Can anyone explain why an executive order from the Obama administration "trumps" one from the Trump administration?

Federal judge reinstates ban

So, in the twilight hours of the Obama administration, he writes an executive order permanently banning Arctic drilling. Trump wrote an executive order overturning that ban. A federal judge who just happens to have been appointed by Obama reinstates the ban. Am I missing anything here? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this judge a Republican, albeit a relatively moderate one. The senate basically wouldn't allow any non-conservative to come to a vote.

The reason so many judges have been appointed in the past two years was the backlog from blocked seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Federal judge reinstates ban

So, in the twilight hours of the Obama administration, he writes an executive order permanently banning Arctic drilling. Trump wrote an executive order overturning that ban. A federal judge who just happens to have been appointed by Obama reinstates the ban. Am I missing anything here? 

Gutless Congress who will not enforce the Constitution by impeaching the judge.  When good people refuse to stand up and be counted, evil will prevail. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no chance she's a Republican. She was nominated and approved in 2011. Not sure if that was in a lame duck session of the Senate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fundamental question is why one President gets to write executive orders that "stick" but another President can't undo it? Given how many executive orders that Obama wrote were overturned by SCOTUS I'd say the rule should be next President gets to set policy since he was elected. Or we can just agree with a certain person here who's a strong monarchist. 😁

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn’t an executive order. It was pursuant to a congressional statute.   The statute provides for withdrawal of lands. It does not provide for rescinding previous withdrawals.    Simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sarasota sunshine said:

It wasn’t an executive order. It was pursuant to a congressional statute.   The statute provides for withdrawal of lands. It does not provide for rescinding previous withdrawals.    Simple. 

Multiple things 1) Designated wilderness but a large section was not by Congress specifically set aside for oil/NG to be determined later 2) Obama executive order to ban drilling and increase size of banned area 3) Congress/Senate and Trump passed/signed bill removing the drilling ban. 

Judge went against congress/President and UPHELD an executive order... from Obama. 

THAT is why the judge should be impeached. 

The topper: the "precious" caribou calve right on top of the existing oil wells in Alaska already. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 4/2/2019 at 1:30 AM, Ward Smith said:

The fundamental question is why one President gets to write executive orders that "stick" but another President can't undo it? Given how many executive orders that Obama wrote were overturned by SCOTUS I'd say the rule should be next President gets to set policy since he was elected. Or we can just agree with a certain person here who's a strong monarchist. 😁

Ward, you are delving into the arcana of the legal mind, which is always fraught with dark clouds.  Here is the short answer:  when a preceding US President writes an Executive Order and it is not specifically stated and declared to be a "Permanent Order," then yes, a succeeding President can issue yat another Executive Order effectively nolling or cancelling the precedent one.  "However," and here comes the exception, if that preceding Order was set up, and explicitly described therein as, a "Permanent" Order, then in this Judge's Opinion it can be countermanded only by a specific Statute, or Act of the Congress. And Congress, frozen by acrimony, refuses to act on anything.

Does that seem abstruse to you?  Well, it should.  It is "legal thinking," and not much that the courts do makes any sense to ordinary people. Such is life in the USA.  OK, getting past that editorial, in the US system, it is up to the Congress to go pass Bills to craft where the country is going.  So the House of Representatives has some Member or Members introduce a Bill, it gets shunted off to some Committee for discussion, if it gets voted out of Committee then it eventually goes to the Floor of the House for a vote, but only if the Speaker of the House does not derail it and lets it actually get to the floor, under the House Speaker Rules  (which the Speaker sets, from time to time.  The Speaker currently is Nancy Pelosi, who probably should have retired some decades ago, but that is another story).  OK< moving past that editorial comment, after the House gets through with it, then it rolls over to the Senate, and the equivalent procedure is undertaken by the Senate.  After the Senate modifies it and does its thing, then it goes into Reconciliation, where some House Members and some Senators try to hammer out some uniform version acceptable to both Houses of Congress. (The Congress consists of two Houses, the Representatives and the Senate). then eventually it gets to some Vote, and then if passed, it goes to the President for his Signature, and then if he actually signs it, then it becomes Law.  

