Skip to comments.Jesse Jackson concerned about Bush's last days
Posted on 11/16/2008 5:12:26 PM PST by Livin_large
The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Sunday he is concerned about executive orders from President Bush in his last few months in office and the effect they could have on the incoming administration.
"Bush is signing away consumer and environmental laws. I mean they're running amok, you know," Jackson said.
Some Democrats in Congress have criticized several federal regulations enacted in the waning months of the Bush administration and are discussing whether some should be repealed when President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January.
The civil rights leader and former presidential hopeful also criticized the federal bailout of the financial industry and called for the outgoing president to help the ailing automotive industry.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Its nothing compared to Bubba’s last days.
Critical of one bailout but encourages another. I guess it depends on whose back is getting scratched.
Doubt he’ll be like Bubba, pardoning the connected felons.
Comes with territory.
I’m concerned about jesse’s mental state. (what a loon)
Irrelevance, thy name is Jessie Jackson.
Can’t a new president pull back executive orders or just change the previous order with another order? I forget.
One I remember in particular was an EO that Bubbah signed that allowed the burning of toxic chemicals in open pits at Area 51. There were a few of them connected to lawsuits brought by people working there and it was a means of getting around those lawsuits.
Still struggling to be relevant, I guess.
I think you are correct, in fact I believe W did that to some of Clinton’s orders when he took office.
Well, you know what Buckwheat?
I'm concerned about Obama’s First days...and all of those thereafter!
I thought Jesse Jackson was now irrelevent.
I saw on news scroll that Obama said “there was a consensus among economists and polititians that we should not be concerned about how bad the deficit gets this next year, or the next one as the financial spending leaps since we must get the economy moving” (paraphrased)...it was alarming, because if we want to get out of debt as citizens, then we don’t go hog wild on spending credit or borrowed money...as one of my friends says “the hotter the war the quicker the peace”....so take the lumps and then get on with it. To get things under control spend less, and expect more cash when bills are paid. Isn’t that the way it is supposed to work? I believe the banks are lending again, and that things are starting to level out, so why borrow more money?
I remember when Jackson spoke out against Clinton’s pardon of the PR terrorists. But then I have a very bad memory.
What is more worrisome is the FIRST days of Omamanation.
After Jan 20, I predict that everything about the economy will amazingly improve - no tinfoil hat necessary, just watch and see.
Let me guess, everything that happens in the next four years is “Bush’s fault”.
Put some ice on it.
Whats a boner ?
I’m concerned that Jesse may not be paying his child support....
Guess he doesn't realize the Left's Lord and Savior, the Oessiah, is behind both issues and pushing hard. More of the fundamental intellectual incoherence of the Left. Against the bail out but wants more bail outs. Utter rabid stupidity.
I can hardly wait for Jessie’s last days.....
Well with 47 kids can't be cheap
How Executive Orders May be Vacated
The President can retract an EO at any time. The President may also issue an EO that supersedes an existing one. New incoming Presidents may choose to follow the EOs of their predecessors, replace them with new ones of their own, or revoke the old ones completely. In extreme cases, Congress may pass a law that alters an EO, and the Supreme Court can declare them unconstitutional.
Executive Orders vs. Proclamations
Presidential Proclamations differ from EOs in that they are either ceremonial in nature or deal with issues of trade and may or may not carry legal effect. All EOs become law.
Constitutional Authority for Executive Orders
Article II, section 1 of the Constitution reads, in part, "The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America." And, Article II, section 3 asserts that, "The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..." Since the Constitution does not specifically define executive power, critics of Executive Orders argue that these two passages do not imply Constitutional authority. But, Presidents of the United States since George Washington have argued that they do. Modern Use of Executive Orders
Until World War I, the Executive Order was used for relatively minor, usually unnoticed acts of state. A trend that changed drastically with passage of the War Powers Act of 1917. This act passed during WWI granted the President temporary powers to immediately enact laws regulating trade, economy, and other aspects of policy as they pertained to enemies of America. A key section of the War Powers act also contained language specifically excluding American citizens from its effects.
I disagree. They won’t be satisfied until Bush and his admin is standing trial at the Hague. These people are truly delusional.
Ok, so this is phase one of the setup to blame all of obammys failures on Bush.
You will find out Jan. 20th 2009
I believe that open pit burning cause water to be polluted, if I’m remembering the stories correctly.
Don’t worry Jesse Bush will be just fine.
President Bush is bending over backward to accommodate the President-elect. The idea that he might do something nefarious reflects more on the Reverend Jackson than on the current President.
we will all find out then
The executive orders are numbered. I used to know which one it was but I’ve long since forgotten.
Mt enviornmental president wasn’t so much environmental as he was just plain mental.
Too bad for you that hee is still the President until Jan 20th, 2009! get used to it.
The problem here, supposedly, is a “credit crunch” which means a lack of available credit for things like car loans, house refinances etc.
So, as usual, the Left’s “solution” is for the Fed Govt to borrow and spend EVEN more money thus putting the Fed Govt directly sucking up even more credit out of the market.
In addition, the Feds are going to let the tax cuts lapse so that even MORE income is drained out of the private sector.
So is this Obamnomics in a nutshell? They must destroy the US Economy in order to save it?
Just wait till it's Obama's turn.
I’m more concerend about Obama’s first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.