Barack Obama

Obama's Legacy is Executive Abuse

The temptation to use the Obama model of legislating through the executive branch will become increasingly attractive to politicians and their supporters.

|

Over the winter break, I finally got around to binge-watching Parks and Recreation. In case you missed the show's seven-year run, it's about a fascistic small-town councilwoman who believes it's a politician's job to impose her notions of morality, safety and decency on everyone, no matter what voters want or what the system dictates. She is justifiably recalled by the people of her town after attempting to regulate portion sizes at fast-food restaurants but ends up running a federal office where she can do big things without the consent of the people.

Now, I realize that most of the show's fans see the narrative in a vastly different light and the protagonist, Leslie Knope, as the sort of idealistic, compassionate and principled politician Americans should love. Parks and Rec can be fantastically funny (and it has a big heart), but as I watched, I was often reminded that many people glorify the idea of "public service"—a preposterous term that treats politics as if it were a sacrifice without pay, power or prestige—and "doing something" as a moral imperative, no matter how politicians get it done.

When I got back from my winter vacation, America was still being run by a two-term president who believes it's his job to impose his notions of morality, safety and decency on everyone, often trying to work around the limits the system places on him. This week, Barack Obama is going to institute new restrictions on Americans unilaterally—expanding background checks, closing supposed "loopholes" and tightening the process for law-abiding gun owners—because Congress "won't act" and also because he believes it's the right thing to do. Neither of those is a compelling reason to legislate from the White House.

Perhaps no post-World War II president (and maybe none before) has justified his executive overreach by openly contending he was working around the lawmaking branch of government because it had refused to do what he desired. Whether a court finds his actions constitutional or not, it's an argument that stands, at the very least, against the spirit of American governance. Today many liberals call this "leadership."

The likeliest result of his new gun push will be that hundreds of thousands of Americans who understandably fear the mission creep of government will end up buying a whole bunch of guns. The flow of donations to Second Amendment advocacy groups will almost certainly rise, and gun violence—which has fallen considerably over the past 20 years of gun ownership expansion—will not be addressed.

But more consequential—and this may be the most destructive legacy of the Obama presidency—is the mainstreaming of the idea that if Congress "fails to act," it's OK for the president to figure out a way to make law himself. Hillary Clinton's already applauded Obama's actions because, as she put it, "Congress won't act; we have to do something." This idea is repeated perpetually by the left, in effect arguing that we live in a direct democracy run by the president (until a Republican is in office, of course). On immigration, on global warming, on Iran, on whatever crusade liberals are on, the president has a moral obligation to act if Congress doesn't do what he wants.

To believe this, you'd have to accept two things: that Congress has a responsibility to pass bills on issues important to the president and that Congress has not already acted.

In 2013, the Senate rejected legislation to expand background checks for gun purchases and to ban certain weapons and ammunition, and it would almost certainly oppose nearly every idea Obama has to curb gun ownership today. Congress has acted, just not in the manner Obama desires.

If President George W. Bush had instituted a series of restrictions on the abortion industry—seeing as it has a loud, well-organized and well-funded lobby that wants to make abortions "effortlessly" available—without congressional input, would that have been procedurally OK with liberals? You know, for the children? I don't imagine so.

The truth is that Obama has attempted to govern without Congress ever since Democrats rammed the Affordable Care Act through. It was the first time any consequential reform was instituted by a single political party, poisoning any chance of building consensus on major legislation in the foreseeable future. Since then, Republicans have frustrated Democrats—and on nearly every issue that matters to Obama. Obama has gone as far as he can—and sometimes farther—to administer law through our loudest, largest, most powerful and best-funded bureaucracies.

A lot of people justify this behavior for the most obvious reason: They don't care about process; they only care about issues. It's true that the upside of executive orders and actions is that they can be easily undone when a new president is elected. But with the intractability of both parties only becoming more pronounced, the temptation to use the Obama model of legislating through the executive branch will become increasingly attractive to politicians and their supporters.

