Posted on 01/28/2014 7:29:50 AM PST by Olog-hai
President Barack Obama will sign an executive order setting the minimum wage for workers under new federal contracts at $10.10 an hour, the White House said Tuesday. The president will announce the increase during his State of the Union address.
The increase from a national minimum wage of $7.25 an hour will not affect existing federal contracts, only new ones. Moreover, contract renewals will not be affected unless other terms of the agreement change.
The order would be one of the biggest examples in the State of the Union of Obama’s vow to use presidential authority to push for policies by circumventing Congress. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
in other words: Obama’s edict is meaningless as an exectutive order to stop the tides.
The definition of the term “executive” is not the same as that of “dictator”. Negotiating and dictating are two different things, and negotiation is not unilateral.
And I think committees are unconstitutional, yes. The USSR had “committees” all over the place, remember, especially the Central Committee, which morphed into the Politburo.
I have not evaded the question. I’ve answered it, three times. The President has the authority because it is an inherent part of the President’s Executive authority to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. How can the President faithfully execute the laws without entering into contracts?
You’ve now evaded my question - where does the Congress have any authority to negotiate contracts?
No, you did not answer the question. And this makes a fourth time you did not answer it. Why do you refuse to answer it?
The President can execute the laws without needing to unilaterally dictate the terms of federal contracts—assuming those contracts need to be tendered in the first place. United States vs. Tingey does not explicitly grant any such power to the Executive; but I would say that the Congress is the body to possess such power via the “Necessary and Proper” clause of Article 1 Section 8.
Repeatedly declaring that I did not answer your question, simply because you did not like the answer to your question, makes you look like a petulant child.
Also, I have never said that Congress has NO authority to dictate the terms of Federal contracts. To the contrary, I've repeatedly said that the President's authority is subject to limitations imposed by law. I have simply stated that, where Congress has NOT dictated particular terms of a contract, the President has the authority to negotiate those terms.
Or, as others have asked, must Congress weigh in on the terms of a contract for, say, janitorial services at the NSA offices?
But you didn’t answer the question. It did take you a while to come up with a simple answer.
I do not see how having Congress negotiate the terms (the POTUS isn’t negotiating, remember) of the “janitorial services at the NSA offices” is in any way negative or in any way slowing down the necessary processes of government. Nor do I see where it fits in here.
I’m no expert but most federal contracts I’ve seen have back door clauses for extra billing.
There are such federal contracts already - they don’t even mention minimum wage.
I’d like an executive order to force the temperature to be 50 degrees. Because I love winter, but frankly I’m just a bit tired of the cold.
Kind of sorry I’m driving a Prius now, because we could use a little more global warming.
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.