The Truth About Executive Orders Republicans Won’t Like Seeing

reagan-obamaI’ve hit my limit with Republicans and their pathetic freak out over President Obama saying publicly that he’s going to issue a few executive orders to implement small changes.

The moment I heard him say that, I knew conservatives were going to lose their minds.  After all, they’ve claimed for years that he wishes to rule more like a “king” or “dictator” with his abuse of the executive order.

They act as if almost everything he does as president involves him issuing some kind of executive order to bypass Congress.

But as with most things Republican, their stance on this issue is both wrong and completely hypocritical.  Because like with most things, reality tells a completely different tale.

In fact, President Obama hasn’t even used the executive order all that much.  Five years into his presidency, he’s issued 167 executive orders – about 33.4 per year.

Here are the last four presidents who’ve served consecutive terms and how many executive orders they’ve issued, as well as their average per year:

And no, those numbers aren’t “liberally biased” – they’re all linked and sourced to our National Archives.

So I’ll just go ahead and clarify these numbers for those who might not be able to understand them

Out of the past four two-term presidents, the one who’s issued the most executive orders would be – “conservative hero,” “fiscally responsible,” “small government loving,” “Constitutional legend” Ronald Reagan.

At Obama’s current pace he would finish with 114 fewer executive orders being issued than Reagan.  Or for him to surpass Reagan’s number (at his current pace) he would have to serve for almost an entire third term (another 3.4 years).

So if Republicans want to call President Obama a “dictator” for the frequency at which he uses the executive order, just what in the hell would they say about Ronald Reagan?

I mean hell, out of all four of these men President Obama is on pace to use the executive order fewer times than any of them.

And again, these aren’t partisan numbers, they’re indisputable facts.  Well, I guess the “projected” number isn’t a “fact” as of yet, but most stats professionals would probably say after 5 years you can make a fairly safe assessment of what the next 3 years will be like based on existing patterns and evidence.

So there you have it folks – the truth.

Not only did President Reagan use the Executive order far more than every other president who’s followed him, at Obama’s current pace, he would have to serve nearly an entire third term just to equal Reagan’s number.

But I’m sure this won’t change the minds of conservatives who see him as a dictator.  Because like with almost everything else, reality doesn’t dictate the truth in a conservative’s mind.  What they want to believe is really all that matters.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Paul Powell

    It’s the exact same phony outrage over the number of vacation days he takes.

    • Stephen Barlow

      Obama should just announce indefinite vacation as long as the House Republicans vote NO to jobs bills and infrastructure. The ‘War of political Constipation” must end.

      • Karen

        maybe if Obama said he wasn’t going to be working whenever the Congress wasn’t working . . .

  • Randy

    Can you please fix the typo that says these nos. ARE Liberally biased?

  • Jim Bean

    An important technicality has been over-looked. Examining the number of orders per President is fundamentally irrelevant and does not constitute a defense of, or indictment of, any president. And said examination only plays well with the simple-minded.

    Executive orders carry the weight of law but only when they are not unlawful. For example, an executive order exempting all females under the age of 40 from being charged with embezzlement would be unlawful. Likewise, an executive order preventing enforcement of duly passed immigration laws, ignoring court orders to lift an oil drilling moratorium, refusal to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act, or an order delaying the deadlines for execution of duly passed Obamacare laws is/are unlawful. Simply stated, Executive orders cannot be used to overturn properly enacted by-democratic-process laws a President does not particularly like. Otherwise, we’d be (are) living under a dictatorship because the legislative process would be exclusively under the President’s discretion. We’d need elect no Congress for they would simply be acting in a non-legislative advisory capacity.

    The fact that Obama is not undergoing impeachment proceedings is testament to two things: (1) No one has the stomach for all the grief that will come from those who will claim its all about his race and they know he will soon be gone anyway, and (2) too many people neither understand nor appreciate the principles and merits of representative government. Obama is a treasonous and crafty opponent of the Constitutionally imposed democratic process and history will record him as such. Not because of the number of Executive orders, but because of the nature of them.

    • Randy

      You are so brainwashed Jim…And Reagan’s puppet-masters didn’t like the U.S. Antitrust laws so he erased them like a good puppet and that’s when this whole economic disaster started!…You Mr. Bean are a typical conservative sounding hypocrite!

      • Jim Bean

        (Reagan) Executive Order 12291 issued February 1981 stated, “Regulatory action shall not be undertaken unless the potential benefits to society from the regulation outweigh the potential costs to society.” The presidential directive required agencies to prepare a regulatory impact analysis for each “major rule” pending, subject to review by the OIRA. A federal agency could not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking until an OIRA review was complete and its concerns had been addressed.
        (Doesn’t sound like usurping the democratic process to me. Sounds like cleaning it up and bringing democratic accountability back to the ‘rule making’ process .)

      • Why5ks

        sounds like hamstringing regulatory agencies from following passed legislation on passage of regulations to normal people

      • Jim Bean

        No. To normal people ‘rule making’ and ‘rule following’ are different animals.

      • Janis1270

        Tell me Mr. Bean, what did you say about George Bush issuing an executive order to his administration not to answer to congress? Even after he was out of office. The problem I find with conservatives, they rarely show evidence that they hold their own leaders accountable. Even when say you admit to committing a war crime on national television like Bush did. To normal people, one doesn’t hold a portion of leadership accountable but not all of them.