Copyright 2016 Creators.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

88 responses to “Obama's Legacy is Executive Abuse

  1. “The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.” – Barack Obama, 2008

    Mission accomplished! George Bush has very little power now. Oh, that’s not what you thought I meant?

    I really like Parks and Rec – but the portrayal of Knope as always right in wanting a government that fixes everything that’s wrong was always a bit irritating. Of course they had a counterbalancing force in “the only reason many Americans have heard of libertarians”, Ron Swanson, but his views were treated as comedic more than heroic.

    1. “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” – Rush

      Congress has not failed to act. Congress considered the President’s suggestions and determined that they were stupid crap that clearly violated the Second A without actually accomplishing their stated goals. Based on that determination, they acted by refusing to pass anything that would make this shit into a law.

      Occasionally, I grow hopeful when I see the incredibly low public opinion of congress. But, then I realize why the public opinion is so low and it give me the sadz.

      1. Even Limbaugh manages to get in a pithy quote sometimes.

        1. Not that Rush.

    2. It got worse in the final season or two, but throughout the show Ron was still often viewed as a voice of reason when it came to issues he had with Knope. It wasn’t until late that they went full progressive with the Democratic cameos and Leslie goes to Washington nonsense.

      1. I thought the final season was one of the best. C’mon Ron was a successful capitalist. The finale was definitely one of the best in a long time. The city council years were bad. Expect for when Patton Oswalt filibusters by talking about how to bring the DC and Marvel universes together with the Infinity Gauntlet. If you have not seen, see it.

    3. I had to stop watching P&R after about the third or fourth season. The show’s humor was becoming much more canned and sitcommy, but the real reason was the Knope character.

      The writers had a chance to play her up as a self-righteous small-town Hitler, but they really blew it by trying to keep her likable.

      1. That’s the thing, she had all these ideas and almost none of them ever got done.

        1. Yeah, but she was an asshole and they treated her like a good guy. I wanted to see her suffer.

  2. Perhaps no post-World War II president (and maybe none before) has justified his executive overreach by openly contending he was working around the lawmaking branch of government because it had refused to do what he desired. Whether a court finds his actions constitutional or not, it’s an argument that stands, at the very least, against the spirit of American governance. Today many liberals call this “leadership.”

    You know who else attempted (and succeeded) in eliminating the legislative branch, don’t you?

    It seems only natural– in a Machiavellian sort of way– that the executive would chomp against the bit of constitutional balance of powers. But for the press to ignore, and even champion, this overreach is unconscionable in a free society. If we are to maintain what freedom we have left, we must solve this captive press problem. It may be exposed for what it is.

    1. Must be exposed

      1. Anyone who calls socialist looters “liberals” is probably a religious fanatic infiltrator. Google news and online paper collections go back centuries. Everywhere on Earth, including These States, liberal means a sort of gelded or gutless libertarian. Communists, anarchists, republicans and socialists are verifiably synonymous and interchangeable throughout most of human history and languages. Things changed in November of 1932 when the Republicans–bound by the Prohibition Party platform to treat beer and wine like Satanic narcotics lost everything. The Liberal Party–formed 40 years before the LP–put repeal in its platform and forced the Democrats to follow suit. This made FDR president-for-life. To Republicans and their dupes the word thus become synonymous first with Satan’s wet saloon-backers, and later, Satan’s atheist commie arsonists. To the other 7 billion earthlings, including most literate Americans, liberal still means neo-laissez-faire advocates of a market economy just as it has for nearly two centuries.

        1. Republicans in Rome were not commies, anarchists or socialists. And to my knowledge, never were.

          1. The Roman Republic was dominated by a narrow aristocratic oligarchy and attempts to restore it after Augustus turned it into an Empire were specifically aimed at restoring that narrow oligarchy.

            So they were indeed the opposite of left-wing republicans of various stripes throughout history.

