Congress needed to provide the moneys for those actions, with out money from congress nothing can be done, and providing the moneys takes the en-actions of laws, and the enabling of laws is approval of policy, and just as assuredly the cutting of funds stops any Policy the President may bring forward. So it is Congress who has to provide the funds ,and just as they did in Vietnam, when they cut the funds, the Presidential Policy dies.
Executive Orders Defined An Executive Order (EO) is a directive issued to executive-level agencies, department heads, or other employees from the President under the President's statutory, or constitutional powers. In many ways, the EO is similar to written orders, or instructions the president of a corporation might send to department heads or directors.Thirty days after it is officially published in the Federal Register, an EO becomes law. While the EO does bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an EO may be illegal or unconstitutional. The first EO was issued in 1789 by none other than George Washington. Not until 1907 were EOs given official numbers. Reasons for Issuing an Executive Order Presidents typically issue an EO for one of these purposes: 1. Operational management of the executive branch 2. Operational management of federal agencies or officials 3. To carry out statutory presidential responsibilities - - In 1970, President Nixon used this 398 word Executive Order establishing NOAA. How Executive Orders May be Vacated The President can retract an EO at any time. The President may also issue an EO that supersedes an existing one. New incoming Presidents may choose to follow the EOs of their predecessors, replace them with new ones of their own, or revoke the old ones completely. In extreme cases, Congress may pass a law that alters an EO, and the Supreme Court can declare them unconstitutional.
Now you are just grasping at straws... How much is the annual budget for the DHS? Does congress have to approve every action the DHS takes?
But to execute and continue a executive order requires funding, and if Congress doesn't provide the Funds, cut them off, I don't care what the president want's it isn't going to happen. and as you just posted the Congress and the Judiciary can kill any Presidential Policy even those issued as a E.O. With out funds, and all funds come from The House, passed by Congress, I don't care what the Presidential Policy is, it isn't going to happen.
As a voter, I totally agree. Wrong. They all do it. Clinton spent far more time than her with foreign policy coaches, debate coaches and whatnot. It's standard fare, and he turned out to be pretty good. Stop looking at it politically. It's only just tooooooo convenient that you're a Democrat and she's just "not qualified." She's a governor: none of them are strong on foreign policy. What matters is the character. You may not like her ideology, but that doesn't mean she's unqualified. Yes. No. Would I really have a choice? Her political stance on issues (abortion, religion, gays, pollution) would stop me from voting for her despite the fact that I like her strong fiscal conservative policies. I've said this about a million times, Asguard, I won't be voting for her or McCain this November. But despite the fact that I won't be voting for them because of strong ideological issues, does not mean I can't be fair in the judgment of her qualifications. There was once a time in American politics where a person could be judged for their qualifications without partisan bickering. ~String
Really? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! When did this Utopian system exist? :shrug:
1940's through the 1980's. I'm not saying that politics didn't get dirty, but people didn't always bitch about the qualifications of a person for political reasons. ~String
No. I'm re-iterating her what I've read on her stance on same-sex unions (and I ain't even talking marriage). ~String
Agreed, Palin's policy outlook is important if she should become the VP. I find in curious that the "well qualified candidate" is being kept away from the press and unscripted events while she is in training. I think that speaks volumes about her qualifications.
actually i was just interested to see what you thought was more important. not to critise you but i had a feeling you would in the end vote for whats in your own best interests (thats not a critisium, most people do) and i cant her advancing gay rights to any extent. if anything she would push them back if im reading her right though i aplaude the move as a great POLITICAL stroke, with someone who is sick is to big a risk that rather than being purly cerimomonial she would get her hands on real power and that would be a disaster for human rights the other thing i wanted to see was wether you viewed the ecconomy as more important than the people who make up the country
I'm not sure I hold the president as responsible for "the economy" as everybody else. I hold the Congress more responsible for that, maybe the Fed (which, otherwise does a great job, but recessions are inevitable). ~String
So far what I have found are Gay Democratic, (Stonewall) sites in full blown attack mode, and a whole lot of chaff about the realities of what happened. And some Log Cabin defence of her? A lot of Jamming, of the radar screen, and very little burn through, for a clear picture.
I finally clicked on this thread and, HOLY FUCK SPOCK PREDICTED THIS A WEEK BEFORE MCCAIN CHOSE HER. WTF MAN?
Could be because of some of the people with certain beliefs who appear to be surrounding her. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/05/palin-church-promotes-converting-gays/ ANCHORAGE, ALASKA (AP) - Gov. Sarah Palin's church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer. "You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality," according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed for about six years. Palin's conservative Christian views have energized that part of the GOP electorate, which was lukewarm to John McCain's candidacy before he named her as his vice presidential choice. She is staunchly anti-abortion, opposing exceptions for rape and incest, and opposes gay marriage and spousal rights for gay couples. Focus on the Family, a national Christian fundamentalist organization, is conducting the "Love Won Out" Conference in Anchorage, about 30 miles from Wasilla. Palin, campaigning with McCain in the Midwest on Friday, has not publicly expressed a view on the so-called "pray away the gay" movement. Larry Kroon, senior pastor at Palin's church, was not available to discuss the matter Friday, said a church worker who declined to give her name. Gay activists in Alaska said Palin has not worked actively against their interests, but early in her administration she supported a bill to overrule a court decision to block state benefits for gay partners of public employees. At the time, less than one-half of 1 percent of state employees had applied for the benefits, which were ordered by a 2005 ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court. Palin reversed her position and vetoed the bill after the state attorney general said it was unconstitutional. But her reluctant support didn't win fans among Alaska's gay population, said Scott Turner, a gay activist in Anchorage. She needs to speak out about her own beliefs on the 'pray away the gay' beliefs that permeate a lot of Christian Churches these days if she doesn't want to appear to be one of the people who view homosexuality as a disease that needs to be cured. If she speaks out, she will risk alienating the Christian Right who appear to view her possible VP role as a boon from heaven. If she does not speak out, she will risk looking like a loon fundie who thinks gays can be cured of their homosexuality.. The fact that she has remained silent, so far, is a bit disconcerting and disheartening.
I agree, its fuckin creepy lol Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! but I've predicted shit perfectly too before. In the 2006 football pro-bowl, I predicted 2 DAYS BEFORE the game, that AFC would win 35-24. It was a wild guess really but it was dead on, check it out if you want. I had other posters in that sports forum thinking I was a fucking prophet and they too were asking me for lotto numbers LMAO
One more .... One more, just because .... My brother and his friends have been running a small fantasy-baseball league for years. And they always end up on draft day making odd wagers here and there. Once upon a time, it actually caused a rift in the friendship; something about a particular pitcher and a $1,000 bet. Of the entire league, I think only one person has heard from him in, like, three years. Cryin' shame. But back in '97, the wagers were smaller and less obscure. Someone wondered about the World Series, and one of our friends said, just to be a bastard, "The Marlins". We all laughed. Well, until they won the freakin' series. I forget what the Vegas book said on that, but we sure as hell wished he'd made the trip to put money on it. As it was, I think he won fifty, or maybe seventy bucks on the fantasy-league bet.
well i just herd her speach on the radio before and i have a couple of things i would like to say 1) SHE SHOULD BE BANNED FROM USING "S". Im serious, it was SO irritating to lission to the way she prounced words ending in "s". i dont know wether that is her accent or is she has a lisp but anyway 2) some of her ecconomic policy did SEEM to make sence, though i dont know how she intends to turn such a huge deficiate into a surplus without MASSIVE cuts to deffence 3) on defence, he defence policy SUCKS. when will the right of your politics learn that they cant bully the whole world without reprocussions? your millatry is already streched to breaking point and HAS to be cut back to deal with number 2 4) on social issues she didnt talk about them at all in the exert that i herd so i would have to go on all of your posts so for me, would i vote for her? no, sorry but free social policy has to come in as number 1 on my list then service provision then foreign policy then economics which isnt to say the economy is unimportant, its just that in australia both parties are reasonable enough at dealing with it that the other things take precendence when im chosing who to vote for