What kinds of Bills pass quickly?  Those are the ones caused by public panic and the rages of the mobs.  The classic is the Patriot Act, passed without any debate after the World Trade Center got clobbered by hijacked airplanes in 2001 (Commonly referred to as "nine-eleven" due to taking place on September 11 that year). The Patriot Act, which as a practical matter created the Geheimstadtspolitzei in the USA, stripped away the sacred liberties of Americans permanently, converting them into genuflecting serfs of a central government.  From there, the long descent into the  Twilight Zone started, from which madness we have yet to emerge (and I don't think America will. It is turning into a perpetual Police State, with all the nightmares associated with finely honed police states, such as say Cuba).  So, Ward, now you know why I take comfort in being a firmly committed Monarchist.  You don't end up in this craziness. God Save the King!

Edited by Jan van Eck
added "genuflecting"; spelling correction
  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sarasota sunshine said:

It wasn’t an executive order. It was pursuant to a congressional statute.   The statute provides for withdrawal of lands. It does not provide for rescinding previous withdrawals.    Simple. 

I don't believe there's any such thing as "pursuant to a congressional statute". You can put language like that into an executive order but by no means does that change anything. Regardless of your political affiliation, the idea that any sitting President can make an executive order quasi permanent by invoking "pursuant to a congressional statute" should be chilling at the least, if not outright frightening. 

Perhaps our esteemed Jan Van Eck is onto something with his monarchist mindset. I'd be all for monarchy if it weren't inheritable. Perhaps something like the Chinese system of old, with the exams but without the bribery and murders. …

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Ward, you are delving into the arcana of the legal mind, which is always fraught with dark clouds.  Here is the short answer:  when a preceding US President writes an Executive Order and it is not specifically stated and declared to be a "Permanent Order," then yes, a succeeding President can issue yat another Executive Order effectively nolling or cancelling the precedent one.  "However," and here comes the exception, if that preceding Order was set up, and explicitly described therein as, a "Permanent" Order, then in this Judge's Opinion it can be countermanded only by a specific Statute, or Act of the Congress. And Congress, frozen by acrimony, refuses to act on anything.

Jan, what I said to Sarasota above. Going forward Every President would just have to add the word "Permanent" to their executive orders and we'd be even further down the road to your (Godwin's Law) dictatorship. Amazingly in this country Congress has an approval rating around ten percent but Individual Congress critters routinely receive over 50% of the vote in their districts. What this means of course is that Americans love THEIR Congress critter, but hate everyone else's. Given that they have no fear of losing their seats, they likewise have no reason to try and get anything done. To quote someone famous, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". I'm starting to like modified monarchy though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Jan, what I said to Sarasota above. Going forward Every President would just have to add the word "Permanent" to their executive orders and we'd be even further down the road to your (Godwin's Law) dictatorship. Amazingly in this country Congress has an approval rating around ten percent but Individual Congress critters routinely receive over 50% of the vote in their districts. What this means of course is that Americans love THEIR Congress critter, but hate everyone else's. Given that they have no fear of losing their seats, they likewise have no reason to try and get anything done. To quote someone famous, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". I'm starting to like modified monarchy though. 

Yup, you have discovered the Achilles Heel of having an American System, where there are these three "co-equal" branches of Government.  

That said, it depends on the nature of the Executive Order.  Typically they are designed to deal with some immediate matter, which would lie under the mantle of the Administration, or the Executive Branch.  As such, an Order would be transitory in nature.  I can imagine, just for example, an Executive Order instructing the Army Corps of Engineers to immediately construct a levee on a section of the Missouri River, in-house, without going out to bid.  OK, then once the section of levee is built, it self-dissolves.  Now what Mr. Obama did was out of the mold.  But remember, he is a very smart guy, and went to Harvard Law School and studied constitutional law.  Indeed, I would warrant that he is one of the pre-eminent experts in Constitutional Law.  So, don't be surprised that, when frustrated by the Congress, he resorts to these arcane maneuvers. 

