A Quote by Brian Deese

There's a whole process of how the U.S. enters into executive agreements, which involves a legal component, a legal analysis of the agreement, as well as a review by executive branch agencies and otherwise.
People assume that the executive branch has more power than it actually has. Only the legislative branch can create the laws; the executive branch cannot create the laws. So, if the executive branch tries to create a branch one side or the other... you go back to the founders of the nation. They set up a system that ensures that it doesn't happen.
In recent years, Republicans have argued that Congress is a more responsible policymaker than the executive branch. But when it comes to regulation, Congress is often much worse, and for just one reason: Executive agencies almost always focus on both costs and benefits, and Congress usually doesn't.
In the rare event that the Supreme Court refuses to play along [...] there is always a perfectly legal, extra-constitutional, quasi-legislative, quasi-executive, quasi-judicial, "independent" regulatory commission or executive agency to kill off or override constitutional protections.
My theory on an existing crisis is that you have to be very strategic about each case's unique elements. If a crisis involves a legal component, you need a communication strategy that complements the company's legal objective. A strategy for a plea deal is different than a case going to trial.
It is good to be back in the Peoples House. But this cannot be a real homecoming. Under the Constitution, I now belong to the executive branch. The Supreme Court has even ruled that I am the executive branchhead, heart, and hand.
Agencies and the executive branch need to enforce the law. They don't need to fill in the spaces if Congress doesn't act.
We are in the process of negotiating an agreement with the United States. We will be negotiating agreements with India and China. We are in the process of negotiating an agreement with Mercosur, South America. So there are a number of these trade agreements in the major markets of the world.
The uniqueness of executive clemency lies in the president's power to act without weighing guilt, innocence and legal principle.
The administration is out lying through its teeth about all these people signing up and how great Obamacare is now. Meanwhile, Obama continues to break the law each and every day with executive actions - not even executive orders, executive actions - and proclamations.
I do think that there has to be a legal solution, a legal solution on the part of the nation's legislative branch, an immigration proposal.
It is well settled in our Constitutional scheme that all Parliamentary Acts and mandates bind the executive. Any executive act, which violates any express or implied mandate of the Parliament, is unconstitutional and void.
The international human rights framework is a vital component and engine for promoting global values. Governments have signed up to this international legal framework and we should hold them accountable, in all circumstances from environmental or labour standards, to trade talks, arms control and security issues as well as other international legal codes.
The President seems to extend executive privilege way out past the atmosphere. What he says is executive privilege is nothing but executive poppycock.
As mayor in an executive position, I have to dress more like an executive, which has been delightful.
Thanks to presidential immunity and executive control of the Justice Department, there are no consequences to executive branch lawbreaking. And when it comes to presidential lawbreaking, the sitting president could literally strangle someone to death on national television and meet with no consequences.
Congress is a co-equal branch of government, with a long and rich history of standing up to the executive branch.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!