You, as a free, beautiful, independent human being with inalienable rights, own yourself. As a result, you can do what you want with your own body and own the product of your labor. The implication is that it is morally wrong to INITIATE force against someone else OR their property, because to do so is to violate their rights. Therefor, all human interactions should be free of force, fraud, and coercion and people should be free to exercise their rights, limited only by respect for the rights of others. When you learned "don't hit" and "don't steal," it wasn't "unless you work for the government." When you learned thou shalt not kill, it wasn't "unless your dear leader gives you a gun and a uniform and a one way ticket to the other side of the world." Government is force, an opinion with a gun, and force is a poor substitute for persuasion. Governments frighten us into thinking we need them, but with knowledge, philosophy, and technology, we are empowering ourselves and each other to have the courage to move past the paradigm of statism and restrain government to only moral uses of force, at least until we replace it with the cooperative, free market solutions, that will soon render it obsolete.
I'm RACIST for criticizing Obama.
TERRORIST because I'm not with Bush.
ANTISEMITIC for not supporting Rothechild Zionism.
TEABAGGER for supporting the Constitution.
TRUTH-ER for asking unanswered questions.
TRAITOR for whistle-blowing on my corrupt Government.
CONSPIRACY THEORIST for presenting documented facts.
TROLL for uploading news, videos, quotes and U.S.Atrocities.
ANTI-AMERICAN for supporting Constitutionalists like Dr. Ron Paul.
Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.
Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton's second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues, although all presidents since its passage have complied with the terms of the Resolution while maintaining that they are not constitutionally required to do so.
Critics have accused presidents of abusing executive orders, of using them to make laws without Congressional approval, and of moving existing laws away from their original mandates. Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been effected through executive order, including the integration of the armed forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower.
One extreme example of an executive order is Executive Order 9066, where Franklin D. Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove any or all people (used to target specifically Japanese Americans and German Americans) in a military zone. The authority delegated to General John L. DeWitt subsequently paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II.
Executive Order 13233, which restricted public access to the papers of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, was more recently criticized by the Society of American Archivists and other groups, stating that it "violates both the spirit and letter of existing US law on access to presidential papers as clearly laid down in 44 USC. 2201–07," and adding that the order "potentially threatens to undermine one of the very foundations of our nation." Executive Order 13233 was later revoked by President Obama.
It is quite common for presidents to issue executive orders that instruct federal agencies to enact administrative regulations in order to circumvent the legislative process altogether, though, as alluded to above, this can violate the constitution in a number of ways.[citation needed] Presidents are quite aware that congressional politics can defeat or otherwise prevent the passage of legislation presidents deem politically important.[citation needed] In this regard, US Presidents have issued executive orders calling upon federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE), to amend administrative regulations where the political process of adopting new congressional legislation necessary to implement multilateral environmental regulatory treaty obligations a president wishes for the US to assume would prevent US ratification of/accession to that treaty
To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll. Congress was able to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it during the period of 1939 to 1983 until the Supreme Court ruled in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha that the "legislative veto" represented "the exercise of legislative power" without "bicameral passage followed by presentment to the President." The loss of the legislative veto has caused Congress to look for alternative measures to override executive orders such as refusing to approve funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism
State governors' executive orders
Executive orders as issued by the governors of the states are not laws, but do have the same binding nature. Executive orders are usually based on existing constitutional or statutory powers of the Governor and do not require any action by the state legislature to take effect.
Executive orders may, for example, demand budget cuts from state government when the state legislature is not in session, and economic conditions take a downturn, thereby decreasing tax revenue below what was forecast when the budget was approved. Depending on the state constitution, a governor may specify by what percentage each government agency must reduce by, and may exempt those that are already particularly underfunded, or cannot put long-term expenses (such as capital expenditures) off until a later fiscal year. The governor may also call the legislature into special session.
There are also other uses for gubernatorial executive orders. In 2007 for example, the governor of Georgia made an executive order for all of its state agencies to reduce water use during a major drought. This was also demanded of its counties' water systems, however it is unclear whether this would have the force of law.
4th- Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause - 1791
To this end, they have devided the 50 states into 10 regions, built and staffed FEMA camps to inprison the people, Fusion centers to collect information on them, and residental centers as a testing ground for the FEMA camps. They are putting people on lists in catogorys of who will live and die, going by first, who's the biggest threat to them and their plans, and last by who would be the easyest to control. As of now they are moving to disarm the worlds population, increase their military and police forces with the easyest to manipulate and most likely to bully, or abuse their power and censor the internet to keep people in the dark. If or not all this is carried out depends on if we let it happen, we already have accepted things like DHS, the patriot act, TSA, NDAA, we have a see something say something culture. We are fed the idea that our own family or neighbors could be dangerious criminals or terrorists without giving a single thought to how easy the same can be thought and said about us.
.
Fun Factor : Now you have a choice in chat, factor that