Remember that our chum Mitch McConnell over in the Senate, yup that creaky old guy. declared upon the inauguration of Obama that his "Job One" was to obstruct every single thing the President did or proposed, so that nothing would ever pass the Congress.  Well, with that cruddy attitude, don't be surprised that Obama scours the constitutional template to figure out some clever way around Mitch McConnell.  I would blame Mitch for this new trend of governing by executive fiat.  Basically, all his fault. 

Now here's the hard part: Old Mitch is still around, even though at his senile old age, he should have retired to the stallion horse farm decades ago.  He will continue to obstruct until the end of time. Welcome to America. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Jan, what I said to Sarasota above. Going forward Every President would just have to add the word "Permanent" to their executive orders and we'd be even further down the road to your (Godwin's Law) dictatorship. Amazingly in this country Congress has an approval rating around ten percent but Individual Congress critters routinely receive over 50% of the vote in their districts. What this means of course is that Americans love THEIR Congress critter, but hate everyone else's. Given that they have no fear of losing their seats, they likewise have no reason to try and get anything done. To quote someone famous, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". I'm starting to like modified monarchy though. 

It is pretty simple.  The founding fathers were afraid of a strong central government so the devised a system where accomplishing anything by means of government would be exceedingly difficult.  They succeeded admireably, a do nothing government was the intention, and that is exactly what exists in the US.  A parliamentary system makes far more sense, despite what we currently see in the UK.  Makes everyone want to move to Canada, they better build some walls and make the US and UK pay for them.  :)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Yup, you have discovered the Achilles Heel of having an American System, where there are these three "co-equal" branches of Government.  

That said, it depends on the nature of the Executive Order.  Typically they are designed to deal with some immediate matter, which would lie under the mantle of the Administration, or the Executive Branch.  As such, an Order would be transitory in nature.  I can imagine, just for example, an Executive Order instructing the Army Corps of Engineers to immediately construct a levee on a section of the Missouri River, in-house, without going out to bid.  OK, then once the section of levee is built, it self-dissolves.  Now what Mr. Obama did was out of the mold.  But remember, he is a very smart guy, and went to Harvard Law School and studied constitutional law.  Indeed, I would warrant that he is one of the pre-eminent experts in Constitutional Law.  So, don't be surprised that, when frustrated by the Congress, he resorts to these arcane maneuvers. 

Remember that our chum Mitch McConnell over in the Senate, yup that creaky old guy. declared upon the inauguration of Obama that his "Job One" was to obstruct every single thing the President did or proposed, so that nothing would ever pass the Congress.  Well, with that cruddy attitude, don't be surprised that Obama scours the constitutional template to figure out some clever way around Mitch McConnell.  I would blame Mitch for this new trend of governing by executive fiat.  Basically, all his fault. 

Now here's the hard part: Old Mitch is still around, even though at his senile old age, he should have retired to the stallion horse farm decades ago.  He will continue to obstruct until the end of time. Welcome to America. 

At some point the 60 vote cloture rule will become unworkable and will be abandoned.  Heck rural states are already over represented in the Senate by huge margins in some states (Wyoming 226k people per Senator, California 19.77 million people per Senator so about 87 times less representation for a California citizen in the US Senate).  In the original 13 colonies it was a difference of 10 to 1 (Virginia to Delaware).  I guess it was the only way to come to an agreement, not a particularly representative form of government, in any case it was designed so it was nearly impossible to change.  It is an effective way to maintain an ineffective government.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

It is an effective way to maintain an ineffective government.

