While you said a ton, this stood out to me, because this is exactly what I feel those who are resistant to any changes in Gunn laws are doing. The prevalent argument is fear of the government, fear of other people (the bad guys), fear of outsiders (immigrants, etc.). The very premise of the argument is all about fear and distrust.

 

Yes, it is does have something to do with the fear of government (at least in my case). I do not fear my fellow citizens. Our founders did fear the government. They saw it as a necessary evil and thought long and hard about how to limit its powers. We are further removed from some of the abuses of power they were witnesses to and which gave rise to their cautious approach to government. I think they saw more clearly than we because of their vantage point.

 

The larger point for me has to do with the love of freedom. I think my kids deserve the rights guaranteed by our constitution because these rights are not given to them by the government but by their Creator. I refuse to allow the government to think it has either bestowed these freedoms or can take them away. And when they try to limit them, reduce them, or remove them it is the responsibility of "we the people" to strenuously object. Limited government means personal freedom. Centralized power means reduced personal freedom. There is an inverse relationship between centralized power and personal freedom. These are first principles.

You do realize the founding fathers separated powers precisely for this reason. We have an executive not a king or dictator.

 

:thumb:

 

Hence the name executive orders instead of decrees.

:thumb:

 

Hence the name executive orders instead of decrees.

 

Hence you know what I meant.

 

When one has no viable debate they revert to what you do.

So is it executive orders that we are against or is it just Obama's executive orders that are bad? I don't remember executive orders ever being a problem for anyone. It's been shown many times, that Obama isn't the only president to ever issue an executive order, nor is he the one that's issued the most.

Hence you know what I meant.

 

When one has no viable debate they revert to what you do.

 

I conceded president ran his mouth before he realized the mess Washington is.

 

Did the founding fathers mean for a man to be in Congress for 35+ years?

 

That was the point of my post.

So is it executive orders that we are against or is it just Obama's executive orders that are bad? I don't remember executive orders ever being a problem for anyone. It's been shown many times, that Obama isn't the only president to ever issue an executive order, nor is he the one that's issued the most.

 

I'll take door number two.

I conceded president ran his mouth before he realized the mess Washington is.

 

Did the founding fathers mean for a man to be in Congress for 35+ years?

 

That was the point of my post.

If he said that in 2008 then he had already been in Washington for 4 years. How could he not know?

If he said that in 2008 then he had already been in Washington for 4 years. How could he not know?

 

He would have.

 

HC is just trying to provide cover for Obama.

If he said that in 2008 then he had already been in Washington for 4 years. How could he not know?

 

You're right. He should have realized he was working in a dumpster fire, but Congreess is like the UK football staff; they are the only ones feels they are making progress everyone else sees they are wasting time.

Current Congressional approval rate stands at an amazing 13.4%.

 

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Congressional Job Approval

So is it executive orders that we are against or is it just Obama's executive orders that are bad? I don't remember executive orders ever being a problem for anyone. It's been shown many times, that Obama isn't the only president to ever issue an executive order, nor is he the one that's issued the most.

 

I don't think anyone on here has said that Obama is the only one to issue EO's. Again, it is not the NUMBER of EO's issued, it is the REACH of them. EO's are not supposed to be there to go around Congress on major issues (like immigration or gun laws). They were originally to be for procedural things and for convenience sake in governing, not writing laws. I am not saying that other presidents have not pushed the limits of EO's in the past but Obama has taken it to a whole new level.

I don't think anyone on here has said that Obama is the only one to issue EO's. Again, it is not the NUMBER of EO's issued, it is the REACH of them. EO's are not supposed to be there to go around Congress on major issues (like immigration or gun laws). They were originally to be for procedural things and for convenience sake in governing, not writing laws. I am not saying that other presidents have not pushed the limits of EO's in the past but Obama has taken it to a whole new level.

There are different types of executive directives that a president can issue. Executive order is one type. A memorandum, which Obama uses often would not count towards his total of executive orders. Add them all up to get a better idea of how often Obama has sidestepped congress.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/31/claims-regarding-obamas-use-of-executive-orders-and-presidential-memoranda/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/31/claims-regarding-obamas-use-of-executive-orders-and-presidential-memoranda/

Just out of curiosity what is your impression of this article?

Just out of curiosity what is your impression of this article?

 

Obama's use of PM is similar to other presidents contrary to the USA today article.