If This Bill Becomes Law, Arizona Is About To Throw A Major Wrench Into President Obama’s Agenda.
 

This Wednesday, the Arizona House of Representatives passed House Bill 2368, sponsored by Representative Bob Thorpe, R-Flagstaff. If signed into law, the bill would prohibit Arizona from funding any executive orders issued by President Obama.

 

http://journal.ijreview.com/2015/03/2429...n=Politics

 

 

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

Good for Arizona, more states should follow their lead.

---

I assume they will also stop taking Federal dollars for anything and everything out of spite as well? 

---

I assume they will also stop taking Federal dollars for anything and everything out of spite as well? 

This is kind of like when you parents told you to clean your room and responding "you can't make me". A valiant effort that is going to create much worse problems than it will ever solve.

---

This is kind of like when you parents told you to clean your room and responding "you can't make me". A valiant effort that is going to create much worse problems than it will ever solve.

 

Nothing stirs up the fervor of the GOP's base than something like this. If it were a GOP president though....... crickets.....

---

Nothing stirs up the fervor of the GOP's base than something like this. If it were a GOP president though....... crickets.....

 

I'd expect Jeb Bush to do the same thing, he's as open boarders if not more than Obama. Either way I'm all for States passing legislation that prohibits them from using state resources to implement executive orders not passed into law by congress.

 

This is exactly the level these issues should be dealt with.

---

This is kind of like when you parents told you to clean your room and responding "you can't make me". A valiant effort that is going to create much worse problems than it will ever solve.

 

More like this is your boss sending someone to clean your house while you're away and then sending you the bill.

---

I'd expect Jeb Bush to do the same thing, he's as open boarders if not more than Obama. Either way I'm all for States passing legislation that prohibits them from using state resources to implement executive orders not passed into law by congress.

 

This is exactly the level these issues should be dealt with.

That's all well and good. What exactly is the state doing on the matter or are they trying to push their view federally? The right seems to want to push their agenda federally rather than doing anything at the state level. Correct me if I am wrong here. 

---

It's not just the Open Borders, it's the ACA: 47 Changes so far to ObamaCare, 28  that President Obama has made unilaterally, Only CONGRESS can change a law. Obama is by-passing congress and upsurping power he doesn't have

 

Here are the 28 Unilateral changes made by Obama: http://www.galen.org/newsletters/changes...re-so-far/

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

It's not just the Open Borders, it's the ACA: 47 Changes so far to ObamaCare  that President Obama has made unilaterally, Only CONGRESS can change a law. Obama is by-passing congress and upsurping power he doesn't have

 

Here are the 28 Unilateral changes made by Obama: http://www.galen.org/newsletters/changes...re-so-far/

I can't even think about reading that. My blood pressure is normally 95/56. Reading this would probably send me to hospital.

---

And yet no state did anything when the Patriot Act was enabled.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

And yet no state did anything when the Patriot Act was enabled.

 

That was enacted and renewed by Congress, NOT the President through an Executive Order

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

That was enacted and renewed by Congress, NOT the President through an Executive Order

 

And it was still unconstitutional.  


I mean both sides proclaim they want to 'protect the constitution' and yet they only do it when it's something they disagree with.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

And it was still unconstitutional.  

And should be repealed by congress

 

And the EO's issues are legal. An argument can be made the president should not have those powers but I don't see anyone proposing legislation to remove those powers from the executive branch, one I would absolutely support. One would think the current congress would be all over that. 

---

Per the Constitution:

 

Executive Orders

In times of emergency, the president can override congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued one in order to arm the United States just before it entered World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order. Many other executive orders are on file and could be enacted at any time.

 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

And yet no state did anything when the Patriot Act was enabled.

 

Oh I'm with you 100% there, unfortunately many people turned a blind eye to the Patriot Act when it happened. But believe me there's plenty of people wide awake to it now.

---

Per the Constitution:

 

Executive Orders

In times of emergency, the president can override congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued one in order to arm the United States just before it entered World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order. Many other executive orders are on file and could be enacted at any time.

 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power

But the president also has executive authority over the federal agencies and the legal standing of this orders are that he can order them to allocate funds and directives as he/she sees fits. This is at least the interpretation that seems to hold them up legally speaking.

 

Again legislation could be proposed to reign these in. Neither democrats nor republicans want to do that. They just want to complain and give you reason to get mad at a democrat or give a republican a pass. 

---

And yet no state did anything when the Patriot Act was enabled.

  

Oh I'm with you 100% there, unfortunately many people turned a blind eye to the Patriot Act when it happened. But believe me there's plenty of people wide awake to it now.

Well....if the ACA is aka Obamacare, I suppose the Patriot Act could aka Bushcare.... Or Bushscare, depending how you interpret it.

---

Blakes Life Matters

Let's be clear Obama isn't using executive orders to change agency behavior or policy, specifically in regards to the ACA he's used it to change the law. Nothing about that is legal.

---

And yet no state did anything when the Patriot Act was enabled.

That's really a straw man argument. One has nothing to do with the other. One is governing by executive fiat, and the other followed the proper legislative process.


This country isn't ruled by a king. If he doesn't like having to work with congress he can't simply bypass it, although that's exactly what this president has done repeatedly.


I'm not defending the patriot act either. I think it's bad law. But, you're trying to portray it as a similar situation to these executive orders, and it's simply not the same thing.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.