            1. Well said, IW. The fact that those oligarchically nostalgic efforts failed miserably merits its own mention.

              Government inevitably grows and is practically impossible to roll back without much violence and bloodshed, underpinned by steadfast motivation, typically from a sense of revenge.

              Augustus and his successors “gave” the people, both plebs and patricians, a generous, entertaining existence, complete with paternalistic propaganda to build brand loyalty. Many, maybe most, folks knew it was the wrong path to take, but the comforts and stability snuffed out any motivation to resist. I can’t say I see any difference with America, except that we simply don’t admit the POTUS is a de facto dictatorship in many regards. Which is probably worse.

              1. Even today, people still want some Great Leader to ride in on a white horse and rescue them from various modern problems. You hear it in the seeming adoration and blind defense of various politicians, both Left and Right.

                1. you mean obama didnt do that?

  3. It sounds trite but growing up I didn’t really appreciate the notion that “a country to be free requires a citizenry that engages in holding government to account.” But the state has become a beast of it’s own and a kind of bureaucratic singularity has occurred.
    Now the state is working on the low hanging fruit and people who think like the characters on TV. It turns people against each other (a time-honored trick) and when reasonable people start voicing concern about state corruptions they’re met with blank stares or “you’re a child-hater” responses.
    The higher the percentage of idiots in the population the harder it gets to turn it all around. George Orwell was a wise man. But he was just a sci-fi author, right?

  4. Ayn Rand noted that only Richard Nixon, a card-carrying, right-wing religious fanatic could get away with the appeasement of Communist China’s dictatorship. Today, only a black president elected by the millions of people shot and jailed in selective enforcement of victimless crime laws enforced for decades by Ku-Klux cops and white supremacist prosecutors, could get away with smuggling Kristallnacht gun laws past the Second Amendment. National Socialist Germany at least has the excuse that it had no Second Amendment 78 years ago…

  5. Can you explain how Ronnie had over 400 this potus has less than 200 and somehow Ronnie didn’t set the standard????

    1. Maybe because one used the power as conceived and the other is a blatant grabber?????????????????????????
      I don’t know whether that is true, but I suspect your motives and your claim since you trot out numbers absent any sort of context.

    2. Because Obama issues “executive memoranda” in order to keep the number of “executive orders” low, but they have virtually the same effect. IE Obama is gaming the system to fool the low information voters.

      ” President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history ? using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.”

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../20191805/

      1. continued

        “When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the “Do Nothing Congress” almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.”

  6. “Perhaps no post-World War II president (and maybe none before) has justified his executive overreach by openly contending he was working around the lawmaking branch of government because it had refused to do what he desired. Whether a court finds his actions constitutional or not, it’s an argument that stands, at the very least, against the spirit of American governance. Today many liberals call this “leadership.””

    When Richard Nixon tried it, liberals called it subverting the constitution and the American Republic.

    “To believe this, you’d have to accept two things: that Congress has a responsibility to pass bills on issues important to the president and that Congress has not already acted.”

    You also need to accept a third premise: that the elections of the members of Congress, many of whom won election by expressly opposing the issues important to the president, somehow do not count as reflections of the will of the people.

    1. I would suggest you only need to accept the first premise.

  7. The biggest reason Obama was able to get away with what he’s done is that for years we had a compliant Congress completely unwilling to clip his nuts, because it was run by guys like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell…who also wanted an expansive government (because all of Obama’s overreaches could also be abused by future Republican presidents). Plus, they got all of the programs they actually wanted (because Republican leadership plugged government intrusion into health care with Medicare Plan D), but Obama gave them the luxury of blaming the Democrats for it.

    The answer, as always, is to make sure that in Congress we fire politicians frequently to keep them from getting too chummy with each other or comfortable with spending taxpayer money. We want them fighting over every dime and completely willing to undermine each others’ programs by shutting down the government if they deem it necessary.

  8. Checks and balances were created to deliberately slow the pace of government, but they also effectively create a ratchet for the regulatory state. We need the ability to have congress repeal laws or executive rules with a simple majority or possibly even just a significant minority.

