Is this a thing past presidents have done? If so, I can like with it. If not, it shouldn't happen.

First, unconstitutional by his Attorney General's standards? The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality, and when it comes to presidential power, things are all mucked up. If the orders are to be challenged, someone with standing should challenge them before the Court (as people have attempted and are attempting to do).

Second, and more importantly, if he does this (and others have not), it would set precedent for future presidents to rescind executive orders because their law dude finds it "unconstitutional" which could mean almost anything.

As much as I'd like to see this happen, if it's not already custom, I don't think it should.

Obama's real disagreement will be over policy issues, not constitutional law. And that's the way the system is supposed to work. Executive orders can be revoked at the whim of the president. Some of Clinton's are still in effect. Others aren't. If you want a durable policy, follow the established procedures -- pass a law or adopt a regulation under the Administrative Proecdures Act.

Perhaps he can toss out the signing statements, which are the political equivalent of crossing your fingers behind your back.

ZAZ: Obama's real disagreement will be over policy issues, not constitutional law. And that's the way the system is supposed to work. Executive orders can be revoked at the whim of the president. Some of Clinton's are still in effect. Others aren't. If you want a durable policy, follow the established procedures -- pass a law or adopt a regulation under the Administrative Proecdures Act.

Thanks. I'm sadly ignorant of legislative politics. I'm totally cool with this, then.

That should have said "legislative policy." I just got done taking a 48 hr. exam. I excuse myself.

And by legislative, I of course meant executive.

::gunhead::

Link to list of Bush's executive orders

You'll find a mix of politically charged stuff that future presidents will reconsider (refusing to accept earmarks) and boring routine stuff that has to be said but nobody really cares about (order of succession within the Department of Health and Human Services).

Frank Anthrax: Second, and more importantly, if he does this (and others have not), it would set precedent for future presidents to rescind executive orders because their law dude finds it "unconstitutional" which could mean almost anything.

Gerald Ford was a bastard for ending executive order 9066, don't you think?

Shaggy_C: Gerald Ford was a bastard for ending executive order 9066, don't you think?

Of course not. But if he had done it in contravention of some law, then it would have been incorrect. Not wrong, but incorrect.

However, ZAZ has explained the custom and I have no problem with it. If there was none, though, it would be problematic.

Very cool.

Frank Anthrax: The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality,

This isn't exactly true. They only do it for certain things. For many issues, the SC has said they refuse to decide if its constitutional, saying that the final arbiter is Congress or whatever Agency.

A quick example is the "necessary and proper" clause of the constition - the SC never decides if something is necessary and proper. They give Congress final say over that.

DamnYankees: This isn't exactly true. They only do it for certain things. For many issues, the SC has said they refuse to decide if its constitutional, saying that the final arbiter is Congress or whatever Agency.

A quick example is the "necessary and proper" clause of the constition - the SC never decides if something is necessary and proper. They give Congress final say over that.

True. But the Court has the power to decide if they are the final arbiter. They only aren't when they say they aren't, thanks to Marshall.

I highly doubt he is going to go into office and take a bunch of power away from himself.

LaZBoy82: I highly doubt he is going to go into office and take a bunch of power away from himself.

I disagree... I think that Obama respects the enumerated powers of the President as they were intended, not the resulting powers after the Bush power grab.

In other words, I think Obama cares more about the integrity of our nation and government than he does about accumulating power.

Frank Anthrax: True. But the Court has the power to decide if they are the final arbiter. They only aren't when they say they aren't, thanks to Marshall.

Well, not really. Ultimately, the President can just ignore the SC. The "final arbiter" idea doesn't really exist de jure in law - it's entirely built about respecting each other.

Wow. What a great idea.

I haven't been paying much attention to politics, but this actually made me click.

Atypical Person Reading Fark: I haven't been paying much attention to politics, but this actually made me click.

And that right there is Obama's appeal in a nutshell, and why it scares the hell out of the people in charge.

