The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[nonobaddog]

Pass what off?

 

[KLB]

You guys are arguing over a tweet?

 

[nonobaddog]

Yeah, I just read about it a little more. I thought when the President says "I hereby order" that it was an executive order. I see it is not official since it is not on paper, at least not yet. So what is all the blubber about?

 

[jamil]

Surely you understand what "start looking for an alternative" means.

Surely Trump knows what go **** a tree means.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't know about that. Obama and his administration "ordered" Americans to purchase health insurance or else face financial penalties. Not to mention, in doing so, took away the choice of the individual about which insurance companies and doctors they could use.

This is incorrect. Congress did that. The people voted on to make decisions that we (the private citizen) have all agreed to abide. That is the power given to the Legislative Branch, not the Executive.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeah, I just read about it a little more. I thought when the President says "I hereby order" that it was an executive order. I see it is not official since it is not on paper, at least not yet. So what is all the blubber about?

Name an executive order that applies, as in those ordered to do something, to persons not employed by the federal government.

 

[nonobaddog]

Name an executive order that applies, as in those ordered to do something, to persons not employed by the federal government.

It appears it is not an executive order so there is no point in pursuing such foolishness.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

This is incorrect. Congress did that. The people voted on to make decisions that we (the private citizen) have all agreed to abide. That is the power given to the Legislative Branch, not the Executive.

Perhaps, but Congress seemed to do it under the directive of the administration. And "we the people" had no input, since we were lied to ("If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, and if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.") That was one law that should've been put to a referendum. Hell, even Congress didn't know what they were passing. "We have to pass it to see what's in it" ring a bell? Well, what was in it appears to have come from a dark stinky place.

All ACA should have done was to 1) Eliminate the pre-existing condition restriction, and 2) eliminate the restriction against interstate competition between insurance companies, and it would have been a good bill. NOTHING else in the bill was needed.

 

[KLB]

Name an executive order that applies, as in those ordered to do something, to persons not employed by the federal government.

There are lots of them, especially saying who you can trade or deal with.

And you are still arguing about a tweet, which is absolutely meaningless.

 

[Kutnupe14]

There are lots of them, especially saying who you can trade or deal with.

And you are still arguing about a tweet, which is absolutely meaningless.

Name me such an executive order.
And so we worry about spoken words not tweets?

 

[KLB]

Name me such an executive order.
And so we worry about spoken words not tweets?

Here ya go.

Executive Order 13722

Blocking Property of the Government of North Korea and the Workers' Party of Korea, and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to North Korea
​

Section 3.


(a) The following are prohibited:
(i) the exportation or reexportation, direct or indirect, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, services, or technology to North Korea;
(ii) new investment in North Korea by a United States person, wherever located; and
(iii) any approval, financing, facilitation, or guarantee by a United States person, wherever located, of a transaction by a foreign person where the transaction by that foreign person would be prohibited by this section if performed by a United States person or within the United States.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13722

 

[Kutnupe14]

Here ya go.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13722

This isn't a binding action placed upon private interest, but rather a directive to the Department of the Treasury and Department of State, from powers codified through Congress. In other words the president always had these power via Congressional approval. It's not a unilateral power taken on the whims of the president.

 

[KLB]

This isn't a binding action placed upon private interest, but rather a directive to the Department of the Treasury and Department of State, from powers codified through Congress. In other words the president always had these power via Congressional approval. It's not a unilateral power taken on the whims of the president.

Moving the goalpsts?

Name an executive order that applies, as in those ordered to do something, to persons not employed by the federal government.

It is exactly binding upon private interests, or can you not see the part I bolded? How do you figure this doesn't?

or by a United States person, wherever located

 

[Kutnupe14]

Moving the goalpsts?

No, I clearly reference that Congress can do such.

This is incorrect. Congress did that. The people voted on to make decisions that we (the private citizen) have all agreed to abide. That is the power given to the Legislative Branch, not the Executive.

It is exactly binding upon private interests, or can you not see the part I bolded? How do you figure this doesn't?
[/FONT][/B]

It's binding on private interest because Congress has already given the president power to enact the provision, through respective departments. The EO you put forth doesn't order private individuals to do anything. It order the State Dept and the Treasury to take steps to prevent individuals from doing something, again with the powers previously approved by Congress, via https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ122/PLAW-114publ122.pdf

Here maybe this will help you understand better. The president took executive action to direct the the BATFE to look into reclassifying bumpstock. Congress had already given the BATFE the power to classify such items. Bumpstocks were then banned. Not because the president had the power to do so unilaterally, but because Congress had already had granted the power to do such.

