Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
97. Have the order include suppliers too. And restrict the board members.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 04:54 PM
Jan 2013

See, when you write the law, you use lawyers who help craft the order such that the effort to try and wiggle out via such approaches, becomes extremely onerous.

Then, make sure it includes a multi-year penalty for those who go outside the bounds. Break the rules, all current contracts are cancelled, and you can't get any for N years.

Executive order desegregated the military upaloopa Jan 2013 #1
Now Obama invented the executve order?? JoePhilly Jan 2013 #2
cool list!!! valerief Jan 2013 #6
Doesn't look like anything there is very contentious. dkf Jan 2013 #12
The very first one is. Significantly reduces seperation of church and state. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #15
How so? It sounds like he just wanted people to coordinate things in the White House. dkf Jan 2013 #25
It also gives preferences to religious organizations in their efforts to obtain fed funding. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #38
Am I misreading your quick defense of Bush? WinkyDink Jan 2013 #75
I'm not defending him anywhere near what the people who support the Bush tax cuts are doing. dkf Jan 2013 #86
No. eom uppityperson Jan 2013 #103
"Contentious" isn't the point, is it? WinkyDink Jan 2013 #73
I would say it is. dkf Jan 2013 #87
Why would anyone want abortion rights restricted? nt valerief Jan 2013 #3
Because they are pro-life, anti-abortion or whatever you call it. dkf Jan 2013 #8
So they shouldn't get abortions. nt valerief Jan 2013 #14
What do YOU call it alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #34
I'm not one for labels. dkf Jan 2013 #90
Seriously. Next thing you know they'll speak out against mosques in NYC. uppityperson Jan 2013 #104
That was a suggestion for PR purposes, not for legal action. dkf Jan 2013 #108
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. eom uppityperson Jan 2013 #109
use your imagination. try an anti-choice President. cali Jan 2013 #23
Good question. sadbear Jan 2013 #4
Romney said he'd stop funding for planned parenthood. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #17
... RandiFan1290 Jan 2013 #5
No, he could not restrict aboriton rights. Limits on guns are very limited. see link to Atlantic. Agnosticsherbet Jan 2013 #7
I think he could end government contracts to companies who supply certain weapons JoePhilly Jan 2013 #21
I would be interested in seeing him try that.. Agnosticsherbet Jan 2013 #33
Just the threat might cause the gun industry to play ball JoePhilly Jan 2013 #40
Be a violation of Federal Law if he tried ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #110
I suspect there are ways the DFARs could be updated to move in this direction. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #111
Jumpin' the Gun There a Bit, Ma'am, Aint'Cha? The Magistrate Jan 2013 #9
Very Much Jumping The Gun NeedleCast Jan 2013 #24
Well Biden laid it out there with no specifics. dkf Jan 2013 #26
So You Are Talking Through Your Hat, Ma'am The Magistrate Jan 2013 #35
Nothing new with that one, sir. nt Guy Whitey Corngood Jan 2013 #43
exactly nt abelenkpe Jan 2013 #88
Yes, and it was dumb when Biden did it NeedleCast Jan 2013 #69
Of course---teh concern burns. trumad Jan 2013 #55
And the Framing, Sir: 'Support Abortion Rights? can't Be For Gun Control!' The Magistrate Jan 2013 #89
It's a tit for tat world out there. dkf Jan 2013 #91
Obama's very first executive order angelus__ Jan 2013 #10
Transparency. Here is more on it and why he signed that one. uppityperson Jan 2013 #16
To revoke Bushes Executive order of 1/11/2001 azurnoir Jan 2013 #20
Oh, is where you try to convince us this is the EO that keeps his college transcripts and BC secret? PeaceNikki Jan 2013 #32
How do you feel about President Obama? hrmjustin Jan 2013 #46
I know... I sense the farce is strong with this one. n/t Agschmid Jan 2013 #51
He has gone off to the land of PPR. hrmjustin Jan 2013 #94
I'll echo the comment above. It revoked GW Bush's Exec Order that set a 12 year hold on records. pinto Jan 2013 #57
Why do YOU think he did that? Iggo Jan 2013 #60
When Bush made Executive Orders bongbong Jan 2013 #11
Only dictators claim authority to use government power to abolish rights that preexist our jody Jan 2013 #13
This Is Just Pitiful, Sir: Seriously, Pitiful.... The Magistrate Jan 2013 #28
Glad you liked it because it's true. It's PITIFUL that anyone would believe otherwise. nt jody Jan 2013 #39
Your Immediate Recurrence To 'They're Gonna Grab My Gun!' Sir, Is Simply Pitiable The Magistrate Jan 2013 #49
Are insults your best? Why not use facts or perhaps there are none to support your assertion? nt jody Jan 2013 #53
