I stand corrected....

I mistakenly assumed it took an act of congress to do it, and though it is in the works, it hasn't happened yet.

Quotes are from the article linked in the first post.

I don't care if they call it the Rock Candy Mountain but I have to wonder by what authority does the President change something that Congress has decided. I would think that if it took an act of Congress to name the mountain it should take an act of Congress to change it.

What you think and what the Constitution provides are two very different things. The President does have the power to countermand certain actions of Congress, much as Congress has the power to countermand the President. It's that whole "checks and balances" setup taught in Civics 101; you were probably out on the day it was taught. The President can veto an act of Congress; Congress can override the veto, but the Founding Fathers wisely made it difficult for Congress to override, requiring a 2/3 override majority vote in both Houses to do so. IIRC, the failure rate of override votes is just a bit over 90%...

As far as Executive Orders, the President has discretion to issue Orders or Proclamations, but does so within Constitutional context. Congress may pass laws to countermand Orders or may take the issue to the Federal courts and, ultimately, the Supreme Court. Again, the success rate of actions taken to countermand Orders or Proclamations is very, very slight. In the current situations related to Obama's Orders, the GOP has neither Congressional majority support to overturn nor substantial legal standing or basis for successful judicial challenges. Even if they did, they might be wary to establish precedents that may come back to bite them if "their guy" gets in office and starts issuing Orders or Proclamations the DEMS don't like. Such is the nature of politics and the Legislative Branch: it is often more politics than law...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order


<O>

Hey Vienna. Do me a favor and don't respond to my posts any more. I'm tired of the attitude.

Do American summits include a stamp at the top like Alpine summits ??
If I decide to go a little ameri-hiking I want to know if I need a book to collect stamp marks :)

Stamps are communist, there's a revolver up the top, you shoot the book with different ammunition depending on the mountain. :yep:

If you find no stamp up there...

Try .... Denalistamps.com

[

And remember, you don't have a naming problem when it comes to mountains.

We have a mountain named Triglav, which transaltes to three heads, it's in the national crest as a three peaked mountain and when you look at it it looks nothing like it has three peaksand it sits a few kilometers south of a mountain with three peaks that is not named three heads.

http://i.imgur.com/HQd7SvQ.jpg?3

1. It was not the President who changed this, but the Secretary of the Interior. The President had to approve the Secretary's order. But it was a Secretary Order not an Executive Order.

2. The Board on Geographic Names has initial responsibility, not Congress. In this case Congress established the Mount McKinley National Park in 1917, but dealt with naming a park and not the mountain itself.

3. 43 U.S.C. section 364b specifically gives that Secretary the authority to make this decision if the board does not make a decision in a reasonable amount of time.

Since the Congress has been blocking the Board from making this decision for 40 years, the Secretary under section 364b is making the decision. If congress can't make a decision in 40 years, I think someone should step in and make the decision for them. That is the issue here. No one is going against any decision of Congress.. Congress would not make any decision.

As on most US peaks, there is a geological survey marker up there. Looks like it may need an update on the name. Yeah, don't disturb it. It's sleeping. :O:

http://www.summitpost.org/images/original/781665.jpg

Considering that probably 75% of American's did not know much about this mountain before this issue came up and since I would opine that given an outline of Alaska, about 95% of the citizens could not locate this mountain, this is really not that big of a deal. :nope:

If the Ohio legislation wants to name one of their mountains after their local president, they should have that right.

What is meant by blocking? Being unable to make a decision is one thing but actively blocking or forbidding a change to something that was decided upon long ago is another.

As far as I understand, it was essentially turned into a partisan issue by northern Republicans with a historical connection to President McKinley. As their voters could largely care less about that particular issue, they could afford to continue stalling any efforts and campaigns to rename it by their own self-interest, regardless of petitions made by Alaskans.

Blocking is not forbidding; forbidding is actually saying "no", actually making a decision. Not making a decision is just that: neither "yes" nor "no". Not doing something is either indecision or inaction. It is not leadership or governance, by any means...

Platapus has it right and has the cites to back up the facts. As I said before, such is the nature of politics and the Legislative Branch: it is often more politics than law...


<O>

I dunno, it's only been since 2011 that the Republicans have had control of Ohio's senate delegation so I think it must be something else.