      • Carl Johnson

        You are just as willfully ignorant of the balance of power as the republicans. The nature of the orders? What the hell does that mean? Treasonous? You need help. I guess once again it’s that old black magic that’s driving you and the republicans crazy.

      • Jim Bean

        So if he issued an executive order saying “Roe vs Wade will no longer be enforced” I suppose you would say, “Oh well, I guess that’s the way it goes.”

      • Carl Johnson

        No I would not because he understands that Roe Vs Wade is the law of the land just like the ACA. Unlike republicans who keep coming up with all these anti abortion measures and 50 votes to repeal ‘Obamacare’ even though they are the law of the land. So who are the tyrants or the dictators? You people are just mad because he beat your candidates twice and he isn’t allowing the republicans to stick it to the American people like you want to. Grow up you lost, we had to deal with Bush for 8 years and we survived and so will you.

      • Jim Bean

        You’re telling me he can’t use EO’s to change the ‘Law of the Land?’ Great! That’s what I said in the first place.

      • Carl Johnson

        A closed mind is the feeding ground to ignorance. He did not try to repeal the law like republicans want to do. He made an adjustment for unforseen consequences, which is the wise thing to do. It’s done all the time in this country. It would be stupid not to. At least he is trying to do something, What are the republicans trying to do? Nothing, as usual.

      • Jim Bean

        OK, then. I’m satisfied with that.

      • Jim

        ” He made an adjustment”

        He changed a piece of legislation – that’s the role of the legislature. Despite all your snark and bravado, it’s clear you simply don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.

        The issue is when does an executive order stray into a violation of the separation of powers. Well, it’s not only when it’s an illegal act, but it’s also when it modifies legislation – whether or not you think it is “wise” simply isn’t part of the analysis.

        Bean’s top post is simply correct, and it’s pretty sad to see ideological bias resulting in people downvoting.

        The extent of executive authority isn’t clear in a lot of areas….that doesn’t mean the President can modify legislation. I don’t care if he’s “your guy” in office or not.

        http://www.americanthinker.COM/2014/02/obama_and_executive_orders.html

      • Carl Johnson

        Well I guess if you are determined to create a reason to hate Obama you can get in line, but that doesn’t make it valid as a matter of fact it’s bullshit. But that never stopped you and your ilk from doing it anyway. So this discussion is over. I hope you and the other crazies are happy in your la la land of Obamamania. Peace!

      • Gregory Hinton

        Carl, you can’t argue with morons. The fact is he hasn’t done anything unconstitutional no matter how much the baggers wish it were true.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        ” there U go again…………….” —–annoying white trash regressives with facts

    • Ron Chartier

      Jim, you’re a racist asshole. Ah ha ha ha ha your mother raised a fool.

      • Jim Bean

        Thanks for validating my conclusion. And you have my solemn vow that if Hillary is elected, I will be become the sexist asshole who irritates you every time you attempt to silence criticism of her by pointing at her crotch.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        ron is a cretin,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,U are a misinformed knothead who( we all agree) will be crying even more loudly as the WHIG tea party vanishes.
        Benghazi? fast and furious? aca? FOX “news” suddenly very quiet
        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and how about that thug repub congressman who threatened the SMALL reporter? I would GLEEFULLY love love love 2 have that fat fuck threaten me– his words would’ve still been in the air as I crushed his jaw and then did what true physical damage to him I could b4 he was dragged off to hospital and prison

    • Robert Cook

      Wait – that in itself isn’t correct Jim – Congress makes the law, and under the constitution has the right to change or modify any law as they see fit – the president’s exec. orders have to follow the same litmus tests as Congress – so, if congress could pass a bill (I’m saying that they can’t because of partisan politics, but if they could) that would delay the individual mandate (which, btw, they tried. A lot.) then the president could write an executive order to the same effect, and it would be considered legal and constitutional. Would you call him a dictator then? For doing something the GoP were asking for, directly from his office? Additionally, congress could pass or modify immigration laws, and have it be legal and constitutional.

      That’s what makes this so damn funny to a lot of independents and those on the left: the Gop screams and whines that they want laws done certain ways, for certain things, and have them be legal and constitutional, but if the president writes and exec. order, he’s a dictator, even thought he’s given the right to do so.

      The reason that a lot of liberals want to compare numbers is, how can you call our current president a dictator for the number of exec orders (which is what the first complaint was: he’s writing an unprecedented number of exec. orders!!), when past presidents have had so many more?

      • Jim Bean

        (To your last, and only rational paragraph). I never said irrationality and ignorance was the exclusive domain of the Left

      • Robert Cook

        No, that is true, you did not, however, your words on here seem to suggest you think that way.

        Not rational? Because I didn’t specifically state each step that we both know occurs for the changing of a law? That made everything else irrational? I don’t see how you can feel that way, but maybe it only makes sense to me *Shrugh*

      • Jim Bean

        You sound sincere and frankly, that scares me when I encounter it on FPs. In a nut shell, I used the ‘can’t issue executive order exempting females under 40 for being prosecuted for embezzlement’ it illustrate that executive orders are only legitimate in instances where some other law doesn’t already hold jurisdiction or where democratic process is not constitutionally required. Let me use another example. Obie cannot produce a financial document and say, “by executive order, this document constitutes the Federal Budget for the remainder of my term.”