A more truthful statement would be hard to find!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

At some point the 60 vote cloture rule will become unworkable and will be abandoned.  Heck rural states are already over represented in the Senate by huge margins in some states (Wyoming 226k people per Senator, California 19.77 million people per Senator so about 87 times less representation for a California citizen in the US Senate).  In the original 13 colonies it was a difference of 10 to 1 (Virginia to Delaware).  I guess it was the only way to come to an agreement, not a particularly representative form of government, in any case it was designed so it was nearly impossible to change.  It is an effective way to maintain an ineffective government.

While you are correct that it's an effective way to maintain an ineffective government, (well put btw), originally as I recall senators weren't voted in by the state but were chosen by their legislators. Since it wasn't a popularity contest, the "deliberative house" was packed with smarter, better law makers. Today unfortunately it is full of grandstanding Prima Donna's pandering to the bread and circuses crowd instead of doing their job. 

If we had a fully population based system, California and New York would rule everything and we'd have little cohesiveness as a country. Imagine being ruled by Occasional Cortex deciding winners and losers. You think the good folk in the Bronx are expecting to Pay for all the goodies they're hoping she bestows on them? They want free food from Kansas and the poor schmucks who live there? Too bad for them. Nope, the Senate was a good idea, it's just poorly implemented.  

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my view that it will take another five federal election cycles before the current antagonistic stand-off stalemate in the country is abated.  

Why twenty years?  Because it takes that long for the old generation of Grumpy Old Men (the "GOMs") and the Cranky old Wrecks (the "COWs")  to finally start dying off, and another generation of youth to move into politics.  I suspect the GOMs and the COWs will continue with their bitterness and their obstructionism forever, and the youth to bring their new ideas of tolerance with them into politics.  Welcome to America. 

Then again, the rural States have disproportionate numbers of COWs and GOMs, so those States will be the most resistant to changes in attitudes. Ironically, they spend fortunes of public education, only to see their children flee those States for the cities of the coasts, where the "Liberals" hold sway, even when those power structures there are cemented by authoritarian faux-Democrats running independent fiefdoms. What is the effective difference between Hartford, Connecticut and Ramadi, Iraq?  None.  In both cases, you have criminal gangs ruling the streets, and corrupt policemen taking bribes and arresting the political dissidents and anybody in official disfavor.  And your property rights are stripped away by a judiciary that favors the oligarchs and disdains the commoners.  At least, in the Cities, the kids find other kids, and can party hearty, which is a big motivator.  Plus, the Cities have lots of bars.  Boston alone has 99. Makes North Dakota look positively barren. Drink up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Montana and N Dakota have the most bars per capita. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Then again, the rural States have disproportionate numbers of COWs and GOMs, so those States will be the most resistant to changes in attitudes. Ironically, they spend fortunes of public education, only to see their children flee those States for the cities of the coasts, where the "Liberals" hold sw

Dear genius: Open a Census anytime in the last 2 decades.  Watch the states age... Everyone is fleeing the demotheif, union states for those "horrid" Republican rural states who have.... jobs 😎.  Might notice those electoral votes disappearing... Population is increasing in those "horrid" fly over states with one exception; Alabama.  All the young people are in the middle of the country.  All the old GOM's and COW's are in CA, NY, IL, MA, OH, PA, VT, CT, RI, AZ, MN, and FL why?  Because those demoscum GOM's and COW's never had children yet expect all those "horrid" fly over states children to pony up for their retirement party they voted in without paying for it like the proper socialist thieves they are. 

EDIT: CA is also young... from immigrants from Central America, not the USA.  Home of 1/3 of all welfare recipients. 

