Obama to use executive orders to reverse Bush policies

Monday 10th November, 06:45 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 69 Total Comments Show All

SushiSake3 at 04:49 PM JST - 10th November

Cleo - "I think you misunderestimate Helter Skelter"

I think you are undermisrepresenting your native language.

Sometimes, it really does take 2 to tango :-)
cleo at 04:56 PM JST - 10th November

I didn't understand it, either. XO
skipthesong at 05:41 PM JST - 10th November

since the subject of drilling has been coming a lot today and its relevence to the new admin, please bear in mind that everyone knows we need to move away from oil for the most part, but much of what can be done is still very far off. Additionally, how to make money from it is very far off as well.

Now, smitty has said drilling up there would only be a band aid, but look at it from a different view - if we can move as caveman states, personal transportation to another source, this would free up a lot of what is used in trucks, planes (which is soooooo far away from even thinking about moving) and many other necessities such as generators, etc... and still get hat needed oil from within the states, it would be very profitable, keep/create jobs, and move much better. If we don't drill we are only kill another countries' environment.
Everton2 at 05:54 PM JST - 10th November

oil is old technology
smithinjapan at 06:01 PM JST - 10th November

Skipthesong: Moving personal transportation away from oil is not 'a different viewpoint'; it still fits into conserving resources, and obviously if you're going to move away from oil you're going to have to use something to replace it, which is going to be an alternative source of energy. That's still reduction, and that would be a good thing for all parties. I still think though that a complete move away from oil is ultimately the best thing, and will benefit everyone and the environment more. What's more, if you only move personal transportation, when the personal consumers are suddenly ahead in tech., etc., you're going to have everyone else behind.

Cleo: I didn't catch much on that either... hahaha. Nice tough, though.
romulus3 at 07:34 PM JST - 10th November

The most successful thing that Bush will ever do is to help a smooth transfer of power but I believe that to be well beyond his meager capabilities. I cannot wait for Obama to Veto a few things.
goodDonkey at 11:08 PM JST - 10th November

The problem executive orders solve is that much of the law is administrative law. Bureaucracies must have rules just to conduct business. Congress would never have the time to pass legislation guiding every aspect of every agency of the U.S. There is often latitude on various policies. An executive must make some decisions.

Having said that there must be considerable balance in decision making. I also think the President should exercise restraint because he is not the same as an executive in a corporation. In government a separate entity is making the rules; in business it is the same entity making the rules and carrying them out. I think that the President should pretty much act as the Supreme Court does in trying to determine the original intention of the law when a law applies. Unfortunately an overwhelming portion of administrative rules and guidelines have no overriding law.

If the executive branch does not perform this responsibility then you can either tie up the courts with minuscule decision making or Congress could form a web of arbitrators to conduct this function. This presents the problem of undoing the rules, regulations or guidelines Congress never specifically addressed in a law, that was then established by the arbitrators. It would end up going back to Congress and then we would be dealing with small issues instead of large issues.

We need strong courts to stop a President from overstepping the boundaries of legislation that was passed. I think it is the role of an Executive to conduct the business of the nation. Most of the court decisions are based on whether an administrative act was capricious or arbitrary. I have no hard fast commitment to my comments. I just think democracy is very messy and I wounder what we would replace executive orders with.

Executive orders pale in comparison to signing statements that defy any part of the bill being signed. That to me is a blatant abuse of power and the Supreme Court needs to rule on some of these matters. Congress makes the laws not the President. It is enough that the President executes the law.
Nessie at 02:40 AM JST - 11th November

Well, then, if you are for eliminating the executive powers of the President, I hope to heck that includes the Veto power.

Of course it doesn't, as that power is clearly specified as constitutional.
JoiceRojo at 03:53 AM JST - 11th November

I even knew a girl in college whose sister was literally killed by her father for doing such a thing and of course he took off back to Pakistan where he won't be charged for anything.

Yeah, but it is not only because the abortion thing, fathers kill their daughters if they leave their husbands...

Embroynic stem cell research should be allowed but let's not kid ourselves. There are huge ethical questions to consider and I'm not talking about abortion or Christian ethics. This research could also lead to some very disturbing and profound impacts in the future. Designer kids maybe if you can manipulate the genetic code in stem cells for starters?

As Sci-Fi this may sound it is incredibly possible. I realized that when hypoallergenic cats started to be sold over the internet...

As for the research itself, I'm not still clear what it is my position about that, I'm pro scientific development, but also I have a strong hold of "ethics" from my catholic upbringing. I'd rather they research on umbilical cords and placenta rather the embryos... but as i'm not a biologyst I cannot give further opinion
Helter_Skelter at 05:11 AM JST - 11th November

Cleo

to give people temporarily on their uppers a bit of a hand up

Heh. Where'd you pick up this adolescent view of American government social programs?
adaydream at 06:47 AM JST - 11th November

Helter_Skelter - Oh, wait a minute. We have socialist president. Never mind.

But it's not socialism when the banks are bailed out.

We have socialist president.

But it's not spcialism when the biggest insurance companies, auto builders and investment houses are bailed out.

It's onlt socialism when poor folk are helped.

Please tell me how much is spent on social programs VS department of defense costs? < :-)
adaydream at 07:05 AM JST - 11th November

smithinjapan at 04:30 PM JST - 10th November Helter_Skelter: Ummm... Military Spending is NOT 'social welfare'.

Oh sure it is. The rich aren't going in the military. It's for the middle class, poor and homeless that are filling most of the ranks of the forces. So by having a military, it's giving away alms to homeless folk to protect the rich.

Tell us Helter_Skelter all about these social programs.

$1,000,000,000,000.00 to prop up the financial houses isn't socialism, it's their dues that we own them. < :-)
CavemanLawyer at 08:55 AM JST - 11th November

Please tell me how much is spent on social programs VS department of defense costs?

I second this request. Anyone with such a strong opinion on simple numbers MUST have a source.

And here is a source for your viewing pleasure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listofcountriesbymilitary_expenditures

According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute figures the U.S. spends 547 BILLION dollars on the military, 45 percent of the WORLD TOTAL, while number 2, Britain, spends only 60 billion, just 5 percent of the world total, and even dreaded China is about the same as Britian. Naturally the rest spend even less.

I think somebody needs to tell the U.S. that the Cold War is over.
skipthesong at 09:13 AM JST - 11th November

Military Spending is NOT 'social welfare'." It is when just because you are married you get more money, where as in the real world and much more dangerous occupations don't get any extra money. Look at those spouses and their kids on the bases in Kanagawa like Zama, Atsugi.. they got pools, gyms, kids centers, schools for kids, that and that that most small towns don't.

Why is the US spending such an amount as Caveman points out? Well, how many civilians you got there getting paid a lot more than what a soldier was once doing? I don't want to hear about freeing that person up to go to combat, he/she never would have in most cases.

The mlitary needs to be disected and put back together completely different.
adaydream at 01:14 PM JST - 11th November

You think it's hard to get recruits now, start taking away these benefits you complain about and see the numbers of recruits drop. You'll see even less. Then they'd have to have another draft. Now that would make me happy. < :-)