      • Robert Cook

        I’m sorry being sincere scares you – that in itself scares me (most folks aren’t sincere anymore)

        oh, that wasn’t the exec order I was referencing – nor would I ever expect a president to issue such an exec order (it’d be too hinky for any president to try, and would be one of the few exec. orders overturned by the SOTUS) – my point had been more “if congress has tried consistently to work on a problem, and the president has the power of exec. order to move past their sticking point, he may do so” – if a law exists that, for example, says people cannot live in a specific area because of it’s closeness to a national preserve, and a natural disaster forced those people out of their homes with no where to go, the president could allow people, by executive order, to live in that area temporarily – this wouldn’t violate the constitution, and is accepted.

        I don’t know if he could or couldn’t write a finance exec order, but I wouldn’t expect him to – the budget is up to congress – nor do I see him wanted to – it’s murder him politically.

        I disagree with the idea that he cannot write an exec. order where another law already has jurisdiction, it would be similar to the override (revote/modification) idea if congress decided to change the law.

        The exec order I meant in my statement above was the one involving regulatory acts during the 80s. But, the idea here is this: a lot on the right are screaming Obama doesn’t have the right to make these exec orders, or that he’s making too many: in both cases the ones he’s made have been acceptable, and he’s had the right to make them. If they are not, then it needs to be brought to the attention of the SCOTUS, not just yelled about (similar to my feeling on impeachment: want to impeach him? Rock on, go for it – but frigging do it. If the House isn’t going to do it, then isn’t it possible he hasn’t violated laws in the way the public has been lead to believe?)

      • Jim Bean

        We are at an impasse with “I disagree with the idea that he cannot write an exec. order where another law already has jurisdiction.” If you were correct (I’m assuming you mean an executive order that overturns the law or some portion of it) we would be a kingdom not a representative republic, and Obama would hold unilaterally authority on all issues. That simply isn’t consistent with our form of government. I do appreciate you sincerity however, and forgive me for being snarky. You’re sincerity really doesn’t really scare me, it refreshes me.

      • Robert Cook

        oh, the snark is fine, It’s much lighter than most on these boards post. Actually, I was going to say earlier I think we have a few points where we agree, so I’d like to clarify that point:

        If the need arose to modify a law, and congress was either unable or unwilling, and the changing of that law would not make the law in violation of the constitution, nor would be something that the people or her representatives would all against, then he could do so. The reason I’d say no, it wouldn’t mean we were a kingdom, is that in a kingdom/dictatorship/etc, normally the laws are above reproach or review by the citizens or others in a gov’t – they’re the law, accept it, move on.

        That’s not what I’m saying: I’m say if the need arose, and congress could not act swiftly enough in one way or another, then I don’t think he’d be in violation of his power of exec. order. The reason I think there is confusion on this is the idea that congress can’t come together, not that congress as a whole is against the president’s actions. If that were the case they themselves could legislate to overturn his exec order’s modification, or create a new law that supersedes prior versions and variations (again, following all the steps).

      • Jim Bean

        The President has emergency powers, unrelated to executive orders, that he can use when immediate action is critical. After the crises has been averted, the issue reverts back to the legislative process.

        I would add that what Obama wants to use executive orders for has nothing to do with any critical need and everything to do with skirting around the 535 elected legislators who make up Congress.

      • Sandy Greer

        I don’t blame him. A good share of those 535 elected legislators are Obstructionist who make it their business to say No to any/everything Obama just BECAUSE it’s Obama. And who have so bullied their own party the Moderates live in fear of them.

        Party of No has a whole new meaning since the Obama presidency came about.

      • Jim Bean

        Well, Obama says every problem is everyone else’s fault too, so I guess you’re in grand company.

      • Except that is not true either. Exec orders are not unreviewable by the people, nor are they permanent. Should congress not agree with and EO then they could simply choose not to fund it (like the Obama EO to close Gitmo). But EO’s can and have been used in the past to modify existing legislation or even ignore existing legislation. Like the 2002 EO that allowed for warrant-less wiretaps or the EO that allowed for ‘enhanced interrogation’. Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus by EO. FDR placed Americans in ‘camps’ by EO and on his very first day closed every bank in the nation for 4 days by EO. FDR also used executive power to grab private business and force them to provide for the war effort. Truman seized the steel mills by EO during a strike. Actually, this was challenged in court and the EO was determined to be unconstitutional. I recommend looking at the Youngstown decision because it really does answer a lot of questions. Truman also used an EO to de-segregate the military. Eisenhower used an EO to send troops to Arkansas to aid in school de-segragation, which was itself an EO. Kennedy used an EO to form the EEOC. Johnson used an EO to set up the Warren Commission. Ford outlawed political assassination. Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and both Presidents Bush issued EO’s restricting access to the records of past and current Presidents. Reagan used an EO to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. There is nothing in the Obama EO’s that differs in any way from the previous EO’s. If he is a dictator/king for using the EO’s as he has then so is every other president before him.