I don't see the problem with doing this considering the President has the authority to rescind executive orders, even of previous administrations. Hopefully he'll take a look at the god damn HSPD 12. So many invasions of privacy are occurring for federal employees and contractors because of that thing.

In other words, I think Obama cares more about the integrity of our nation and government than he does about accumulating power.

He cares about getting elected, which is why he spins his plan as a crusade against the wicked rather than the utterly routine review of actions of the previous administration that happens during every change of power. Hillary would review executive orders and put a hold on pending regulatory actions too.

Now if Obama planned to suspend already-enacted regulations without the legally mandated notice and comment period, that would be news. If he planned to denounce a different set of Congressional enactments as unconstitutional and invalid, that would be news. This is not news.

ZAZ: This is not news.

You're right... it's Fark.

vincentpriceisdead: Atypical Person Reading Fark: I haven't been paying much attention to politics, but this actually made me click.

And that right there is Obama's appeal in a nutshell, and why it scares the hell out of the people in charge.

THIS

Once people start paying attention, then they notice what a farking biatch Hillary is.

ZAZ: In other words, I think Obama cares more about the integrity of our nation and government than he does about accumulating power.

He cares about getting elected, which is why he spins his plan as a crusade against the wicked rather than the utterly routine review of actions of the previous administration that happens during every change of power. Hillary would review executive orders and put a hold on pending regulatory actions too.

Now if Obama planned to suspend already-enacted regulations without the legally mandated notice and comment period, that would be news. If he planned to denounce a different set of Congressional enactments as unconstitutional and invalid, that would be news. This is not news.

So, you beef is not with barack obama is reminding people what powers he will have and that he will use them, but with the media's job in the selection of subjects it reports on?

You must be cranky quite a bit.

I'm still trying to figure out how a junior senator would be able to revoke any executive order?

Only someone elected President can do this.

adiabat: Only someone elected President can do this.

Um, yeah.. so when he is, he will.

Too bad it wasn't Bush who outlawed weed.

CheddarPants: Too bad it wasn't Bush who outlawed weed.

Have you ever been the president... ON WEED?

I know there is always some doubt when a candidate says they will rollback some of the more power-grabby stuff Bush has done. I'm an Obama supporter and even I have a dose of skepticism on that front.

Still, most of us would say there is a chance Obama would. Do any of us think there is any real chance that Clinton or McCain would?

Frank Anthrax: First, unconstitutional by his Attorney General's standards? The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality, and when it comes to presidential power, things are all mucked up. If the orders are to be challenged, someone with standing should challenge them before the Court (as people have attempted and are attempting to do).

Second, and more importantly, if he does this (and others have not), it would set precedent for future presidents to rescind executive orders because their law dude finds it "unconstitutional" which could mean almost anything.

Executive Orders are not laws. Their (purported) function was to describe how legislation should be applied in the policy and operation of the executive branch.

Most have never seen a court challenge, and (in Bush's case) are bastardizations of the law anyway. I have no problem with Obama (or Clinton, or McCain, or anyone with half a brain for that matter) going through them with a shredder.

DamnYankees: the President can just ignore the SC

THIS

/"[The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court] has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

What about the executive order proclaiming it National Puppy and Pretzel Day?

Who the hell does he think he is, a constitutional law professor?

I'm still trying to figure out how a junior senator would be able to revoke any executive order?

Only someone elected President can

In your head, what exactly was this going to contribute?

adiabat: I'm still trying to figure out how a junior senator would be able to revoke any executive order?

Now, a senior senator on the other hand...

it should be a hell of a bonfire

I don't need another reason to vote for him, but they are nice to have.

Well, actually that doesn't sound like a dumb idea at all.

FTA:
As president, he said he would ask his attorney general "to review every executive order" of the Bush administration. "We are going to overturn those that were unconstitutional. We are going to overturn those that are unnecessary."

That was the best part of the article...maybe we can start with all those stupid laws that discarded the Constitution

Will he rescind the executive order that killed all the Jedi?

