Marco Rubio and Tim Scott Joint Statement on Executive Orders

[Silver Pines]

He is? That sucks. I loved his taco truck.

@Frank Cannon

Lmao

I almost choked on Diet Mt. Dew.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That's the job of Congress.

So why did just two of the 435 members publicly come out the way they did and not consult the others?

You'd have to check their public statements on Obama's EO's.

We all know the answer for those dozens or hundreds of them, don't we?

IIRC the Memorandum is what we know as a "signing statement". Where the POTUS says he's signing a piece of legislation but he disagrees with it and in Obama's case... doesn't intend to enforce the new law.

Got a source that says Executive Memoranda is the same as a signing statement?  That is first I heard of that.

Here's a source I saw that said otherwise.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/01/24/executive-order-vs-presidential-memorandum-whats-difference/96979014/

[/quote]

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Well....there's all sorts of laws in place to control our borders and who is allowed to be here.  I'm not sure what you're asking me.

and you me.

[NavyCanDo]

Per ABC News they are now backing away from the ban on VISA and Green Card holders which caused all the fuss at the airports and was a free gift to the media.  The ban still includes refugees much like the Obama ban which nobody seemed to have a problem with. Maybe common sense will prevail after-all, but this could have been avoided with a smarter implementation and better communication. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Per ABC News they are now backing away from the ban on VISA and Green Card holders which caused all the fuss at the airports and was a free gift to the media.  The ban still includes refugees much like the Obama ban which nobody seemed to have a problem with. Maybe common sense will prevail after-all, but this could have been avoided with a smarter implementation and better communication.

If it was such a brilliant move why did he back off of these points? Trump needs to man up, put both Stevens in their respective day care cribs, and start acting like a real President. Let experienced people run things, not this sycophantic hack brownnosers and losers.

[Sanguine]

and you me.

Fair enough:  What is it that you want Congress to do that they haven't already to ensure the enforcement of existing laws?

[corbe]

   I have no problem with Trump using his EO authority to undo obummer's EO's, it beats waiting for Congress to pass laws that say 'you can't do that', and as @Sanguine says, there's already laws on the books.   
   Any other EO is probably usurping our constitutional power.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Fair enough:  What is it that you want Congress to do that they haven't already to ensure the enforcement of existing laws?

Since at least a couple of them have questions on the temporary EO that DT released, I would think they believe that some other objective or way to implement is preferable.

Congress in its overview capacity of Executive, can pass legislation that instructs the Executive what to do and actually to some degree how to do it.

How else should it be done?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Here's what Marco and Scott should be focusing on instead of a less-than-optimum rollout of an EO and public admonition of a new President.

Sen. Chris Murphy Wants ‘No Screening’ for Immigrants, More Gun Control
During a January 30 appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) criticized President Trump’s immigration suspension and said he would rather see a move toward “no screening” and the passage of more gun control.
Murphy claimed that the U.S. has ISIS “on its heels,” and the suspension of immigration from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia will “[hand ISIS] a path to rebirth.”

Random House executive editor Jon Meacham was also on the program and asked Murphy, “Do you see any merit in the President’s action? What do you believe should be the security screening? What should be the vetting for immigrants coming in?”

Murphy responded by saying, “The four countries that were of origin for the 9/11 attackers, none of them are on this list,” and then quickly shifted to push “a discussion about a pathway in which there is absolutely no screening” for immigrants. He cited U.S./Europe agreements on the VISA waiver program as an example of U.S. entrance “without almost any security vet.”

He expounded:

So, I would go towards a sort of European bent in looking at screening. And then maybe let’s just make sure that if folks get to this country, and we suspect them of having connections to terrorism, that they shouldn’t be able to get an assault weapon. That’s a huge liability in our law today.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/30/senator-chris-murphy-no-screening-gun-control/

Everyone on board with this guy's plan?

[Sanguine]

Since at least a couple of them have questions on the temporary EO that DT released, I would think they believe that some other objective or way to implement is preferable.

Congress in its overview capacity of Executive, can pass legislation that instructs the Executive what to do and actually to some degree how to do it.

How else should it be done?

Congress has already passed the laws; the executive is implementing them.  Sounds right to me.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@IsailedawayfromFR

Why?  Because he isn't giving Trump 100% effusive praise?

Are we going to be like TOS---a politician does something we disagree with so we instantly despise him and come up with derogatory nicknames?

Why?  Because the idiot should be concentrating on this instead.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,246765.msg1210946.html#msg1210946

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Congress has already passed the laws; the executive is implementing them.  Sounds right to me.

Then we are agreed.

Wished that was said to start here.

Can you send a memo to Rubio and Scott then?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Then we are agreed.

Wished that was said to start here.

Can you send a memo to Rubio and Scott then?

Didn't they say it was more poorly executed than illegal? I would agree with them on that one.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Didn't they say it was more poorly executed than illegal? I would agree with them on that one.

The memo should say please say in private what they are saying publicly.

We need to instead of throwing media coverage toward semantics that doesn't make a big diff and address the big issues like the idiot CT Senator who wants to not vet anybody who might wish to come here.

[Frank Cannon]

@Frank Cannon

Lmao

I almost choked on Diet Mt. Dew.

Diet? I'd choke too.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Meet Little Marco, the new McCain.

Really?  You're going to dis Senator Scott as the new McCain?  sad.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

@Luis Gonzalez - great to see you.

Indeed!  I have missed your thoughtful commentary my friend.

[txradioguy]

Congress has already passed the laws; the executive is implementing them.  Sounds right to me.

Then why doesn't he just direct DHS to follow the laws already passed?

By your thinking the EO was completely unnecessary. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

The memo should say please say in private what they are saying publicly.

We need to instead of throwing media coverage toward semantics that doesn't make a big diff and address the big issues like the idiot CT Senator who wants to not vet anybody who might wish to come here.

The badly thought out and executed EO drew the media attention all by itself.

Those airports involved in the chaos are county and/or city facilities, and the people affected by it here are constituents of members of Congress. They were the ones receiving the phone calls, not Trump.

Perhaps the privatrely/publicly policy should have started by President Trump advising or conferring with people whose support he needs prior to signing that EO.

He's not running the Trump Organization now.

America doesn't get governed by edict, no matter who is President or what is happening.

[Luis Gonzalez]

@Luis Gonzalez - great to see you.

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Indeed!  I have missed your thoughtful commentary my friend.

 

[kevindavis007]

The badly thought out and executed EO drew the media attention all by itself.

Those airports involved in the chaos are county and/or city facilities, and the people affected by it here are constituents of members of Congress. They were the ones receiving the phone calls, not Trump.

Perhaps the privatrely/publicly policy should have started by President Trump advising or conferring with people whose support he needs prior to signing that EO.

He's not running the Trump Organization now.

America doesn't get governed by edict, no matter who is President or what is happening.

 

[Sanguine]

Then why doesn't he just direct DHS to follow the laws already passed?

By your thinking the EO was completely unnecessary.

Isn't that exactly what the EO did?

[txradioguy]

Isn't that exactly what the EO did?

IMHO if the laws were already there...then the EO was an unnecessary step.  Especially in light of how badly it was executed.

You don't need an EO to tell DHS to enforce the law...that merely requires a phone call from the President to his DHS secretary.

[Sanguine]

IMHO if the laws were already there...then the EO was an unnecessary step.  Especially in light of how badly it was executed.

You don't need an EO to tell DHS to enforce the law...that merely requires a phone call from the President to his DHS secretary.

I don't agree that it was badly executed, and I don't really care if he did it by phone call or by EO.  EO may have been the better choice since this is such a radical turn in direction (from the prior lawless administrations).