What it seems you are missing, is that there is a major difference between the president taking an executive action to creates laws private citizens are subject to (which he can't do) VS the president taking an executive action that directs a government agency to do something that Congress has already given them the power to do.

 

[BugI02]

In this week's episode of "Kut is Mean to Trump."



"Ordered?" Ya'll ok with this? Seriously, what the hell?

So when a president sanctions a person or country, is he not ordering American businesses not to do business with that person or country? If he were to sanction Chinese chemical companies found to be flooding the country with fentanyl, would he not be ordering Americans not to do business with those companies? And would it not be perfectly legal and likely constitutional? And what is to stop him from declaring the Chinese government as supporting chemical terrorism against the United Staes? Could he not then sanction the entire Chinese chemical industry or the whole country and in effect order American businesses to find other suppliers? Isn't that what we've already done to Iran?

Oy Vey! Always with the Trump as Hitler/Mussolini/Dictator narrative just looking for a chance to use it

 

[nonobaddog]

That is what trolls do.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So when a president sanctions a person or country, is he not ordering American businesses not to do business with that person or country? If he were to sanction Chinese chemical companies found to be flooding the country with fentanyl, would he not be ordering Americans not to do business with those companies? And would it not be perfectly legal and likely constitutional? And what is to stop him from declaring the Chinese government as supporting chemical terrorism against the United Staes? Could he not then sanction the entire Chinese chemical industry or the whole country and in effect order American businesses to find other suppliers? Isn't that what we've already done to Iran?

Oy Vey! Always with the Trump as Hitler/Mussolini/Dictator narrative just looking for a chance to use it

No, he's not... well, it's more complicated than that. The president can't order anything that hasn't been previously been power to do so. Congress gives him the power to do so. And when a president does so, he cites the authority as granted to him.
A president can use an EO reccomend or urge "the people" to do something, but an order or directive MUST have congressional or a statutory basis to do so. Directly ordering a business to do something without something on the books, no go.

 

[churchmouse]

That is what trolls do.

Lets not be a bad dog tonight OK.
Looks like everything is pretty steady. Lets keep it that way lease.

 

[BugI02]

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/where-does-trump-get-power-reimpose-sanctions
Where Does Trump Get the Power to Reimpose Sanctions?

Like most of America’s sanctions regimes, Trump’s order to reimpose sanctions rests on authority granted under a little-known and even less understood statute that gives the president sweeping authority to regulate certain aspects of international trade and commerce: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Practically, IEEPA and the Trading With the Enemy Act are the same, but with one notable difference: While the United States must be in a state of war for the president to regulate trade and commerce under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the President has complete discretion to declare a national emergency under IEEPA. The only requirement is that the emergency be an “unusual and extraordinary” threat that emanates in whole or substantially outside of the United States. What exactly constitutes “unusual” or “extraordinary,” however, is up for interpretation.

Once the president declares a threat, he can investigate, regulate, or prohibit a range of transactions and economic activities with few exceptions —primarily related to humanitarian aid and education materials.

What can the president do under IEEPA? Perhaps a better question is, what can’t the president do under IEEPA. Since its passage, presidents have relied on IEEPA to enact financial and economic sanctions against a host of countries, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, South Sudan, Russia, and Cuba to name a few, for threats ranging from terrorism and narcotics trafficking to human rights violations and WMD proliferation. One of the first uses was against Iran in 1979 over the hostage crisis. Signed by then-President Jimmy Carter, the sanctions froze Iranian assets and properties within the United States. In fact, since 2000, Presidents have used IEEPA in more than 400 executive actions. Not all of these actions were new, however. Some extended the timetable or expanded the scope of previous orders.

Powers granted/ceded to the president in 1977

 

[Kutnupe14]

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/where-does-trump-get-power-reimpose-sanctions
Where Does Trump Get the Power to Reimpose Sanctions?







Powers granted/ceded to the president in 1977

And of course, this had to be congressionally approved originally. If you're playing loud music, and I order you to turn it down, you can tell me to pound sand. You are not bound to abide by my order. If I call the police and they determine you are in violation of the noise ordinance, they can order you to turn the music down. I was right, by law, to tell you of the violation, but I needed an "already on the books" backing to compel you to abide by it.