        You stated above: Likewise, an executive order preventing enforcement of duly passed immigration laws (Reagan), ignoring court orders to lift an oil drilling moratorium, refusal to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act (every President since Nixon), or an order delaying the deadlines for execution of duly passed Obamacare laws (happened so many times in history it is hard to count) is/are unlawful (SCOTUS disagrees). Simply stated, Executive orders cannot be used to overturn properly enacted by-democratic-process laws a President does not particularly like (happens all the time and has been upheld as Constitutional). Otherwise, we’d be (are) living under a dictatorship because the legislative process would be exclusively under the President’s discretion.–No, and here is why. EO’s can be overturned by the courts and congress. This is actually happening right now, SCOTUS will decide the whole recess appointment thing. So there is still oversight. There cannot be a dictatorship with oversight. Such is a contradiction in terms. EO’s can also be overturned or amended by the administrations that follow the EO. In essence, an EO is far from permanent, at least, without an act of congress (like occurred with de-segragation). It can be challenged by both the other branches of government and can be simply tossed in the trash with another administration.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        he is a constitutional lawyer who taught CONST LAW at a bad ass college-
        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,HMMMMM: I wonder who knows more about that—
        he or thee?

      • white trash religious teaparty

        this above post shows your irrationality—
        WAIT!!!!! jim bo bean o doesn’t agree; ergo all posts are irrational
        ====================================
        tea party anyone?

      • Jim Bean

        Ah, nuts! Its too blatant to let slide. You wrote, “Congress makes the law, and under the constitution has the right to change or modify any law as they see fit ” That’s ridiculous. Once passed, they have no right to change it ‘as they see fit.’ If they want to change it, they have to go through the entire democratic law making process again.

      • Robert Cook

        Okay – I didn’t think I’d have to put that, since they’d gone through it before (hence the reason I said I didn’t think they could pass it because of politics) – yes, to change any law in congress you’d have to make a modified version of the law, submit it, committee, vote, and eventually have the president sign off on it, like he did for the first law initially – and subsequently the president can bypass that by writing an executive order that circumvents that direct people to act as thought the law had been modified by congress – the point still stands, he’s allowed to do it, every president since George W (that’s Washington before the cries of ‘stop blaming Bush’ get pasted) has done it, and they’ve done it for both private and public reasons, sometimes for the will of the people and sometimes for the will of their party (the aforementioned questionable order you discussed earlier on here).

      • Carl Johnson

        Jim what you just said is total bullshit.

      • Jim Bean

        I’m not sure which part of what I said you are referring to.

      • Mike Williams

        As they see fit.

    • Jimmy Cahill

      Yes, you obviously have not researched what the executive orders were that Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Nixon ordered. Some were far more shady than extending ObamaCare deadlines.

      • Jim Bean

        You’re argument is that the crimes of Obama are absolved by the crimes of others?

      • Why5ks

        Mr. Bean, you can continue to repeat the same lie but it will never make it true. I know the Karl Rove strategy does say that telling a lie in political discussions is a way to dominate the discussion and prevent your opponent from dictating the issues to be properly vetted. But in case you haven’t noticed American is tired of that brand of politics, well at least 53% of Americans are. There are no crimes by Obama, you know how I am completely assured of that? I am completely assured because John Boehner and the Republicans control the House of Representatives. The do not need the Senate to file charges of impeachment against the President. Constitutionally, only the House can file articles of impeachment. So where are the charges? Boehner and the whole lot constantly call him a dictator, a king, unconstitutional, treasonous, un-American, and a whole host of other things that could be grounds for an impeachment indictment, so where is it? There isn’t one, because all they want to do is play to the racists. the ignorant, the ultra-right wing, the radical Christians and morons like you. As for the use of executive orders to delay provisions of ObamaCare, keep showing you are a moron. The Republicans have been asking the President to issue executive orders to delay all different aspects of it. Why, because and executive order is precisely how you make adjustments to the implementation of legislation, so long as you don’t change the goal, scope or intent of the legislation passed. In simple terms you can delay provisions but you can’t eliminate them. As for Reagan’s use of executive orders, every order Reagan signed in regards to the Iran-Conta affair were all eventually deemed illegal orders because they violated written law…..so keep barking at the moon, maybe some day it will answer you.

      • xnerd

        Dont worry why5ks, the republican party is evaporating and becoming irrelevant. their leaders are an embarrassment to the world>

        They are playing only to their last remaining radical fringe lunatic base.

        Its over

      • Jim Bean

        I suspect the atmosphere is cooling and the republican party will condense in November 2014 and peel all the paint off your window casing.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        yep– and Christians “suspect” Christ will ( eventually) rise and do what they say he will do————
        luckily I will be alive for the NOV 2014 outcome—
        condense? naaaah— evaporate I theeeeenk

      • xnerd

        LOl go prep for something Fucking not job

      • jadugara

        Keep dreaming douchenozzle…

      • white trash religious teaparty

        and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as watching a cockroach die—————– it is SOOOOO ENJOYABLE watching and hearing them CRY

      • white trash religious teaparty

        im teaching my pet TEGU lizard to transcript Rossini overtures and play them on the harp———————————— I bet the antideluvian reptile masters that BEFORE jim bean looks at all the facts

      • Jimmy Cahill

        No, my argument is that I cannot honestly see the use of executive orders as criminal. And if we want to try anybody as a criminal for the shady use of executive orders, we must start with the worse offenders. Reagan is #1. Clinton is #2. Nixon is #3. Then George W. and then finally we will deal with Obama.