Flat, Factual Description, Sir, Which I Do Not Mind Repeating.... The Magistrate Jan 2013 #56
LOL because insults are all you have. nt jody Jan 2013 #62
You Just Keep Telling Yourself That, Fella.... The Magistrate Jan 2013 #77
Oh, the melodrama! alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #37
Dubya did the same with executive orders and I protested. Did you support him? I didn't. nt jody Jan 2013 #42
Oh. Bull. Shit. Rosco T. Jan 2013 #58
I see you exhausted yourself with that post. nt jody Jan 2013 #64
The idea of natural rights is nice and all, but pretty meaningless in a practical sense. Hosnon Jan 2013 #63
No, states ratified our Constitution only under the condition a Bill of Rights were to be added. nt jody Jan 2013 #66
Well, not "only". Hosnon Jan 2013 #78
I'll stick with SCOTUS' decisions. nt jody Jan 2013 #96
The right to own a gun existed before the Constitution? JoePhilly Jan 2013 #65
Please read and understand SCOTUS UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL. 92 U.S. 542 (1876) nt jody Jan 2013 #68
Wow, you and dkf on the same thread--just awesome! Kingofalldems Jan 2013 #72
The SCOTUS, from time to time, looks back on prior rulings, and then ... JoePhilly Jan 2013 #93
Read DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (2008) citing CRUIKSHANK nt jody Jan 2013 #95
So that case says gun ownership is an inherent right that predates the US Constitution? JoePhilly Jan 2013 #99
Obviously you didn't read Steven's dissent. He cited CRUIKSHANK and did not dispute the Courts jody Jan 2013 #105
If its in his DISSENT, its not included in the Majority opinion ... JoePhilly Jan 2013 #106
Your posts were ultimately to my #13. nt jody Jan 2013 #107
EO's can expand abortion rights - why couldn't they limit them? forestpath Jan 2013 #18
you kind of sneak the "expand the power" in there Enrique Jan 2013 #19
Based on Biden's comments. dkf Jan 2013 #36
Any President can issue any executive order for any reason. randome Jan 2013 #22
So congress has the power to supercede executive orders? dkf Jan 2013 #29
By passing a law. Yes. randome Jan 2013 #41
That is not veto proof! That's a real laugh. nt jody Jan 2013 #44
That's part of the 'checks and balances' thing. randome Jan 2013 #52
I'm not sure authors of our Constitution expected a two-party system with one party holding the jody Jan 2013 #59
Yeah. The system could definitely use some 'tweaking'. randome Jan 2013 #67
No, that's not correct. There are limits to Executive Orders. Xithras Jan 2013 #50
Thanks for the info. randome Jan 2013 #71
Executive orders can limit lots of things. MADem Jan 2013 #27
Drive 55 was done by executive order? dkf Jan 2013 #31
Yes, but the states blew Nixon off--that's why the act was ginned up to snatch back that highway MADem Jan 2013 #45
Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly, what do either have to do with Executive Orders? hughee99 Jan 2013 #54
Drive 55 was preceded by an Executive Order. MADem Jan 2013 #61
executive orders are essentially commands only to the rest of the executive branch unblock Jan 2013 #30
This message was self-deleted by its author jody Jan 2013 #48
You might want to research that further ProgressiveProfessor Jan 2013 #79
Mea culpa, nt jody Jan 2013 #85
There's also the "Stop Enforcing That Law" type of EO.... MADem Jan 2013 #70
Obama could order the federal government, including the US military, to end all contracts with JoePhilly Jan 2013 #47
The manufacturer would simply split the company and produce "separate but equal" guns n ammo. MADem Jan 2013 #80
Have the order include suppliers too. And restrict the board members. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #97
They'd put their spouses on the boards--or their kids. MADem Jan 2013 #100
So let's throw up our hands and do nothing. JoePhilly Jan 2013 #112
No one's advocating that, but trying to make a law limiting commerce is not the answer. MADem Jan 2013 #113
Executive Orders only can apply to employees of Executive Agencies, they are not law. 1-Old-Man Jan 2013 #74
They can affect regular people, when the EO says "Stop enforcing that law." MADem Jan 2013 #83
No. elleng Jan 2013 #76
We will see. I want to see how he does it. Taverner Jan 2013 #81
A reasonalbe and forward-looking question. Skip Intro Jan 2013 #82
If they were so inclined they would do it anyway regardless of this. It did not stop bush still_one Jan 2013 #84
"Have Presidents always had this power but declined to use it?" Spazito Jan 2013 #92
This OP is so transparent, I want to wear it to the Oscars. Robb Jan 2013 #98
I tend to think a step ahead, to judge possible consequences. dkf Jan 2013 #101
Cher--is that you? MADem Jan 2013 #102
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If an executive order can...»Reply #97