with inaction.
 
My 4 grandparents were all born here, but I don't think any of my 8 grandparents were.

3rd Generation Immigrants: we get the job done!

And speaking of immigrants... we comin' rougher every time.

I have an interesting family tree. On one side my grandmother's line goes back to 1624. My grandfather came here from Scotland when he was 10. On the other side, my grandfather goes all the way back to the early 1700s and my grandmother earlier than that. Ironic that under Coulter's plan (first introduced at Nuremberg in 1935) I would be ineligible to vote despite ancestry stretching back to before we were a nation.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

I don't understand this. Did no one here even attend a civics class in high school or college? If we are going to legislate by having the executive issue decrees, subject to later review by the courts, what exactly is the point of a legislative body?

Can anyone point me to any authority, in the federal constitution, any state constitution, the federalist papers, anywhere, that endorses the proposition that if someone isn't happy with how or whether the legislative body is or is not doing its job, we can just take them out of the loop?

Because he can't pass new laws via executive order. He can only act within the confines of current law. :rolleyes:

Take Bush II for example. Bush assumed to posture that since Congress authorized him to fight the War on Terror, he had the right to detain any American citizen that he suspected of terrorism indefinitely. There was no specific law passed saying this but his interpretation was in a time of war he had that right as President. It went to the SCOTUS, and they said no. While the country may have been in a state of war, Bush did not under the resolution passed have the ability to deny American citizens their Constitutional rights. Obama is bound by the same limitations. Dictating higher emissions standards for example has been litigated in front of the courts, but under the laws governing the EPA he's allowed to do so.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

The Judcial and the Legislative Branch both check the President on any issues related to Executive Orders. I don't understand the hand wringing, frankly.

I get the hand-wringing, because I don't want EOs to be the norm. However, when government fails to function, you need to do everything within your legal and constitutional grounds to make it function.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top