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)
17. Romney said he'd stop funding for planned parenthood.
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:15 PM
Jan 2013

Also said he'd stop the roll out of Obamacare.

Bush ended federal funding for stem-cell research.

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 #17