    1. i think laws should probably expire automatically after a decade or something, so people actually have to think about whether … is an issue worth killing people over. maybe the bill of rights is permanent and everything else is up for debate. i can’t really think of a downside

    2. i think laws should probably expire automatically after a decade or something, so people actually have to think about whether … is an issue worth killing people over. maybe the bill of rights is permanent and everything else is up for debate. i can’t really think of a downside

  9. How much teeth does an executive order actually have?

  10. Typical Harsanyi BS, where he hopes no one will check the facts.

    Reagan averaged 48 executive orders per year, Bush 36, and Obama so far 33. Executive orders have been declining, and continue to do so under this President. So if there is any legacy regarding EOs under Obama (and there isn’t) it’s that he has used it less than GOP God Reagan.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

    Yawn.

    1. Yea thats not the argument that is being made here. It is about using executive orders cause congress wont act which is concerning. I didnt see anything pertaining to numbers or saying gop potus dont issue them so not sure what you are talking about. Reagan or bush using them does not justify the executive orders here. Also executive orders arent necessarily equal in terms of what they do.

      1. Of course. So neo-con Harsanyi dislikes those by a Democrat Pres. Just like Obama disliked those from a GOP Pres. The difference? So far, Obama has used them less than both Bush and Reagan. So there clearly is no executive overreach from Obama, at least not to the level done prior to him. Hasanyi’s premise, that his legacy is executive action, is clearly not true, unless he wants to say Reagan was worse. And he of course would never say that about one of his saints.

      2. You may find this article from 1987 illuminating, in regard to your first point.

        “WASHINGTON ? With 17 months of his presidency remaining, Ronald Reagan will bank on executive orders and judicial action to implement social policies that he cannot persuade Congress to enact, Gary L. Bauer, the President’s chief domestic policy adviser, declared Thursday.”

        Reagan actively declared that he was going to use EOs because he didn’t like what Congress was doing.

          1. OK, now let’s see the link that shows he DID do that.

            1. Search for Ronald Reagan executive order on abortion; nothing. Jack, got something to add here?

            2. Search for Ronald Reagan executive order on pornography; nothing. Hey, Jack, caught lying AGAIN?

            3. “Reagan actively declared that he was going to use EOs because he didn’t like what Congress was doing.”
              Jack’s claim. Make that Jack’s LIE.

              From the link:
              “Bauer, the feisty attorney Reagan named to push his social issue agenda, said the President may accomplish some of his goals in such areas as abortion and pornography through a series of executive orders and by his appointment of conservative judges to the federal judiciary, including his nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court.”

              So we go from:
              “Reagan did.”
              To
              “A Reagan adviser said Reagan might.”

              Jack, you’re a slimy lying piece of shit.

      3. By the way, total EOs under Reagan were 381. And he had a Democrat House to deal with all 8 years.

        1. Obama has been pushing most of his directives through as “Executive memorandum” instead of “executive orders”. He’s gaming the system to fool low information voters.

          ” President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history ? using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

          When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the “Do Nothing Congress” almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.”

          http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../20191805/

          1. Pres memoranda aren’t able to be used because each President determines whether or not they are published.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..memoranda/

            1. From your link, Jack:

              “What matters then is substance, not the numbers. As we noted, many of Obama’s most controversial executive actions were undertaken with neither an executive order nor a presidential memorandum.
              The White House appears to want to have its cake and eat it too, bragging about its “year of action” while pointing to numbers that play down Obama’s use of executive authority; the president even said he had been “very restrained.” But the media has dropped the ball too, highlighting an unhelpful numbers game. Two Pinocchios all around.
              Two Pinocchios”

              Yep, the press sucks since it’s in Obo’s pocket, and Obo’s at least as much a liar as you are.

    2. One doesnt need a high number of executive orders in order to abuse its power

      1. Case in point with Harper and prorogation. He used this tool in Parliament three times and it drove liberals to shrillness. Harper was indeed a special cat but I couldn’t get worked up over this.

        But when you look at it. Once he did it because it was the Olympics and the other because the Liberals, NDP and BQ were planning an unholy merge to take down his minority government – AFTER the elections and when they told the people they would never, ever do such a thing.

        He shoved it up their asses and I supported him on that. They tried to usurp the will of the people before he even began to govern.

      2. That’s right. So what makes Obamas abuse and Reagans righteous? A proclamation from Harsanyi? Please.

        1. Jackand Ace|1.8.16 @ 4:21PM|#
          “That’s right. So what makes Obamas abuse and Reagans righteous?”

          What makes that true is that you been busted for lying one more time.

      3. To prove your point, Bush used an EO to allow NSA to wiretap on Americans. There may be a nefarious legacy at play here, but contrary to neo-con Harsanyi’s piece, it isn’t with Obama.

        1. Jackand Ace|1.8.16 @ 4:54PM|#
          “To prove your point, Bush used an EO to allow NSA to wiretap on Americans. There may be a nefarious legacy at play here, but contrary to neo-con Harsanyi’s piece, it isn’t with Obama.”

          Oh, now it’s BOOOOSH, and a single instance?
          Gee, Jack, push that goal post!

          1. Oh, and I see where Obo rescinded that order, since it was…
            Well, shucks. No he didn’t!

            1. Lol

    3. Standard misdirection and obfuscation, Jack. It’s not numbers that solely matter, it’s what’s in them. Of course, you knew that, because you’re not stupid. No, you’re just mendacious. And it’s all justified in service to “the cause.” Which makes you no better than the worst villains in history – as long as the ends are YOUR ends, then the means don’t matter. You’d grind up millions, rights be damned, in pursuit of “the cause.” And your kind has – to the tune of hundreds of millions, all in pursuit of the wonderful socialist utopia….because you just KNOW it’s better than free choice.

      Fuck. You.

      1. AFSlade|1.8.16 @ 3:55PM|#
        “…Of course, you knew that, because you’re not stupid….”

        Disagreed!
        Jack is a lying lefty piece of shit and is due every bit of nastiness directed at him as a result. But he’s also an imbecilic piece of shit.

      2. “Standard misdirection and obfuscation, Jack. It’s not numbers that solely matter, it’s what’s in them. ”

        No, it’s not even that. Obama’s been using “executive memorandum” in place of actual “executive orders”. They have the same effect. So, it’s just a move to fool the populace.

    4. Jackand Ace|1.8.16 @ 3:35PM|#
      “Reagan averaged 48 executive orders per year, Bush 36, and Obama so far 33.”

      Typical jackass misdirection.
      Tell us, oh lefty asshole, who else used it specifically to avoid legislative action?

    5. This is the usual defense of abuse of power: someone else did it too. This same non-argument is often trotted out by criminals of other stripes too.

      Nice going Jack.

      1. Not the point at all. It’s Harsanyis point that executive action is Obama’s “legacy.” It could only be a legacy if he was achieving something unique. In fact, he has reduced the level of executive actions from his immediate predecessors.

        Harsanyi doesn’t like the actions Obama took? Fine, make that point, rather than stoop to making an attempt to elevate that point with BS. He loses any credence when he does that.

        It’s got nothing to do with the ethics of executive action, and everything to do with whether Harsanyi can make a cogent point. And as always, he can’t.

      2. I will put it this way. Harsanyi says above:

        “…because Congress “won’t act” and also because he believes it’s the right thing to do. Neither of those is a compelling reason to legislate from the White House”

        It’s not? He should have complained about that long ago then, because Reagan thought it was. It’s certainly not Obama’s legacy…that legacy was in place long ago.

        1. So…you’re not going to address the executive memorandum issue? Simply going to ignore the fact that they are by practical application no different than EO’s? Do you not see the inherent danger of such an expansion of power presents to your own political views when it’s inevitably in the hands of somebody who you vehemently oppose? Could I possibly stop trying to sound like judge Nap?