        Another question, is lying to Congress to get them to agree with something worse than using an executive order to go over their head and do it?

      • Jim Bean

        You last paragraph puzzles me. Are you asking me whether lying to congress to get Obamacare passed would have been worse than his having implemented by executive order? I suspect Democratic Party Congressmen would say ‘Yes’ right now. Nevertheless, I recognize the number of executive orders works to your advantage and you’re not going to be drawn away from that into a more complex analysis where you might find yourself on shakier ground evaluating the legitimacy of any particular order.

      • Sandy Greer

        >lying to congress to get Obamacare passed

        ^^^Perspective. Depends on party affiliation. Or whether we grant ‘benefit of doubt’ to another. IOW:

        1) Seek, and ye shall find. Start out thinking POTUS is a Bad Guy, that is what you see.

        2) Extend benefit of doubt: That he is a human being, doing a hard job to the very best of his ability…DESPITE all the Obstructionism (and Hate) on The Right…you get an entirely different picture.

        ACA is Law. 40+ votes, and GOP STILL can’t repeal. Work with it. Because the American public isn’t behind the Party of No on their 40+ votes. OR on The Hate coming from The Right for this president.

        Why the GOP is splintering into 1000+ pieces before our eyes. They don’t know ‘who’ they are, and neither do the rest of us.

      • Jim Bean

        1) I don’t think he’s a bad guy. I think he’s an unqualified guy with essentially good intentions, somewhat perverted by typical black animosity towards whites, whose air of arrogance is used to masquerade the actual deer-in-the-headlights appearance and his egotistical inability to compromise.

        2) You are obviously a kind a good person. The source of the hate is complex. Whether its racism, Obama’s introvert-ness, Publican ego’s, or a combination of all of the above is debatable. Regardless, voters were aware when they elected him the second time that the problem would plague him/us for the next four years. They elected him anyway, and he accepted.

        The American public was and still is behind appealing Obamacare. They were simply opposed to the way the GOP went about it. If the American public had been in support of Obamacare, the Pubs would never have done that.

        I would add the Dems are winning elections by promising things they cannot and do not deliver and that is a reprehensible strategy that unfortunately, voters seem to fall for over and over again. Pubs are splintered because they are at a loss to come up with a strategy that counters that.

      • Jimmy Cahill

        The only part of the American public that does not support the law are the people that bought all the GOP fear tactics, misinfo and propaganda. People that see it working are all for it, even some who were set against it since day 1. I see more people saying “Well, maybe this isn’t as bad as I thought” than I see people saying “This is worse than I thought. Also, was it 20% of people polled said they didn’t like it b/c it doesn’t go far enough. That is a completely different reason the GOP disapprove. It was like 40% of people who disapproved, 20% of total poll, said it needs more. The rest (albeit the majority) of the disapproval is for the reasons the GOP outline every time they cry for a repeal.

        I’m still on the fence about ObamaCare. I agree, it has some flaws, some bugs that need to be worked out, and they will in time. Just b/c it is not the perfect system doesn’t mean you scrap it and start all over. You figure out the parts that need to be improved and fix them. Even with the flaws this is much better than our old system, which was completely broken. It is, at the very least, a reform that is a step in the right direction. Hopefully it will lead to the single payer option that the American public does support.

      • Mike Williams

        I find that some of the “bugs” and not going far enough were introduced by compromise.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        the American public en masse is NOT against the ACA— as the 2012 vote PROVED. the “American people” found and chronicled by FOX “news” and other crybaby regressive tea party trash are—
        staying the loudest( see: michelle Bachmann in the CNN interview next to Bernie sander) voice in the room doesn’t make it accurate: but it DOES stay NOTICED as does a flea bite

      • Mike Williams

        She voted to pass the PPACA.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        no———she has repeatedly voted to repeal it….. what the hell are U posting?

      • Gregory Hinton

        They say Americans are against the ACA but when you take out the percentage who are against it only because it doesn’t go far enough then only a minority are against it…

      • white trash religious teaparty

        yep yep yep!!!

      • Sandy Greer

        1) “Typical black animosity?” The Right is bewildered by charges of racism. Yet see no offense in blanket “typical black animosity”. Bears thinking on.

        >If the American public had been in support of Obamacare, the Pubs would never have done that.

        ^^^Those 40+ votes played to the extreme Right. GOP Moderates didn’t know what to do about TeaPugs; tried to appease & appeal…to hang onto their seats.

        John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Speaker Boehner (many others)…NONE are ‘right’ ENOUGH for The Right. ALL scorned by The Right as RINOs. Good Lord.

        You said it yourself: We knew we would implement Obamacare when we elected him again in 2012. We voted ‘yes’ because we want him AND Obamacare.

        Even GOP Moderates are disconnected from the American public. This country is moving Left. It just doesn’t feel ‘right’ to go Right anymore.