What is up with the grammatically incorrect headlines on FARK these days?

/Headline = Epic grammatical fail.
//I can has better use of the English language in discussion forums?

I thought the 'Hero' tag needed bigger letters until I saw this:
He told one fan of the space program that he does plan to cut some parts the NASA budget, partly to finance education programs.

Paws off NASA, buddy! Go pull Blackwater contractors out of Iraq if you're looking to save a few nickles and dimes.

Empanda: Still, most of us would say there is a chance Obama would. Do any of us think there is any real chance that Clinton or McCain would?

I think Obama is just trying to remind us that there is such thing as a Constitution.

McCain has been rather unreliable on the subject since after 2000.

As for Clinton, does anyone know? Has she shown an interest in upholding the Constitution? I have my doubts, but don't want to be a jerk about it.

I'd like to see him go one better, and turn his AG/DOJ loose on the criminal conspiracy we have come to know as the Bush Administration. From Energy Notes to Plame to AttorneyGate, it's as though the Gambinos got into office.

Gonzales belongs in prison.

Man, you Obamacans will believe anything.

Apik0r0s: I'd like to see him go one better, and turn his AG/DOJ loose on the criminal conspiracy we have come to know as the Bush Administration. From Energy Notes to Plame to AttorneyGate, it's as though the Gambinos got into office.

Gonzales belongs in prison.

Along with Cheney, Rummy, Rice...even Bush (but that ain't gonna happen)

Anyways, the next president whether it's a Dem or a Repub, really should take the responsibility of the President seriously. even if it means launching investigation of the travesty that is the Bush Administration.

syrynxx: Paws off NASA, buddy! Go pull Blackwater contractors out of Iraq if you're looking to save a few nickles and dimes.

His plan involves doing fewer manned missions and more unmanned exploration.

Apik0r0s: I'd like to see him go one better, and turn his AG/DOJ loose on the criminal conspiracy we have come to know as the Bush Administration. From Energy Notes to Plame to AttorneyGate, it's as though the Gambinos got into office.

Gonzales belongs in prison.
There's a lot more than Gonzales that deserve to be behind bars.

Some even deserve a rope.

skunkmasher: Man, you Obamacans will believe anything.

But we think more then those that believe Bush is the second coming of Jesus and believe him blindly (despite any common sense)

Logweasel: Who the hell does he think he is, a constitutional law professor?

This.

/Taking ConLaw right now
//Finds it interesting a bit, but really droll compared to the rest of my classes
///Oh, and getting a kick out of these replies.

Now THIS is a promise I've been waiting to see from any major candidate for a long time now. Thank God.

Very little is more important to me than rolling back what I see as an absolutely overpowered Executive Branch. It's been going on continuously for almost 50 years, and it needs to be stopped.

And this is NOT a promise you're going to see (at least not honestly) from Hillary Clinton. She's champing at the bit to inherit the overpowered Executive both her husband and Bush had a massive hand in creating.

Between this and the fact that Obama would be much more likely to appoint Supreme Court judges who oppose a unitary executive and whose views are more liberal on civil rights, Obama is just on an entirely superior level to Clinton and ANY of the Republicans besides Ron Paul.

Now, this isn't to assume that Obama will make good on every single one of his campaign promises. No President ever has done that. But I think he's far more likely to follow through on stuff like this than any viable candidate we've seen for a generation, and probably will BE the most likely to follow through on things like this for another.

And that's what really ticks off the Republicans and the far right.

T-Servo: Empanda: Still, most of us would say there is a chance Obama would. Do any of us think there is any real chance that Clinton or McCain would?

I think Obama is just trying to remind us that there is such thing as a Constitution.

McCain has been rather unreliable on the subject since after 2000.

As for Clinton, does anyone know? Has she shown an interest in upholding the Constitution? I have my doubts, but don't want to be a jerk about it.

I believe there were some articles about Hillary being the only democratic candidate that refused to willingly roll back executive power to pre-Bush levels if elected.