          1. I answered that above. EMs are or are not published based on each Pres decision, so you can’t tell who had more. See the link.

            1. Yes, you tried tu-quoque as an excuse, not surprising from a lefty busted for lying.
              But from your link, Jack:

              “What matters then is substance, not the numbers. As we noted, many of Obama’s most controversial executive actions were undertaken with neither an executive order nor a presidential memorandum.
              The White House appears to want to have its cake and eat it too, bragging about its “year of action” while pointing to numbers that play down Obama’s use of executive authority; the president even said he had been “very restrained.” But the media has dropped the ball too, highlighting an unhelpful numbers game. Two Pinocchios all around.
              Two Pinocchios”

              Do you see that, Jack? He’s lying through his teeth and has pulled crap totally under the table. He’s nearly as despicable as his lying apologists.

            2. The amount of EMs per president was not the point of my questions to you. The point was are you comfortable with the consolidation of power being focused in the Executive branch? Is your ideal system of government something akin to Imperial Rome? Where our elected representatives are reduced to little more than glorified lobbyists?

              1. Not at all. It was never my intention to approve executive overreach. I criticized the point of Harsanyi’s article, that Obama is in some sort of uncharted waters…that would make it a legacy. And he is nowhere near that, at least not considering the recent past.

                Harsanyi is a hack. He would love executive action from a neocon President.

                1. So you conceded the point that Obama has in fact abused the power of his office, but it’s a non issue due to your perception of Harsanyi as disingenuous because he neglects to mention presidents have done the same in the past? Or are you going to continue to carry water for Obama on the pertinent subject because…same team?

                  1. Read again. What I concede is that Obama has done what every single President before him as done…taken executive action. With one exception…he has done it less than the recent GOP Presidents. Couldn’t be clearer in what I concede. And what I conclude is Harsanyi is full of BS.

                    1. Continue carry water it is then. In your mind, what constitutes an abuse of power? I’m more than willing to admit that every president we’ve had for the last one hundred years, give or take, has abused his power to one degree or another. Yet you seem to have absolutely no problem with the overreach, despite your half hearted platitudes earlier.

                    2. Jackand Ace|1.9.16 @ 9:56PM|#
                      “Read again. What I concede is that Obama has done what every single President before him as done…taken executive action. With one exception…he has done it less than the recent GOP Presidents.”
                      And you’ve been given plenty of evidence to show that’s a lie, and as a slimy lefty liar, you continue to lie. Do you think anyone here doesn’t see that? Does it make it easier to look in the mirror when you lie? Do you get a Obo-boner when you lie? Why do you lie so transparently, Jack? Why do you lie so constantly, Jack?

                      “Couldn’t be clearer in what I concede.”
                      You lie and claim you concede something?

                      “And what I conclude is Harsanyi is full of BS.”
                      Your lies show there is certainly someone here full of bullshit, but that person claims the name of Jack.
                      Fuck off, slaver.

                2. “that Obama is in some sort of uncharted waters”
                  See, mom! He did it firrrrrrrst! Perfect, Jack; you don’t quite rise to adolescent behavior.

                  “He would love executive action from a neocon President.”
                  I see your mind reading skills are every bit as great as your mental abilities.
                  Fuck off, slaver.

  11. Obama’s legacy is going to be determined by the media and historians. The media has proven that they are poodles so they will do whatever it takes to make sure that anything that could be perceived as negative will be buried as deep as possible in positive spin. And historians on the whole are all either still ‘court’ historians (who love the active exercise of power) or agenda-driven revisionists (who love the active exercise of power when it achieves ‘great’ things).

    1. Since both are of the left, which means honesty isn’t part of their DNA, you get the current popularity of Bill Clinton, who is deserving of nothing but opprobrium.

    2. Yes. Even if the economy collapses, Obama’s mainstream legacy among historians and the press is going to be nice guy, first black president.

