Who Supports Executive Order to Increase Taxes?

[autigeremt 6,606]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/03/03/obama-eyes-more-tax-hikes-by-executive-action/

[TitanTiger 20,479]

I would find it hard to believe any President would think he could get away with something like that. I am totally not in favor of that, even if the taxes being raised (or loopholes being closed) were things I agreed needed to happen. It goes way beyond the separation of powers.

[japantiger 4,051]

I would find it hard to believe any President would think he could get away with something like that. I am totally not in favor of that, even if the taxes being raised (or loopholes being closed) were things I agreed needed to happen. It goes way beyond the separation of powers.

Really? You find it hard to believe this president will do this? Really?

[selias 2,398]

I would find it hard to believe any President would think he could get away with something like that. I am totally not in favor of that, even if the taxes being raised (or loopholes being closed) were things I agreed needed to happen. It goes way beyond the separation of powers.

Really? You find it hard to believe this president will do this? Really?

The last stats I saw put the current POTUS on par with previous administrations, and even a little lower. Personally, I don't like Executive Orders as a matter of principle. It's too..."monarchish" for my taste

[JoeBags7277 734]

The only executive order I'd support would be to rescind all previous executive orders.

[WarTim 3,456]

The only executive order I'd support would be to rescind all previous executive orders.

Bingo!! Post of the Day!! Congrats!

[aubfaninga 16]

I would find it hard to believe any President would think he could get away with something like that. I am totally not in favor of that, even if the taxes being raised (or loopholes being closed) were things I agreed needed to happen. It goes way beyond the separation of powers.

Really? You find it hard to believe this president will do this? Really?

The last stats I saw put the current POTUS on par with previous administrations, and even a little lower. Personally, I don't like Executive Orders as a matter of principle. It's too..."monarchish" for my taste

John F. Kennedy 214

Lyndon B. Johnson 325

Richard Nixon 346

Gerald R. Ford 169

Jimmy Carter 320

Ronald Reagan 381

George H. W. Bush 166

William J. Clinton 364

George W. Bush 291

Barack Obama 194

[cooltigger21 0]

Obama doesn't issue official executive orders. He just tells the particular dept. what he wants done and then they swing into action. His amnesty program isn't officially an executive order. Presidents do have some authority to do that. You can't go by the number of executive orders issued. You have to look at what they were for.

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

http://www.forbes.co...ecutive-action/

So ... the purpose of the EA as advocated by Bernie Sanders is to raise revenue, correct? Seems to be in conflict with Article I, Section 7:

... All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. ...

[quietfan 233]

The only executive order I'd support would be to rescind all previous executive orders.

Bingo!! Post of the Day!! Congrats!

Would that be ALL executive orders by ALL presidents, or just those Orders/Presidents that you personally disagree with?

In other words, is it the principle/legality of "executive orders" in general, or the politics/person of a particular President?

[quietfan 233]

So ... the purpose of the EA as advocated by Bernie Sanders is to raise revenue, correct? Seems to be in conflict with Article I, Section 7:

... All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. ...

A valid point to consider, but a good lawyer or someone looking for a loophole might argue that an executive order is not a bill and so is not limited to House origin as bills are.

I'm not defending or attacking either side, merely pointing out the technicalities of constitutional law--something I'm not really qualified to interpret, but something only the Supreme Court can ultimately decide

[JoeBags7277 734]

The only executive order I'd support would be to rescind all previous executive orders.

Bingo!! Post of the Day!! Congrats!

Would that be ALL executive orders by ALL presidents, or just those Orders/Presidents that you personally disagree with?

In other words, is it the principle/legality of "executive orders" in general, or the politics/person of a particular President?

The principle. Hence the reason I said "all" previous executive orders. I'm not a red team/blue team guy.

[WarTim 3,456]

http://www.forbes.co...ecutive-action/

So ... the purpose of the EA as advocated by Bernie Sanders is to raise revenue, correct? Seems to be in conflict with Article I, Section 7:

... All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. ...

What an outdated idea. Obey the Law of the Land???

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

So ... the purpose of the EA as advocated by Bernie Sanders is to raise revenue, correct? Seems to be in conflict with Article I, Section 7:

... All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. ...

A valid point to consider, but a good lawyer or someone looking for a loophole might argue that an executive order is not a bill and so is not limited to House origin as bills are.

I'm not defending or attacking either side, merely pointing out the technicalities of constitutional law--something I'm not really qualified to interpret, but something only the Supreme Court can ultimately decide

How about Section 8, then?

... The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; ...

That's about as explicit as can be stated. Corporations employ "good" lawyers too, and when it's their money that's on the line then I would expect them to put up a pretty stout argument about the constitutionality of using an EA to levy a new tax.

[homersapien 11,370]

So ... the purpose of the EA as advocated by Bernie Sanders is to raise revenue, correct? Seems to be in conflict with Article I, Section 7:

... All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. ...

A valid point to consider, but a good lawyer or someone looking for a loophole might argue that an executive order is not a bill and so is not limited to House origin as bills are.

I'm not defending or attacking either side, merely pointing out the technicalities of constitutional law--something I'm not really qualified to interpret, but something only the Supreme Court can ultimately decide

How about Section 8, then?

... The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; ...

That's about as explicit as can be stated. Corporations employ "good" lawyers too, and when it's their money that's on the line then I would expect them to put up a pretty stout argument about the constitutionality of using an EA to levy a new tax.

While I am not defending the proposition, there's actually nothing in the quote above that logically precludes the president from also creating a tax, only with a EA.

(Perhaps both quietfan and I missed our true calling. )

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

While I am not defending the proposition, there's actually nothing in the quote above that logically precludes the president from also creating a tax, only with a EA.

(Perhaps both quietfan and I missed our true calling. )

Nothing in Article II, Section 2 "Powers & Duties of the President," mentions anything about taxes. If corporations are the target for the EA-enacted taxes I would expect immediate lawsuits to be filed by corporate lawyers. Logically, and stuff ,,,

[homersapien 11,370]

While I am not defending the proposition, there's actually nothing in the quote above that logically precludes the president from also creating a tax, only with a EA.

(Perhaps both quietfan and I missed our true calling. )

Nothing in Article II, Section 2 "Powers & Duties of the President," mentions anything about taxes. If corporations are the target for the EA-enacted taxes I would expect immediate lawsuits to be filed by corporate lawyers. Logically, and stuff ,,,

Well, that may be right for all I know. I was just pointing out the literal interpretation.

[autigeremt 6,606]

http://www.forbes.co...ecutive-action/

So ... the purpose of the EA as advocated by Bernie Sanders is to raise revenue, correct? Seems to be in conflict with Article I, Section 7:

... All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. ...

The president loves to do this stuff. It's a part of his deception and chaos tactic to keep you looking over here while he does something else over there. A snake has more respect......

[homersapien 11,370]

http://www.forbes.co...ecutive-action/

So ... the purpose of the EA as advocated by Bernie Sanders is to raise revenue, correct? Seems to be in conflict with Article I, Section 7:

... All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. ...

The president loves to do this stuff. It's a part of his deception and chaos tactic to keep you looking over here while he does something else over there. A snake has more respect......

Man, you guys have really let Obama get inside your head.