PDA

View Full Version : Should Ron Paul issue executive orders, if he were elected?




MoneyInTheBank
08-06-2011, 08:45 PM
Let's face it, the vast majority of Congress will not vote for a reduction in military pay, social security cuts, medicare cuts, or most cuts of any kind.

If Ron Paul were elected, this would be his main problem and the worst part of it is, both Dems and Republicans would oppose a lot of this.

I have pretty much given up on the political process at the federal level. I don't know what the effect would be even if we got Ron Paul elected.

MikeStanart
08-06-2011, 08:49 PM
Perhaps he could void previous executive orders, but it would be hypocritical for him to use the very thing he is against. I doubt he will succumb to a "necessary evil"

Anti Federalist
08-06-2011, 08:50 PM
Yes, absolutely.

To rescind all the EO's already signed.

guitarlifter
08-06-2011, 08:55 PM
Is it really beyond his means to rescind unconstitutional executive orders? If anything, it should be his duty to do so.

Legend1104
08-06-2011, 09:00 PM
Let's face it, the vast majority of Congress will not vote for a reduction in military pay, social security cuts, medicare cuts, or most cuts of any kind.

If Ron Paul were elected, this would be his main problem and the worst part of it is, both Dems and Republicans would oppose a lot of this.

I have pretty much given up on the political process at the federal level. I don't know what the effect would be even if we got Ron Paul elected.

Yeah same as has been mentioned, he could revoke em. Plus, imagine what would happen if he vetoed virtually everthing that came to his desk. The Congress would have to either agree with him, or get a 2/3rds to override him (which would be pretty hard on most stuff).

Plus, I don't know what he can do about the departments, but maybe he could refuse to appoint anyone new and just fire everyone. Basically defacto shutdown.

Carehn
08-06-2011, 09:05 PM
Aside from voiding older executive orders i expect him to place no one, or at least non living things like rocks and stuff in charge of all the bureaucracys. Like putting a hand bag in charge of the EPA because he could not get rid of it. Would be fine with me.

The only positive EO I want him to sign would be one ordering congress to dance the thriller before every vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcJmESJlcX0&feature=related

bwlibertyman
08-06-2011, 09:14 PM
I think he should rescind previous executive orders, then he should have congress pass a law saying that exec orders are illegal.

Anti Federalist
08-06-2011, 09:15 PM
I think he should rescind previous executive orders, then he should have congress pass a law saying that exec orders are illegal.

I like that.

+rep

GunnyFreedom
08-06-2011, 09:34 PM
"Bring the troops home" is an executive order. Just sayin'

LibertyEagle
08-06-2011, 09:38 PM
Yes, absolutely.

To rescind all the EO's already signed.

HA HA. That is exactly what I was coming into this thread to say.

Jandrsn21
08-06-2011, 09:40 PM
I'm not opposed to him using them, how about an executive order that all states and the federal government use gold and silver as legal tender, as the constitution allows. He wouldn't be issuing legislation, he would just be ordering the government to follow the law.

Also he is the commander and chief, he can order troops home.

libertybrewcity
08-06-2011, 09:40 PM
I'm sure his first executive order would be to raise the debt ceiling








.../sarcasm

RileyE104
08-06-2011, 09:59 PM
Yes, absolutely.

To rescind all the EO's already signed.

I agree... He should sign another that also bans any future executive orders... :)

DamianTV
08-06-2011, 10:49 PM
Yes, absolutely.

To rescind all the EO's already signed.

Except Kennedy's attempt to phase out the Federal Reserve. Of course, he could possibly implement his own strategy too.

eduardo89
08-06-2011, 10:55 PM
The only positive EO I want him to sign would be one ordering congress to dance the thriller before every vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcJmESJlcX0&feature=related
Ron would never sign that, it's coercion.

Carehn
08-06-2011, 11:00 PM
Ron would never sign that, it's coercion.
The thriller is foiled again buy Ron and his damn principles.

Theocrat
08-06-2011, 11:01 PM
Ron wouldn't need an executive order when he has the power of the veto.

White Bear Lake
08-06-2011, 11:10 PM
Like someone else said, he could have Amash, or Rand, or DeMint or someone introduce legislation to ban executive orders. The GOP would pass it (which lets face it, would control both houses if Ron was elected) and Ron could sign it into law.

eduardo89
08-06-2011, 11:14 PM
Like someone else said, he could have Amash, or Rand, or DeMint or someone introduce legislation to ban executive orders. The GOP would pass it (which lets face it, would control both houses if Ron was elected) and Ron could sign it into law.

I don't think McCain would vote for that. Then again he'd probably be dead by then.

Warrior_of_Freedom
08-07-2011, 12:24 AM
I don't think McCain would vote for that. Then again he'd probably be dead by then.

Trolls live longer than hobbits.

puppetmaster
08-07-2011, 12:53 AM
He told me that he would void the previous orders with an EO as one of the first things he would do as president.

limequat
08-07-2011, 09:58 AM
There was book about a liberty president...I forgot who wrote it. The joke was that he wrote all sorts of EOs that pissed off the congress until they voted to ban them, which is what he wanted in the first place. Would be a sweet strategy for RP.

Carehn
08-07-2011, 10:01 AM
There was book about a liberty president...I forgot who wrote it. The joke was that he wrote all sorts of EOs that pissed off the congress until they voted to ban them, which is what he wanted in the first place. Would be a sweet strategy for RP.

Exactly why we need the Thriller EO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcJmESJlcX0&feature=related