English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-4.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

Well there goes our right to protest the war. BushFraud supporters, flag wavers and war cheerleaders are going to have a field day with these orders.

2007-07-20 09:00:23 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

12 answers

Try reading it. It specifically targets individuals who are supporting terrorists and terrorist front groups. Anti-war people can continue to march and chant and burn flags all they want. I have seen others say the same thing about this order but they are wrong also.
In WWII Roosevelt just had individuals caught doing this stuff taken out and shot.

2007-07-20 09:08:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Do you people who keep harping on this every bother to read the EO’s in question. Are you aware of the fact that they apply to those who are supporting the insurgency in Iraq? Are you aware of the fact that there are individuals and groups in the US and other countries who raise money for that very purpose? This does not apply to people who protest the war. It applies to those who contribute to the attacks on US military personnel, Iraqi security personnel, Iraqi government and officials, the Iraqi infrastructure and the Iraqi civilian population. I know that any and all attempts to stabalize Iraq threatens your political objectives of destroying Bush but it is in the interests of the US to do so.

The President cannot create law. EO’s merely Administrative Directives which establish guidelines for enforcing existing laws. Each President governs according to his own philosophy and therefore EO’s can be cancelled by successors. If the next President feels differently, he/she is well within his/her rights to replace it with a new rule or simply abandon it.

Perhaps you should learn a little about US law before constantly accusing the President of being a NAZI. NAZI’s (National Socialist Labour Party) by the way, were Socialists and that means they are in your camp.

2007-07-20 16:52:49 · answer #2 · answered by flightleader 4 · 1 0

First: executive orders are issued, not passed.

Second: until such an order calls for the extermination - or, at least, wrongful imprisonment - of a non-trivial segment of the population, I would hesitate to call them Nazi-like.


The reason sitting presidents issue executive orders is because doing so is one of thier powers, and they hope that the orders inquestion will advance thier agendas. Executive orders are power of the president that is merely implied by the constitution - as the head of the executive, he must be able to issue orders to the rest of that branch of government.

Executive orders do need to be legal and constitutional - but, they go into effect before any 'test' of legality or constitutionality is aplied (just like Bills become law before being tested for constitutionality by the Supreme Court).

The courts can, and have, struck down executive orders that were of questionable legality or constitutionality. And, Congress can always pass new legislation that makes a given order clearly illegal - though they'd likely have to override a veto to do it.

2007-07-20 16:15:23 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2 0

I have some major problems with some of Bush's actions, but to compare him to Hitler and the Nazis is the height of idiocy. I always get a laugh when one far left blog or paper exclaims how Bush is a "lame duck" and the next some other liberal source issues a ridiculous prediction that Bush will soon have Hitler-like control of the country! Which is it?

When Bush quietly steps away from the WhiteHouse on Jan. 20, 2009, all these propaganda parrots will be revealed as the idiots they are.

2007-07-20 16:38:08 · answer #4 · answered by globalies 2 · 1 1

If your idea of "right to protest" is the commission, aid or support of terrorist acts, ya, this Executive Order really is infringing on that right. When you have time to kill, read Executive Orders of former Presidents in time of war. I'll bet you'll find a lot of those that you feel are Nazi-like, from both major political parties.

2007-07-20 16:15:10 · answer #5 · answered by Jim 5 · 3 0

Whaa! Whaa! They are on to us! Whaa, they took away the House and Senate- Whaaa! We have to start a Liberal war - Whaa!


We all know why

Every supporter in here is part of it, or at least they think they are. They talk like those running Washington in that lawyer like terminology. Giving contolling grace to an administration who uses every political loophole of deviance known to man!

The question is - what are we going to do about it!

Keep talkin there globalies - You know whats going on
'
The power just shifts to a corrupt party under a different name, but its just the same

We will be voting outside the Washington pentagram this time around

2007-07-20 16:33:07 · answer #6 · answered by scottanthonydavis 4 · 1 1

Those actions were actually legal. Not everything he does violates the law. Some of what he wants to do he managed to get Congress to approve between 2004 and 2006.

2007-07-20 16:10:53 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3 0

Those are Nazi-like orders?

Funny, I picture Nazi-like orders as something along the lines of round up all the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and other groups Hitler didn't like, and put them into concentration camps for slave labor and orderly extermination.

Truly you idiots on the left have no concept of what "Nazi-like" is!

2007-07-20 16:14:15 · answer #8 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 3 1

He's a Neo-Con, that's why... Very little applies to them. These are the same people who decide where the protesters may or may not congregate, and whether they are in "protest-free zones" during his speeches, for example. No respect for our Constitution whatsoever.

2007-07-20 17:46:12 · answer #9 · answered by Sangria 4 · 1 1

Yep. It's against the law to provide aid and comfort to the enemy now. I guess that pretty much stifles all liberals.

2007-07-20 16:34:01 · answer #10 · answered by Eukodol 4 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers