Surprise surprise, Draugnar is full of it. What's the real reason for the Obama-hate, Draug?

I actually also looked at the Federal Register, where any Executive Orders must be posted, and searched by subject through Obama's Executive Orders.

You can do it too here.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama-subjects.html

Only two showed up in Health Care:

Health care; biological weapons attack, medical countermeasures: EO 13527

Health care; Prescription drug shortages; reduction: EO 13588

It's possible the second one might say something about Obamacare, I have difficulty enough parsing legalese that I don't want to bother, but the first one wouldn't seem to. Hardly several in any case.

@Draugnar-

"@BGK - In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as "stop-and-identify" statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves."

Yes, this is true. However I was refuting that stop and identify statutes have been found constitutional by SCOTUS. I was pointing out that a majority of states do not have stop and identify statutes.

I think something has to be done about immigration. Either we need to drop the quota system or come up with good ideas for fixing border crossing problems. Because it is illegal to cross the border and dangerous too. Im not saying i like Arizona's methods but it feels like they are the only people working on it with any seriousness. Just my 2 cents.

@SD - How about the executive order that required insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage to employees of companies at no cost to the company because the Catholic healthcare systems said it violated their first amendment right to the free exercise of religion? Funny thing is, it still didn't solve the problem as most healthcare providers are what the industry calls self-insured. That is, they use a thrid party benefits administrator to process claims but pay them out from a fund the employer keeps funded out of employee premium contributions.

Why do they do this? Because most of the time, the major claims are for services rendered at one of their hospitals. Why pay an insurance company's overhead when they are providing the service and can just reimburse the unit that did the procedure?

So his requirement still forces Catholic healthcare providers to pay for contraceptives because there is no isnurance company. Somebody forgot to tell Obama that his executive order didn't solve the problem. But he still altered what Congress passed via executive order.

El Paso's violent crime rate is above the national average.
http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/texas/el-paso.html

Thanks for the link semck. I didn't realize that all eight justices voted unanimously to uphold the portion of the law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone suspected of being illegally in the country. The Arizona law itself specifically states that race not be a factor in any aspect of the enforcement of the law. The eight justices obviously agreed that the Arizona law as written was completely congruent with the 14th amendment, race neutral, and upheld equal protection.

The split votes of the dissenting opion were all in favor of declaring the entire law constitutional. The Obama administration may tout it as a victory, but it's pretty clear that with the 5-3 vote and the upholding of the order for police to verify (leading to detainment if they aren't and requiring the feds to step in to deport them), he doesn't have the backing he had hoped.

Arizona law didn't mention race because they do it anyway even if it's illegal. Two women protesting SB1070 were arrested, one white and one Hispanic, with neither carrying ID and provided police with the same identifying information. The white woman was released within an hour, but the Hispanic US citizen was held for almost a day even after providing enough information to locate her driver's license records.

Didn't they brand a 666 anti-Christ symbol on the hispanic woman with a hot iron too Randomizer. If you are going to post fiction liven it up a little for your audience.

Citation or it didn't happen Randomizer. And not some liberal OpEd piece that is heavy on rhetorric but light on details. It must be an actual news story with names and dates and such.

Actually Randomizer SB 1070 does explicitly mention race.
The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.

I read the print version of page 1 Arizona Republic (Republican newspaper controlled by the Quayle family):
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2012/05/14/20120514arizona-sb1070-jail-treatment.html

@Draugnar: "Citation or it didn't happen Randomizer. "

Citation for the executive order you're describing, please.

Okay SacredDigits. You asked for it.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-birth-control-policy-meets-everyones-needs-173035845.html
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/

And the most damning of all, from whitehouse.gov...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/10/president-obama-announces-new-policy-improve-access-contraception

So you have two actual news stories *not* OpEd pieces or from conservative news organizatins and the PResident's own fucking announcement. Citation enough, asswipe?

Oh and a little more...

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/03/21/2012-6689/certain-preventive-services-under-the-affordable-care-act

I guess it isn't "officially" an executive order (no number) but what else do you call it when the President tells his staff to change the rules and amend something voted on by congress without congressional approval?

Randomizer, why don't you read the PDF of the actual bill. It easy to find on the internet. It makes you more informed than relying on someone else's interpretation. lhttp://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

It's a policy statement, not an executive order, and certainly not "several" executive orders. It seems to clarify rather than change, which is something the executive department is tasked with when unforeseen circumstances make the enforcement of the legislation unclear. I mean, I understand people who don't like these sorts of things, and the FDA and such are parts of these sorts of things (they're underneath the executive branch), but legislation is slow and often something will show up ESPECIALLY in the field of health care or pharmaceuticals that needs to be adjusted in a timeline shorter than legislation would allow. If Congress doesn't like this policy statement, they can introduce a bill to clarify the original bill in a way that runs against that policy statement.

I doubt they will.

Randomizer, thanks for the link. I read the piece and it wasn't an article. It was an interview with the two protesters of SB1070. According to the piece they both spent 18 hours in jail. " Yet their accounts of the 18 hours they spent in custody before being released the next day. Why did you say that one was released within the hour? It was laced with "their accounts" "The disparate treatment described by the two women" "Renteria said" "According to their accounts" and so on. I didn't see any hard evidence or corroboration from any independent party. Renteria is a self-identified community activist for Puente, a Phoenix-based group that advocates for immigrants so not exactly an objective source for treatment in custody. Why didn't either one of them give the reporter an officer's name that handled them? Hatchet-job comes to mind.

To be honest about it, I recently took a political science course that focused on the many ways that Presidents, historically and currently, have increased the amount of power the executive branch has and ways that they have, again historically and currently, circumvented Congress. This is part of the reason that we've been in a lot of "conflicts" in the last seventy years but no "wars" since WWII. Policy statements, executive orders, signing statements, manipulating treaty signing privileges, use of executive agencies...there's a lot of ways to do it, and all of them have done it to some extent.

This is why libertarians want to strip the executive branch down to just what's in the constitution, and I can respect that (but I don't agree with it). There's such massive precedence for it at this point that it would take a constitutional amendment (in all likelihood) to even attempt to curtail it. You're seeing it as a problem with President Obama because you don't like what he's doing with those expanded executive powers, but everyone who's sat in that chair for the last hundred years has done similar things with their power and pretty much completely gotten away with it. There's no way that a policy statement, executive order, or anything of the like will result in impeachment. The Supreme Court has upheld examples of them as constitutional, including the controversial Japanese Internment executive order.

@SD - It was a change meant to appease the Catholics, not a clarification. And it still doesn't work for the reasons I outlined and it didn't appease them at all.

I actually agree with obiwanobiwan and Putin for once on the whole immigration thing... Scary thoughts...

One man's change is another man's clarification.

It went from:

Every employer to every employer except churches to insurance companies have to do it without charge or increasing the employers premiums. How is that not change? Isn't he the President of "change"?

I believe "every employer except places with religious objections to it" was on the bill previous to this policy statement, right? This one just changed it to the insurance companies having to do it without charge when the employer wouldn't pay for it, and it's considered "cost neutral" to the insurance companies. Which doesn't contradict the "every employer except places with religious objections to it" part.

I wish the Federal Government would deal with the immigration issue. Why the Democrats didn't do so when they had a majority in the House and a filibuster proof Senate was a huge mistake.

It seems like people believe you must have a degree and have insider information on the government if you want to post an argument. What is this citation or it didnt happen stuff? We are not writing an essay we are having a friendly debate on the forums of a game website. Im not saying you shouldnt try to be credible but people some slack.... seesh.

It becomes important when "several executive orders" becomes "one executive order" becomes one verifiable policy statement that didn't even say everything the person discussing it out said it did...even after they found it.