Thanks but I didn't arrive at my conclusion by reading the law. It just what I've observed. I would think that executive orders that go against the law would be invalid. A White House Counsel has to look beyond what the law says and find ways to invalidate the law. Suppose for example, that the president were to push for a law granting legal status to certain illegal aliens and was unable to convince the legislative branch to make such a law. I would think that's the end of it, but apparently the failure to pass the law actually gives the president the power to enforce the law that didn't pass. I would never have thought of that without seeing it.

Another one that initially confused me was when the president wanted to delay Obamacare. The Republicans in congress offered to pass a law to allow him to do just that - and we can presume the Democrats would have agreed. But Obama actually opposed the change in law, and then did by executive order what the bill, had it passed, would have allowed him to do.

I can only conclude then that my old understanding of executive orders was flawed. Obama's decision only makes sense if the passage of the law allowing him to delay Obamacare would have tied his hands and prevented him from delaying Obamacare by executive order.

A good White House Counsel has to figure these things out ahead of time. I could never do it.

As I seen Obama's use of executive orders, he generally only uses them when there is a law that needs counter-acting. If there were a law requiring the collection of data, Obama could make an executive order to stop the collection of data, or at least delaying the collection of data. But without any such law his hands may be tied.

Everything you wrote after "Ah, but (1) is clearly false" is pretty reasonable, but your assumption of cooperation is a pretty huge assumption.

But even with cooperation, unless that cooperation involves directly manipulating people's minds, how can you actually prove a god's existence to people who will simply assume that they're dealing with a "sufficiently advanced technology" that is "indistinguishable from magic"?

The same could be said of testing for an afterlife.

Theorem: Everything I perceive is not in fact a figment of my imagination and actually does exist.

Corollary: If I put a stake through my heart I will die.

I have no way of testing either the theory or the corollary, so you're saying I should consider them false??

And quite another (unprovable) thing to claim that he doesn't. How about we just leave God out of the science classroom unless it is just to point out that 1. it is impossible to prove anything about an omnipotent omniscient god through science and 2. There is no proof that everything that is true is provable or that everything that is untrue is disprovable.

I should have mentioned Australia and Canada too.

Exactly. Which is why it make sense for a free-market Republican like Rubio to oppose imposing monopolies. Christies supported the monopoly - not surprising for a liberal Republican.

The problem is that the devils are in the details either way. Everyone would love for the government to stop manufacturers from doing things we don't like, but when you start making up regulations you create new details for the devil to hide in.

Name another country that has experience as much terrorism from an identifiable ethnic group and hasn't done all it can to exterminate said ethnic group?

Israel puts up with a horrendous level of violence. A barbarian country would have done a final solution long ago.

And you're fine with that? I would like to see taxes reduced to what's minimally necessary. Then I could respond to your complaints about paying taxes by saying that we're only taxing the minimum necessary to achieve what are undeniably compelling government aims.

Republicans opposed the giving of government handouts to Tesla. Competition is fine, but it's not a free market if some companies are given discount loans by the government while others aren't.

Not quite true about "women". It's true Republicans do poorly with unmarried women. Once they get married, and especially once they have kids and have a stake in the future, they swing pretty heavily towards conservative politics.

It's not so much that Republicans have a "woman" problem. Democrats have a problem attracting men and married women.

There is no irony because the Republican party has a strong free market belief. Just as Tesla shouldn't benefit from government handouts, the car dealerships shouldn't benefit from government protection. Both should compete on their own merits in the free market. Anyone who can't see how Republicans oppose Tesla's handouts while supporting Tesla's right to compete is either just isn't trying or is brainwashed by the whole "conservatives are evil big business whores' nonsense pushed by so many news organizations and movies.

Of course you have religious beliefs, everyone does. You can't say the draft is wrong unless you do. Otherwise it is just survival of the fittest.

If that were the approach the government took, we wouldn't have a problem. But when the government starts demand certain behaviors (not just demanding that you refrain from certain behaviors, but demanding that you commit certain behaviors).

So you only want to get rid of part of the first amendment. At least you're honest about it.