      The litany of Chicago-style scandals and abuses will be ignored as the price of politics, and the guy will be bumping around television studios and UN summits for the next few decades lecturing us about how we need to be more moral and compassionate.

  12. As usual, people complaining about Executive Orders don’t actually say what the problem is.

    This most recent order did three main things.
    It directed enforcement agencies to up their game. So when Victor aks Fred about Charlie, Fred can respond in a timely manner about whether or not Charlie is okay to purchase. Because under current law, if Fred takes more then 3 days to get back to Victor, Fred gets his gun regardless of what Fred turns up.
    Improve inter-agency communication. Have Sally talk to Fred about what she knows about Charlie, so if Charlie shouldn’t be getting a gun under existing law he doesn’t get it because of a communication breakdown.
    And directing funding for reseach into smart guns. Because when Bob steals Charlie’s gun, wouldn’t it be awful neat if Bob couldn’t shoot Charlie with it?

    The only possibly objectionable thing I see is finalizing some ATF rules regarding who has to seek a background check, making sure that more people go through the system.

    Where in that is the “overreach”? The first two are about more effort put into enforcement of existing laws. The third is research. The fourth is the ATF doing it’s thing, with authority given to it by Congress. Where, precisely, is Obama’s overreach?

    But as usual, instead of actually being specific about the objection, Mr. Hirsanyi just when “Obama Executive Order! Boo!”

    If you can’t articulate why you don’t like something, it makes me skeptical it’s a thought-out reason.

    1. EscherEnigma|1.8.16 @ 5:22PM|#
      “As usual, people complaining about Executive Orders don’t actually say what the problem is.”

      As usual, Obo apologist grasping at straws. Did you read the article?
      It’s not that his efforts are effective; as a lying grandstanding POS, that’s not expected.
      It’s his appropriation of functions properly in the hands of the legislature.

    2. It is overreach, and previously prohibited by the SCOTUS, when Congress has taken up a subject, rejected it and then the POTUS tries to do it by executive action.
      If the chief executive does it in a vacuum, it is more acceptable, when Congress has already said “no”, he can’t use EO’s to override their will.

  13. i don’t understand the concept of watching something and having to ruin it because if it were real life, you wouldn’t support it.

  14. This warning has been out there several years. Just one of the God awful precidents set by the First Idiot, his administration’s lackys, and the Democrats in congress. You’re seeing a President that refused to even speak with congress, the castigates them for doing nothing on his policies. Remember who said “I won the election, get over it?” Harry Reid’s congress misuse the reconcilliation process to get Obamacare rammed through begs for the same process to be used by the Republicans (if they ever find where they left their balls) to recind the whole mess. A quibbling president and congress that say Obama has issued fewer “Executive Orders” than any president in recent history, while at the same time he issues three times as many “Executive Memos”… Indistinguishable from the former in force of law.
    This petulent child-man has forever changed the face of American politics.

  15. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    ???????????www.HomeSalary10.com

  16. The US sells 60% of military arms. Obama just sold a biillion dollars worth to a country that beheaded 47 people for crimes against the State. There is no hope.

  17. A large part of the blame goes to Congress. Not for “failing to act”, but in failing to defend their constitutional powers and allowing the President to do what he pleases without much pushback, either politically or legally. Hopefully this will change, but I won’t be holding my breath.

  18. Thank you for speaking the truth, Mr. Harsanyi. You’re one of the few straight-shooting guys who still works here.

  19. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.buzznews99.com

  20. Time to go back to sucking up to the tea party….

  21. Parks & Rec was not entertaining in the least. After about five minutes I realized it was about the kind of people I watch tv to get away from. Never watched it again. All the more reason it makes an apt comparison to Obama.

  22. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.buzznews99.com

  23. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    ???????????http://www.HomeSalary10.com

  24. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.
    ??????????? http://www.HomeSalary10.com

  25. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  26. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.