Home | Classifieds | Place an Ad | Public Notices | Subscriber Services | 928 Media Lab | Real Estate Search | Galleries | Obits | TV Listings | Contact Us
The Prescott Daily Courier | Prescott, Arizona

home : opinions : opinions February 05, 2016


2/17/2013 8:54:00 PM
Letter: Executive orders don't equal rule by decree

EDITOR:

In response to Mr. John Hoy's Talk of the Town article of Feb. 11, Mr. Hoy stated, "Interesting that Obama states that if he doesn't get his way, he will bypass both other branches of government and rule by executive decree."

President Obama never said any such thing and Mr. Hoy does not produce any quotes or other evidence to support his assertion.

Mr. Hoy is confusing executive orders with lawmaking, which is strictly in the purview of Congress according to Article I of the Constitution.

An executive order can only be action that is commensurate with enforcing present federal law. Legislation can only cover so much detail and so rules and regulations are implemented to enforce a law in its specific applications in society.

Any attempt to arbitrarily create law and rule by decree by a president would and should be grounds for impeachment.

Just as we have judicial review by the Supreme Court to judge if statutes violate the Constitution, parties can and do go into court (sometimes successfully) to challenge administrations when they believe their executive actions or inactions fall short of their mandate to execute the laws.

And, Sheriff Mascher in Yavapai County can as a private citizen lend support to groups that go into court to challenge the constitutionality of any law as well as executive orders whether they may allegedly violate statutory law or constitutional law.

As a law enforcement officer he has no authority to pick and choose the laws he will enforce as they stand prior to their invalidation by the Judiciary.

To do so would be a violation of his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and grounds for his recall.

Glenn Miller

Prescott




    Most Viewed     Recently Commented
•   Prescott Valley businessman takes plea in stabbing case (4279 views)

•   Rx drugs, pot 'wax' seized near Cordes Lakes (1961 views)

•   Prescott's Arizona Ranger company is back in business (1470 views)

•   Prescott: Budget shortfall expected to continue (1271 views)

•   Ducey's budget gives JTEDs grant money that slights rural districts, Plumb says (1205 views)



Reader Comments

Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013
Article comment by: Attentive Listener

Facts or Opinion- Of course no one has proven your statements false. The whole point is that you didn't make statements of fact but of opinion, meaning that they CAN'T be proven false. Free education:

Factual statement: From 1950 to 2000, the average square footage of a new home in America more than doubled, from 983 to 2,266 square feet.

It is specific and measurable, and could be proven false with data, because it is a statement of fact.

Non-factual statement: People are worse today than they used to be.

This statement can be disagreed with, but never proven false, because it is not a fact. We don't know which people, how they are supposedly worse, when they were supposedly better, or most importantly what measure this judgment is based on, thus no data exists which could falsify this statement. It is called an opinion, and all you can do is agree or disagree.


Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013
Article comment by: Facts Or Opinion

Attentive,

I never stated Obama created a law and do not care. Someone else in this thread made that claim I guess, because I have not read all the comments.

I do care that his executive orders create more regulations, which are burying this economy and stifling job creation.

Most economist will agree, taxes and regulations coupled with policies discouraging the use of our natural resources will hinder economic growth. These policies could have worked in another time with high economic growth, but will prove to be hurtful for those looking for work currently.

North Dakota is a boom state with 3% unemployment and high wages, $12 and hour to flip burgers. The oil is coming from private land, not federal. The country is currently 3.3 million jobs less than 5 years ago.

If you want to get technical, neither you or JK have responded to my Points showing what I put forward is false.


Posted: Friday, February 22, 2013
Article comment by: Attentive Listener

Yeah, see- there again, you were just asked to provide a fact to back up your opinion, and you refused. JK asked you for an example of a law Obama had created, and you said you'd pass. You really seem to think that facts are just stuff you believe, and that anyone who asks you for facts to support your beliefs is just playing dirty.

Do I need to specify an "empirical fact" to let you know that I mean something from the world, not your own thoughts?


Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2013
Article comment by: Facts Or Opinion

JK,

I am straight, Obama is the President and the buck stops with him, although he loves to blame anyone else in the room and out.

You have me confused with someone else. Executive orders may be used by the Executive Branch to advance its agenda and are treated as law. The orders create regulations and carry monetary penalties for violation of their intent.

Now if you are arguing they do not carry the same weight as a law written by Congress, then you are wrong. They can be used create new law or clarify and add to existing laws passed by Congress. If the orders and regulations cross the line and are challenged in Court, the Judicial Branch has the final say.

Now if you want me to analysis every executive order Obama passed to see if he is writing new law, I pass. I know that most of what ever he and his minions put out will not help the job market.

And Standby, his principles and inability to compromise, will cost us all dearly in a few weeks. Probably those that can least afford it like my son, who has been unemployed twice since all this mess started.


Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2013
Article comment by: J K

@fact or Opinion. Let me get this straight. You blame Obama for everything bad that happens and then , to top it of you accuse him of blame. But you are successful, just like I said. You've changed the subject of this letter. Now, back on topic, why don't you point to the law that Obama created.

Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2013
Article comment by: @Facts Or Opinion

if a "good leader does not blame, he gets results", then this would leave Obama and his administration in the winners circle of losers. We've heard nothing but blame from Obama since 2009, first Bush, then Romney, now the GOP and it won't stop until 2016. He needs to focus on his job and just do what he was elected for.

Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2013
Article comment by: Facts Or Opinion

JK,

If the new norm is 8% unemployment then the President's policies are working according to plan. The rate has been essentially the same for the last five months. No where near Reagan's pro business recovery.

In November 2007 total employment was 146.6 million. The current total employment is 143.3 million. We are still at a net loss of 3.3 million jobs.

Obama's policies stifle job creation. Keystone alone cost thousands of jobs. Add it all up and we are bellow where we could be. Change his oil policy, more jobs. It all adds up across all sectors.

I will give him credit, he expanded the nonproductive government sector, to placate his union supporters. Without that expansion the job loss would be higher. That will come to an end if he can not find a compromise with congress.

My prediction is the employment rate will climb over the next six months due to all the uncertainty in Washington. And before you blame congress, a good leader does not blame, he gets results. Harry Truman was a good example.


Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2013
Article comment by: Facts Or Opinion

Attentive, it is called deductive reasoning. If you did not agree with my statements of fact, then you must believe the opposite. There is not middle ground. Obama's policies either promote jobs, are discourage them.

Look at the unemployment rate and come to your on conclusion of how Obama's policies are affecting the job market. And don't forget those who are not counted. They gave up and became discouraged.


Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Article comment by: J K

@fact or opinion. There is no dispute that executive orders have consequences. What would be the point otherwise? But the point of this letter is that executive orders are not the same as creation of laws. That is also indisputable. And contrary to your claim, unemployment is trending downward. Further private sector employment is rising dramatically. Job loses are in the public sector, you know government workers. That usually occurs when government programs are cut as Tea Partiers demanded. Further, property values are rising. Domestic oil production is rising. The stock market has recovered from the Bush years. I just read today that mutual fund values are at all time highs. Corporate earnings are at all time highs. Business seems to be doing ok, contrary to your claims. But mainly the fact is, no one has yet to point to any new law created by this president.

Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Article comment by: Attentive Listener

@Fact or Opinion-

"So Attentive, you say Obama is pro business and is doing everything he can to help business expand."

I said no such thing. What I said was that you must not know the definition of the word "fact" because you claimed a bunch of your opinions as facts, and you are still doing it.

Your final two statements, about 1/3 of people reporting something in "the polls" (which polls?) and about people keeping their money close (according to what measure?) are at least the kinds of statements that could become facts, if you bothered to find out what whoever you heard them from was basing them on. Everything else in your post was a statement of opinion, which is to say something not merely unproven, but unprovable, because it is not tied to any particular measurable aspect of reality.

