Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Boy, what a scumbag Bill was...abusing his power by cutting the federal government, attacking the deficit, and enacting environmentally sound policies. 605047[/snapback] no, no, really stop, man... Hoo boy...that was a knee-slapper!
KRC Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Cheney's had the power ever since he forced Bush to sign the executive orders giving him the right. Remember when they blamed Bush's black eye on choking on a pretzel? 605012[/snapback] Cheney did that? I thought it was the aliens. They are all around us, you know.
Johnny Coli Posted February 16, 2006 Author Posted February 16, 2006 So on the one hand, executive orders grant the government more flexibility in responding to events in a world that's become more fast-paced than it was when the Constitution was written (and thus is a perfectly valid argument to the "living document" adherents of the Constitution. Like you. ). On the other hand...yeah, they can clearly be used to step on Congress' toes (which is more a strict constructionist argument. Unlike you. Even though you're making it. ) And I'm content to leave the discussion at that for now, as I don't have an answer. But I certainly admire the problem. 604970[/snapback] I figured you were going to go there. There is room for flexability in certain areas of the constitution with respect to establishing/evolving civil rights and liberties, but there should be absolutely none with respect to the balance of power of the branches. I feel the Bushies are liberally interpreting the Constitution with respect to the power of the Executive branch.
Johnny Coli Posted February 16, 2006 Author Posted February 16, 2006 no, no, really stop, man... Hoo boy...that was a knee-slapper! 605051[/snapback] Executive Order 12834 Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees Signed: January 20, 1993 Executive Order 12837 Deficit Control and Productivity Improvement in the Administration of the Federal Government Signed: February 10, 1993 Executive Order 12839 Reduction of 100,000 Federal positions Signed: February 10, 1993 Executive Order 12844 Federal use of Alternative fueled vehicles Signed: April 21, 1993 Executive Order 12845 Requiring agencies to purchase energy efficient computer equipment Signed: April 21, 1993
stuckincincy Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Why don't you use a more current link than March, 2001? Because if you linked to the actual National Archive, your jab at Clinton whiffs. Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index: current to 2/7/2006 Dubya, currently 198 in 6 years...~33/yr Bill, 363 in 8 years...~45/yr Bush senior had 165...~41/yr So Bill has a slight edge than Dubya, currently, and wrote 4 more per year than his predecessor. But if you're looking for a more present-day record, look no further than Ronbo, with 380 EOs for ~48/yr. If you want to compare Bill's EOs and Dubya's, let's look at their first nine months (most of Dubya's after September 11 deal primarily with the response for the attack, so to be fair we will only look at January to September) Clinton 1/20-9/11, 1993 28 EOs Deal primarily with environmental issues, ethics, and believe-it-or-not, cutting the size of the federal government Bush II 1/20-8/17 2001 (it doesn't quite go up to mid-september, because he was on vacation) 24 EOs His first two establish faith-based initiatives (gotta pander to the people that got you there). The rest are anti-labor, pro-energy in lifting regulations, or amending previous executive orders. Boy, what a scumbag Bill was...abusing his power by cutting the federal government, attacking the deficit, and enacting environmentally sound policies. 605047[/snapback] 'cause I don't waste time in endless I-net searches? Surprisingly, I don't live to prove things to you to the nth degree. Horrors. If you don't like Dubs and his cronies, beat them at the ballot box. You might want to take a look at the exponential increase of trade deficit during the Age of Bill. We could discuss pharmaceutical company lobbying $$$, if you like.
Ghost of BiB Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Revoking EO's Not current, but still interesting. Even if cumbersome, there are still checks and balances in the system.