        If GOP wants to remain viable, they need to go Centrist.

        And for God’s sake: Put a lid on the TeaPugs. We don’t like Sarah Palin & Ted Cruz stirring up the rabble at TeaPug rallies who wave the Confed flag outside the White House while wearing T-shirts emblazoned ‘Put the WHITE back in the White House’. We don’t like our First Lady called Moochelle; don’t like our president called a monkey, and a Muslim from Kenya by Birther TeaPugs.

      • Mike Williams

        Birther tp’s need to remember that Cruz is only 1/3rd American. Cuban father, born in Canada, American mother. 1/3rd US citizen.

      • Mike Williams

        Experience? There is only one person ever with the experience to run a country. The President seeking re-election.

        Was anyone else experienced enough? No.

        Romney had a lot of business expertise.

        History has shown us that Presidents from the business
        world are utter flops and crash the economy.

        Back up just one president and you see GW Bush jr.
        Texas governor but still a businessman. Under his watch Texas economy failed. CEO Bush, under his watch every business he led failed .

        Mitt Romney was actually tasked with making businesses fail to make money for the people who wanted it to fail by selling the assets at a loss and then shipping overseas the “redesigned, renamed business” When he wasn’t doing that to businesses he was in charge of he was using vast amounts of investment capitol to subsidize businesses to enable below market pricing of goods in order to undercut other businesses. After the eventual downfall of the target businesses the companies that received subsidization would return to a profitable and now semi-monopolized market.

        Every time I hear the gop cry about privatizing any government function I start digging into who benefits from that and every time I do. I find there is a single or joint venture that is heavily invested into by the gop machine. Just ask Rick Santorum I’m sure he could give an accurate forecast of what to invest in. If those pesky dems didn’t interfere.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        funny,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,a thousand is actually numerically quite accurate!!

      • Jimmy Cahill

        No, the reason why I said this was b/c of what happened in 2003. Bush knew he could not get Congress to approve Iraq war, so he lied, made up phony stories, preyed on fear. In 2008, wasn’t it like 75% of Congress members who voted to go to Iraq said if they knew all the facts it would have been a no vote, Reps and Dems alike. I believe McCain (A RINO, yes I know) was one of them, or at least he said he was during his ’08 campaign.

        This is far worse than calling for an executive order. He cheated the democratic system. Obama never lied to Congress, maybe to the people, but Congress knew full well the whole “if you like your plan” garbage was not true for everybody. They reported it for the 2 years leading up to it, that some plans would not meet requirements and would have to be improved. Boehner said he has been aware of that since ’10. It was Obama’s mistake for saying “Period.” He should have said in his press conference what he said in interviews and press releases leading up to the rollout, which was, “as long as your plan meets the minimum requirement it will not be affected.” I know of 2 times he said that before the whole rollout, however, in his big press conference, he omitted the end of it, most likely intentionally, since he knew there would be backlash. That was his mistake, but he never had to lie to congress to get them to pass it.

      • Jim Bean

        Many members of the Democratic Party had the same clearances and the same access to intelligence that Bush had. Did he lie? I don’t know. But if he did, then I know those Democrats lied as well.

        And the foreign nations that had access to their own independent intelligence – were they lying too? And why?

      • Jimmy Cahill

        Yeah, I don’t really put the blame on Bush, I put it on the person who really oversaw the whole process, including the gathering/interpreting of the Intel. His name is Mr. Dick Cheney, and I do believe he had his groups fudge the numbers. I honestly think Bush was clueless to the fact, but he just wanted in Iraq so bad he didn’t bother to question it. We know who really ran the show for the 1st term and then lurked in the shadows once the dirty work was done

      • Mike Williams

        Iraq was a different AUMF vote than the one I posted above. I think Bush should have just said. “We’ve put up with Sadam’s crap long enough, he has violated the terms of the cease fire and the result is eviction.” or something to that effect. I think he would have used the word evictify but that’s just me.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        bush was an imbecile but basically a nice good “fella”,,,,,,,cheney is scum- and the 2nd term inner hostility proved that

      • Mike Williams

        like the patriot act, what politician would ever say no to going to war against an enemy that attacked us on our own soil.

        That would be one. Barbra Lee.
        Could that be because PUBLIC LAW 107–40 was rather vague?

        Funny how when congress wants to get something done, there is only one page of law. ( This one is two pages, but if you reduce the number of blank lines it would fit on a single page.)
        Yet when congress must compromise to get something done we wind up with two thousand pages of mental constipation.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        again—————-when NUMBERS favor the FOX “news” ( and WHIG tea party rhetoric) they trumpet them ad nauseum,,,,,,,,,when they lessen in scope or are simply vanquished by FACTS the regressive crybabies tote a new lachrymose wail————— witness the dropping PCT of unemployment numbers,,,

      • Mike Williams

        Not one single member of the house GOP voted NO or NAY or against the PPACA. Not any. of all the GOP only 2 did not vote. there were 14 dems that did not vote.
        Know who did vote Yes or Yea? John Boehner, Michelle Bachmann, they voted to pass the PPACA. That is beyond simple majority, that is beyond two thirds, that is in excess of 75%. 16 members of the house declined to vote everyone else voted to pass.
        What does that tell you? Did the House just decide to not read the bill? Perhaps it was a strategy?
        Maybe the gop thought well since most of this bill is enacted after 2012 we will just pass it to look good. Then in 2013 we will just repeal the act altogether and go back to lining our pockets with more insurance lobby money. The problem was they, the gop, kept talking and ran someone who did not want to be president, he just wanted to have the fame and the money from a presidential run. So unless the dems run a cadaver in 2016 the gop has no chance with it’s current front runners….even then it will be a marginal win.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        crimes????????????????? funny how NO IMPEACHMENT proceedings are being ” issa’d”

      • Paula Randolph

        what crimes?