You seem to think that "facts" are "things that I think are so obvious about the world that I don't need to question whether or not they are based on anything".


Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Article comment by: Fact Or Opinion

So Attentive, you say Obama is pro business and is doing everything he can to help business expand.

Have you checked to see how many taxes, not income taxes are imbedded in Obamacare?

There really is no use discussing these issues, if you answered no the questions. Your ideology does not allow you to see the truth.

Do you believe those taxes will not affect the number of people hired in this country in a negative way?

Do you not believe most of the 99% think they are not paying higher taxes, when in fact they will pay taxes on items they buy affected by Federal excise tax?

Do you believe Obama is not trying spread the wealth around? Although he is not a Socialist, that idea is a socialist principle right out of his mouth during the election of 2008.

And to JK I just read this thread, and executive orders and the subsequent regulations have consequences. The way they are implemented or ignored have affected jobs in this country.

Open your eyes there has not been a federal spending bill passed, and unemployment is on the rise. In times past the private sector brought unemployment down. The private sector is taking its capital out of this country, do to unfriendly policies. If the government keeps printing money to fund spending bills, employment will improve in the short term until the money runs out.

Ask your neighbor how they are doing and if they feel confident of the future. Check the polls and you will see only about a third of the folks think things will improve in the short term.

Economic fact, most folks are keeping their money close and only buying what they need, not what they want.

Obama won the election, but the folks lost. Now that is an opinion.


Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Article comment by: Did He Really Just Say That?

This is quoting Mr Miller...."President Obama never said any such thing and Mr. Hoy does not produce any quotes or other evidence to support his assertion."
MAY I SUGGEST YOU WATCH THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS SO YOU CAN WITNESS OBAMA STATING EXACTLY THAT! OMG!


Posted: Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Article comment by: Not An Obama Supporter

Im sorry for those whom I make mad with this little comment, But Screw Obama! I would rather have Clinton back,before I would ever have Obama again! He has caused enough damage as it is.. I for 1,will not give up my firearms!

Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Article comment by: J K

It is comical really. "Here are the facts" and his brother " I left out a fact" change the subject, just like I said they would. Still no evidence of any new law created by President Obama via executive order and on topic with the original letter. C'mon, Guys. You used to be so good at making things up. Use your famous creative writing skills.

Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Article comment by: Attentive Listener

@Here Are the Facts- None of those things are facts. I think you don't understand what the word means.

Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Article comment by: I Left Out A Fact

Obama loves to spend the money of other people to enact his utopian ideas. He has managed to dupe the 99% into believing they will not pay higher taxes. All his speeches chide the 1% to keep the 99% on his side, or at least 50%. Sheep being lead to the wolves.

News flash, there are ways to collect taxes other than income taxes. Next time you purchase a fishing rod, you paid a 10% tax built into the cost. It is one of many individual federal excise taxes designed to tax the middle class. And to be fair this tax was enacted before Obama. But Obama has his own excise taxes in mind. Check the details of Obamacare.


Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Article comment by: Vickie Anderson

Obama won...again!
Get over it...again!


Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Article comment by: The President Works For The People,

Not the other way around. Obama has used executive orders, not to create jobs or balance a budget, but to cover-up any scandal that might effect the Democratic Party.

Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Article comment by: Obama Has Used His Executive Orders

When Bush was president, Obama expressed his distaste for using executive orders, but, alas, doesn't he do the same, like with Fast & Furious. If not used, maybe Eric Holder would have eventually told the truth. Obama makes it quite clear that he wants his own way.

Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Article comment by: Here Are The Facts

JK,

What Obama created with his executive orders and resulting regulations is an unfriendly business environment. News flash, businesses create jobs. They are not the boogie man. If they have the option they will take their jobs out of this country. Those that don’t will hire less, because of associated cost.

Check out the article in today’s Financial Times titled, “US business hits out at Obamacare costs.” Business will only exists if it makes a profit, it will seek to lower cost anyway it can.

Obama’s policies are job killers. Is that fact enough for you.


Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Article comment by: Attentive Listener

"Facts" are for communists, JK.