KRC Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Revoking EO's Not current, but still interesting. Even if cumbersome, there are still checks and balances in the system. 605096[/snapback] Interesting...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Executive Order 12834 Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees Signed: January 20, 1993 BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! hooo, man, lemme tell ya...it just gets better and better!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 I figured you were going to go there. There is room for flexability in certain areas of the constitution with respect to establishing/evolving civil rights and liberties, but there should be absolutely none with respect to the balance of power of the branches. I feel the Bushies are liberally interpreting the Constitution with respect to the power of the Executive branch. 605058[/snapback] Yes, they are. You'll get no dispute from me. But "The Constitution should be flexible in some areas, but not in others" sounds suspisciously like "The Constitution should be flexible when I disagree with it." If it were coming from anyone else - Mickey, say - that's how I'd interpret that. Particularly seeing how when I espouse the same "flexibly strict constructionist" view, I get called various names as well. Though truly...if you want flexibility in the Constitution, call a friggin' Constitutional Convention and propose some Amendments. That's why that process was written in to the Constitution, so it would be a living document. None of which is all that relevant when it comes to executive orders...but it's more interesting than discussing whether or not we'll ever know if Cheney was plastered because he was on Fox, or Chinese clowns tilting boards with lasers on them at the South Pole...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Executive Order 12834 Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees Signed: January 20, 1993 605064[/snapback] Yeah, THAT one worked out well. It's tempting to say Bush revoked it...except I don't much recall anyone in Clinton's administration following it either...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Yeah, THAT one worked out well. It's tempting to say Bush revoked it...except I don't much recall anyone in Clinton's administration following it either... 605150[/snapback] Depends on who you were, I guess. Don't remember the details, but wasn't there some AF General who was supposed to be Chief of Staff or something and had to retire instead because he was dating while separated from his wife (had been separated for a couple years, as I recall - waiting on divorce to go through). For anyone who does know, was this ethics EO invoked at any point?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Depends on who you were, I guess. Don't remember the details, but wasn't there some AF General who was supposed to be Chief of Staff or something and had to retire instead because he was dating while separated from his wife (had been separated for a couple years, as I recall - waiting on divorce to go through). 605168[/snapback] I don't recall that...but judging by cases I've heard in the Corps (from people actually participating in the courts martial), that kind of thing is handled at the service level, well below an EO. Unless the AF does it differently...maybe they just don't bother, because courts martial interfere with their tee times...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 I thought Service Chiefs and Chairman were recommended by the WH, and approved by Congress, outside the normal service conventions. Guess I'll Google.
Ghost of BiB Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 Gen. Ralston Nope, not the case. I was wrong. He was being promoted by Cohen, but for whatever reasons withdrew his own candicacy. I won't speculate on any back room conversations or conspiracies.
Johnny Coli Posted February 16, 2006 Author Posted February 16, 2006 'cause I don't waste time in endless I-net searches? Surprisingly, I don't live to prove things to you to the nth degree. Horrors. 605081[/snapback] Testy. Are you mad because you were wrong, or are you mad that the conservative gang-bang that normally passes for political discussion on this board often lets the facts slide if there's a good shot at President Clinton or Senator Clinton? I’m willing to bet that my quick check of the National Archives took a lot less time than your search for a five-year-old article that you thought made a point. Truth told, I would have put the effort in anyway because I can’t stand you. If you don't like Dubs and his cronies, beat them at the ballot box. 605081[/snapback] I live in Mass, happily ensconced in blue. I'm only one vote, and I cast it against him or his father in four elections. That's politics. Win some, lose some. We could discuss pharmaceutical company lobbying $$$, if you like. 605081[/snapback] I make the drugs, I don’t sell them. It’s nice to get paid for it, and it’s also nice that what I work on will benefit people long after I’m dead. What is it that you do while you pine away for white picket fences and the 1950s?
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 I live in Mass, happily ensconced in blue. I'm only one vote, and I cast it against him or his father in four elections. That's politics. Win some, lose some. 605197[/snapback] That's nothing. I switched to the Republican party just so that I could vote against Bush in the primary too.
Ghost of BiB Posted February 16, 2006 Posted February 16, 2006 That's nothing. I switched to the Republican party just so that I could vote against Bush in the primary too. 605214[/snapback] Given our choices are usually bad and worse, were you doing that to get Gore, Kerry, or both? In hindsight, you think either or both are better choices?
Terry Tate Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 When pressed, I usually NOFORN it, and say fugg everybody. I still don't know if that's the right thing to do, but it covers me. Maybe someone else perusing this can point out a reference. rel "x" + rel "y" = noforn. Can't give you a classification guide reference.
Ghost of BiB Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 rel "x" + rel "y" = noforn. Can't give you a classification guide reference. 605285[/snapback] That's what I normally do, but there isn't any published guidance I can find. Honestly, haven't looked hard either. I inquired three times and then said screw it. I NOFORN about everything generally if any doubt. SAPs have more finite rules - and as I said, I generally don't go there in anything written and referenced. We as a rule are a lot more generic in our products.
stuckincincy Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 Testy. Are you mad because you were wrong, or are you mad that the conservative gang-bang that normally passes for political discussion on this board often lets the facts slide if there's a good shot at President Clinton or Senator Clinton? I’m willing to bet that my quick check of the National Archives took a lot less time than your search for a five-year-old article that you thought made a point. Truth told, I would have put the effort in anyway because I can’t stand you. I live in Mass, happily ensconced in blue. I'm only one vote, and I cast it against him or his father in four elections. That's politics. Win some, lose some. I make the drugs, I don’t sell them. It’s nice to get paid for it, and it’s also nice that what I work on will benefit people long after I’m dead. What is it that you do while you pine away for white picket fences and the 1950s? 605197[/snapback] VERY good! You are so easy to provoke - it's a conspiracy, you know. I'm quite aware of your capacity for hate. Your pal, stuck
Recommended Posts