    • Obama Lover

      ROFL Mr. Chartier only proved your point. Now that is some funny junk. You are right, and your post was well worded. I don’t care if Mr. Prez is green and puts in 500 orders a year as long as they are lawful and they help the US not hurt like many of the current admin’s do.

      • Jim Bean

        Are you a real person? NOBODY agrees with me here and goes on to live a normal life span. 🙂

      • white trash religious teaparty

        who says we are actually alive???

    • Mary

      Exactly!

    • Val Menzies

      Duh? Just the usual Republivan gobblygoop to confuse! Delve into GOP’s Ex. Orders to find out how they benefited your country before you criticize . Bypassing Congress right now doesn’t seem like such a bad idea with this group — they ‘re not doing anything beneficial anyway!

    • Sunnysmom

      Clinton being “gone soon anyway” didn’t stop the Lewinsky matter. I just don’t buy, especially after all the rhetoric we’ve heard from the GOP about Obama being Hitler and “dictator”, trying to repeal ACA, using the filibuster 241 times 2009-2011..why on earth would they shy away from a fight to impeach him if they had the grounds?

      • white trash religious teaparty

        aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-men!!

      • Mike Williams

        The only reason Clinton was impeached was because he refused to allow the privatization of Social Security. Sure he had the spunkgate thing, but what did that start out as? a failed land deal that cost the clintons money rather than profited from as accused ? $70 million after the fact and all the GOP could prove was that Lewinsky had a thing for cigars, Clinton never pays for dry cleaning, and that if you “didn’t know ” illegally recording conversations over the phone was illegal you could do it, an act of congress could make it admissible as evidence even though any court lower than the supreme court would have rejected the tapes, and when impeached you don’t have to leave office.

    • Lynnz

      Good job and well said Jim Just like there fearless leader blaming Bush or the Republicans for every failure he has which is one right after the other this fearless leader has done what exactly for Americans his approval rating is 39%. Name calling and the blame game and killing America that’s the only things Obama is good at. Keep up the good work I enjoy reading your post don’t let these Obama lovers discourage you.

      • Paula Randolph

        keep drinking the kool-aide, it won’t hurt you, I prooooomissssse

      • Lynnz

        I love Kool-Aid I hate failure, You sound like an experienced Kool-Aid drinker would you like to join me in a glass …

      • roboloki

        IT WAS FLAVOR AID DAMMIT!!

      • Jim Bean

        I’m humbled by that. Tks

      • white trash religious teaparty

        hey brainiac——— republicans policies: please name some enacted in past 10 years which have HELPED America ( as a whole; not billionaires) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        we are waiting

    • Paula Randolph

      Reason Number 3: There has been no impeachable offense.

    • slickwilly43

      You gotta have a brain to be brainwashed. With a consedrvative Supreme Court any and I mean ANY executive orders President Obama issued would have been declared unconstiutional. Even the Affordable Care Act that Obama had passed was declared constitutional by the Court. That just destroys old Jim’s premise

    • aboyer

      This is such BS….not work taking up this space. If the GOP thought for a second they could really take down Obama, nothing would stop them. The circular argument is priceless. Trying to justify GOP behavior is rich… Attempting to neutralize the counter arguments and fact is soooo obvious.

    • John Michael Hutton

      You sir are a flucking idiot. After 8 years of that miscreant Bush who trashed the Constitution and was the second president in the history of this country to attack another country who did absolutely nothing to us. He should have been impeached, not for fantasy crimes but for real crimes against the Constitution. The other was Reagan who was as guilty of treason as Nixon was. Both of them broke real laws not the fantasies of the rightwing lunatics.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        saint Reagan????? ” there U go again,,,,,,,,,,,” displaying facts which irk regressive tea party trash
        PRAISE JEEEESUS

  • Sandy Greer

    1) Ah, but when did we let the ‘facts’ get in the way of a good rant?

    2) Who knew that all it would take was a black president for the GOP to lose their collective minds…fracture the Party of No to such an extent they need FOUR (count ’em, 4) rebuttals to SOTU…and leave TeaPugs hiding under their beds, clutching their guns and Bibles in fear that we’re comin’ to take them away, ha ha hee hee…

    I’m tellin’ ya, folks, we shoulda done this years ago! ;D

    • white trash religious teaparty

      praise jeeeeeeeeeesus and pass the tithing basket

  • Mike Lavender

    You forget that history didn’t exist before Jan 20, 2009.

    • white trash religious teaparty

      it did,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
      Reagan,,,, then “darkness”
      will Reagan ( SEE: JEEEESUS) rise again to save the WHIG tea party? ….stay tuned !

    • white trash religious teaparty

      FOX “news”——–keeping tabs on US presidents since 1-2009

      • John Michael Hutton

        Faux News spreading misinformation and lies since their inception by a filthy rich conservative who decided conservatives needed their own network since real news networks weren’t spreading their bullshit

      • white trash religious teaparty

        well; lets sit back and watch them shrink ala Margaret Hamilton in “wizard of oz”
        BENGHAZI!!! FAST AND FURIOUS!!!! I DIDNT INHALE!!!

  • Wordleman

    Well, this silly article might have some bearing if the facts are ignored. Two quick points.

    1. Anyone paying attention is already well aware that presidents habitually sign Executive Orders, and that several have exceeded President Obama’s exercise thereof.

    To wit, the issue of signing Executive Orders has nothing to do with QUANTITY, as much as the either uninformed or straw-man writer would have his readers believe. The controversy regarding President Obama’s use of Executive Orders to legislate is about their QUALITY.

    Hmmm. Why did the writer, who seems to care so passionately about the Constitution, fail to address the substantive, undeniable matter at hand?

    2. The writer reminds me of a story William Buckley might cite regarding those who would confuse the intentions of the CIA and the KGB. Claiming that they “engage in similar practices is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around.”

    In other words, Americans are not concerned that Obama is threatening to use his pen, but rather WHY. The writer relies on the dependable ignorance of his readers to either turn a blind eye to the critical distinction that exists or, more likely, that they are bereft of curiosity to investigate.

    • roboloki

      please study up on theodore roosevelt’s presidency and report back.

  • Peter Rocca

    The
    same Constitution that gives the people the right to bear arms also
    gives the President the authority to issue Executive Orders. Were the
    Founding Fathers being intentionally provocative?

  • Annjo

    Why worry about how many orders he has done. Let him do as many he needs to as long as he gets things done.

  • LL11

    “WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH” …. sincerely the right wing

  • Justice

    Obama two biggest crime was (1) winning the Office of the President in 2008 and (2) winning of the Office of the President of 2012 all while being Black. And that is a crime in Jim Crow Law Book.

    • white trash religious teaparty

      and being 10X more eloquent than 98% of whites

  • Paige

    I would love to forward this post… unfortunately most of the teabaggers on my Facebook won’t open it because of the title. Also, the one about Glenn Beck calling Obama a dictator (you’ll love this) was re-posted by a super tea party person that I know! She re-posted it because of the title and obviously didn’t even read it. A couple of her ditto-head friends commented positively on the idea that Beck called Obama a dictator… an interesting experiment on teabaggers not even reading the articles that they are promoting.

  • Michael Moerland

    Don’t forget bush sr, he issued 166 in a single term.

  • Jim

    The number doesn’t tell you what they are *about* and there is also a difference between issuing relatively non-controversially executive power orders and threatening to use them to *go around Congress* to affect policy, i.e. to essentially legislate – which is what Obama is doing here.

    Obama, all by himself, changed the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. That’s legislation – the power to do so in that manner was not delegated to the Executive.

    So where’d the power come from?

    An expansive, increasingly legislative theory of Executive power which “progressives” would be up in arms about were it a conservative doing it.

    Republicans may be hypocrites – but that doesn’t mean *you* aren’t.

  • Stephen Barlow

    Obama has been cowardly since he was taken to court and the Republicans on SCOTUS violated their oath by denying him a Constitutional discretion.

    • white trash religious teaparty

      ????????????????

      • Stephen Barlow

        Recess appointments to the heads of stonewalled by Republicans agency directors. SCOTUS stifled intelligent governance by upholding a minor technical point as more crucial than actually running the government.

        Which, by taking partisan action from the bench, violates their oath to NOT allow their politics to sway their decisions.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        ahhhhhh,,,,,,, much more clarity; thank U

      • Stephen Barlow

        your welcome. I do find that actually speaking English as it’s written and writing according to the rules of Grammar confuses 80% of the people, most of whom think I am from Mars. You should see My texting.

      • white trash religious teaparty

        non tiendo de bugarito mala paharon biestas??

  • Mike

    Dang it. Now they’ll claim Obama is giving himself a third term.

  • John Michael Hutton

    Bush vacationed at his phony ranch and other places to the tune of more than 1/3 of his time as POTUS. I’m still waiting for conservatives to bitch about that and forget how inept he was–no bitching about that at all.

  • kenshade

    People need to understand one major “FACT” Republicans do not deal in “FACTS”. They live and play in “Wonderland”. It is centrally located in each one of them where their brains used to be.

  • Gwen Siert Wrich

    It’s not the number…it’s the order itself. Comparing one order that might be changing the name of a dept chair director from “central intelligence” to “national intelligence” is not the same as changing a law (ACA) 28 times (since October) (a law I might add that was designated a tax by the Supreme Court and taxes are to be changed thru Congress). Ever wonder how all those Japanese Americans were put in war camps? Yep, executive order. LOOK at Executive orders..not just the number count if you are going to be taken seriously.

  • William Wise

    You’ve hit your limit, who gives a shit!