Edited by Wastral
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure there are more bars than 99 in Boston. Last time I was there, I think there were that many on just one street! 😍

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Dear genius: Open a Census anytime in the last 2 decades.  Watch the states age... Everyone is fleeing the demotheif, union states for those "horrid" Republican rural states who have.... jobs 😎.  Might notice those electoral votes disappearing... Population is increasing in those "horrid" fly over states with one exception; Alabama.  All the young people are in the middle of the country.  All the old GOM's and COW's are in CA, NY, IL, MA, OH, PA, VT, CT, RI, AZ, MN, and FL why?  Because those demoscum GOM's and COW's never had children yet expect all those "horrid" fly over states children to pony up for their retirement party they voted in without paying for it like the proper socialist thieves they are. 

EDIT: CA is also young... from immigrants from Central America, not the USA.  Home of 1/3 of all welfare recipients. 

Nah - it's almost certainly the super cheap real estate.  Young people will never be able to own a single family home in a place like San Francisco (unless they are great with computers or have super rich parents) so they move to a cheaper, crappier state where they can buy a dilapidated place next to a corn field.  😎

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Nah - it's almost certainly the super cheap real estate.  Young people will never be able to own a single family home in a place like San Francisco (unless they are great with computers or have super rich parents) so they move to a cheaper, crappier state where they can buy a dilapidated place next to a corn field.  😎

 

Is it better to be next to a cornfield or a homeless encampment? Watch “Seattle is Dying” to get the full effect. San Francisco isn't better, they just wouldn't dare film the squalor 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

31 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Is it better to be next to a cornfield or a homeless encampment? Watch “Seattle is Dying” to get the full effect. San Francisco isn't better, they just wouldn't dare film the squalor 

San Francisco disgusted me.  Everybody should visit Union square and see stores selling trinkets for ridiculous prices then walk just a couple blocks over to Tenderloin and see horrid squalor, rampant mental illness, crime, etc.  The juxtaposition is shocking; rags to riches in about a mile. 

Also there are very few plants or trees - every square inch is a house, store, or parking space - not my thing.

I'd take the cornfield over even a "nice" place in SF - that is if I had to leave Canada and couldn't live in San Diego or most anywhere in Colorado.

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

San Francisco disgusted me.  Everybody should visit Union square and see stores selling trinkets for ridiculous prices then walk just a couple blocks over to Tenderloin and see horrid squalor, rampant mental illness, crime, etc.  The juxtaposition is shocking; rags to riches in about a mile. 

Also there are very few plants or trees - every square inch is a house, store, or parking space - not my thing.

I'd take the cornfield over even a "nice" place in SF - that is if I had to leave Canada and couldn't live in San Diego or most anywhere in Colorado.

As someone who has lived near Seattle, Dayton Ohio, and Denver, most "anywhere" in Colorado outside of the Denver/Colorado Springs area is VERY remote or an expensive ski town.  Mountains are not all that pretty either.  And then you have to put up with the daily massive thunderstorm in the summer on the eastern side.  Western side?  Talk about no one home... 

Personally I really liked Ohio.  Not too cold and not too hot.  4 seasons.

Seattle is WONDERFUL in summer/fall and is drop jaw gorgeous, but honestly sucks otherwise even before you add in the communists(real ones not fake) taking over.  The only good thing is the Washington state constitution banned ANY form of an income tax. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

 

I'd take the cornfield over even a "nice" place in SF - that is if I had to leave Canada and couldn't live in San Diego or most anywhere in Colorado.

Canada eh? What do you think of Trudeau?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Canada eh? What do you think of Trudeau?

Ward, Justin Trudeau was enforcing Party discipline when he kicked those two ridiculous women out of the Party Caucus.  Trudeau understands perfectly that, without discipline, the government degenerates into inter-personal squabbling and backbiting and that makes it look awful to the public. Those two women represent the absolute pits, the worst of Canadian society outside of the criminal underclass. They are prissy, ridiculous, egotistical, self-important - I run out of adjectives. He made a huge mistake in bringing them into the Party (and Cabinet), and he has now acted decisively to correct that error by kicking them out.  Having the balls to kick out ridiculous women is a huge plus, in my view. What totally worthless cretins they were. Out the door you go, Missy. Long, long overdue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0