Posted: Monday, February 18, 2013
Article comment by: J K

I agree with Lena. While all the other posters have expressed disagreement with the president on many issues, not one has sited a single shred of evidence to show that Mr Obama has created any new laws.
Further, the poster who maintain that Obama has refused to enforce immigration laws ignore the fact that the numbers of undocumented immigrants is dwindling and deportations are at an all time high. In addition, we have never had a stronger armed presence at our southern border. However, even if he had refused to enforce a single law, it would not amount to a creation of law. And perhaps someone could point to the executive order or. executive action that has removed a single gun from the hands of anyone who is legally able to have one. I have issued this challenge many times yet always the response is to change the subject. No one has been able to back up their preposterous claim


Posted: Monday, February 18, 2013
Article comment by: @Tom Steele

Considering your 'States Right's' rant, I had to do a little searching on my own. I can only assume, fairly accurately, that you did so on your own. I mean, who knows this stuff from memory? :)

However, the difference between you and me from what I read, though, is that you stopped at the original legislation regarding States rights.

Here is the original intent:
'The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years and each Senator shall have one Vote.'

Here's the result of the 17th Amendment:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years and each Senator shall have one vote.

The original Framers were afraid of the States losing their rights. Which I believe is the basis of your rant.

Earlier, States had power of 'instruction', whereas they could direct their Senators they could dictate what they wanted. However, in the 1800s, party bosses and others were able to manipulate the Senators to their wishes. After many decades of concern, by the people, for the people, the 17th Amendment was enacted to counter these concerns.

Your biggest concern though, was that these appeals were primarily put forth by Progressives. All things evil to you and your breathen.

Back in the day, these so-called States' Senators, did exactly what the Super Pac Senators are doing today, along with their House Republicons, nothing.




Posted: Monday, February 18, 2013
Article comment by: Tom Von Deck

Editor, it's kind of a ho hum day in the editorial section. Tomorrow, can you please print a letter about Obama's plans to usher in an islamist atheist communist state run by illegal aliens from Mexico and professional welfare recipients? Surely there must be one or two in the stack. Thanks.

Posted: Monday, February 18, 2013
Article comment by: Jesse L

Law enforcement officers pick and choose which laws they enforce almost every moment that they're on duty.

They HAVE to. They don't have time to enforce everything.

How far would a murder investigation get if the officers involved had to stop every vehicle traveling at least 1 MPH over the limit on their way to the scene of the crime?

As for whether a county Sheriff has the authority to enact a department policy that declines to enforce a federal gun law, the US Supreme Court has already ruled that they do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States




  - Page 1 -  Page 2



Article Comment Submission Form
Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comments are limited to Facebook character limits. In order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit excessive comment entries.
Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Required
Last Name:
Required
Telephone:
Required
Email:
Required
Comment:
Required
Passcode:
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.
   


Advanced Search

HSE - We want to hear from you
Find more about Weather in Prescott, AZ
Click for weather forecast



Quick Links
 •  Submit site feedback or questions

 •  Submit your milestone notice

 •  Submit your letter to the editor

 •  Submit a news tip or story idea

 •  Place a classified ad online now

 •  Browse the Yellow Pages

Find It Features Blogs Milestones Extras Submit Other Publications Links
Classifieds | Subscriber Services | Real Estate Search | Galleries | Find Prescott Jobs | e-News | RSS | Site Map | Contact Us
© Copyright 2016 Western News&Info, Inc.® The Daily Courier is the information source for Prescott area communities in Northern Arizona. Original content may not be reprinted or distributed without the written permission of Prescott Newspapers, Inc. Prescott Newspapers Online is a service of Prescott Newspapers Inc. By using the Site, dcourier.com ®, you agree to abide and be bound by the Site's terms of use and Privacy Policy, which prohibit commercial use of any information on the Site. Click here to submit your questions, comments or suggestions. Prescott Newspapers Online is a proud publication of Western News&Info, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.

Software © 1998-2016 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved