|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) confirmed Wednesday that he intends to sue the Obama administration over its use of executive actions, which have been used to push through initiatives without congressional approval.
"I am," he told reporters at a weekly briefing on Capitol Hill. His intention to sue the administration was reported Tuesday.
Asked if his plan could lead to impeachment proceedings in the House, as some have called for, Boehner demurred.
"This is not about impeachment," he said. "This is about faithfully executing the laws of our country."
The speaker declined to provide details about which executive actions he intends to challenge in court.
"When I make that decision, I'll let you know," he said, adding that "when there is conflicts like this between the legislative and administrative branch, it's our responsibility to stand up."
"We've seen clearly an effort to erode power of the legislative branch," he added.
Often stymied by a recalcitrant Congress, President Barack Obama declared 2014 a "year of action" and issued executive orders on immigration, the federal minimum wage and federal pay discrimination. His Environmental Protection Agency further plans to unveil unprecedented regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Source
|
The best way for congress to reclaim power is to do its job well.
Sadly that is not going to happen.
|
Obama is finally becoming wise to the Republican strategy of doing absolutely nothing and blaming it all on him.
I would have gone crazy with executive orders after the first debt ceiling debacle.
|
If Obama does nothing he's a weakling, if he does something he's a dictator.
I guess from a Republican standpoint the only useful thing a President can do is declare war on another country. If he actually does something useful , like signing a minimum wage law, then that's actually abuse of his power.
|
He's a weakling with foreign policy, where the president has broad, constitutionally granted powers. He's lawless domestically because the president does not to get to invent and sign legislation into law without it first going through Congress.
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
On another note, I'm sure Obama wouldn't mind Republicans winning the senate, that way he can continue to blame gridlock and partisan opposition as the problem and fool more people into thinking that his use of Executive Orders is right and necessary. As if that's how it works.
|
On June 26 2014 10:10 Introvert wrote:
He's a weakling with foreign policy, where the president has broad, constitutionally granted powers. He's lawless domestically because the president does not to get to invent and sign legislation into law without it first going through Congress.
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
On another note, I'm sure Obama wouldn't mind Republicans winning the senate, that way he can continue to blame gridlock and partisan opposition as the problem and fool more people into thinking that his use of Executive Orders is right and necessary. As if that's how it works.
So bombing anyone who might present a vague future threat to the US makes you a weakling?
|
On June 26 2014 10:10 Introvert wrote:
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
I'd say a system which makes it easy for the president to wage war and hard to solve the actual problems of his own country is a pretty fucked up system and rather belongs into the 19th century than in the 21st.
The rest of the world is pretty thankful that Obama is not using his broad and grand powers the way the amazingly intelligent Bush junior did.
|
On June 26 2014 10:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 10:10 Introvert wrote:
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
I'd say a system which makes it easy for the president to wage war and hard to solve the actual problems of his own country is a pretty fucked up system and rather belongs into the 19th century than in the 21st. The rest of the world is pretty thankful that Obama is not using his broad and grand powers the way the amazingly intelligent Bush junior did.
No, the president still requires Congress to authorize "war." Foreign policy =/= war. Btw, Bush got congressional approval (from both parties) for what he did in both countries. He didn't just decide to send troops in.
Perhaps you should do some reading on the subject.
|
On June 26 2014 10:17 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 10:10 Introvert wrote:
He's a weakling with foreign policy, where the president has broad, constitutionally granted powers. He's lawless domestically because the president does not to get to invent and sign legislation into law without it first going through Congress.
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
On another note, I'm sure Obama wouldn't mind Republicans winning the senate, that way he can continue to blame gridlock and partisan opposition as the problem and fool more people into thinking that his use of Executive Orders is right and necessary. As if that's how it works. So bombing anyone who might present a vague future threat to the US makes you a weakling?
We were supposed to go to war over Ukraine in a futile effort to try and preserve a unipolar world. What are a thousand drone strikes if the US isn't the only premiere superpower in the world anymore?
|
On June 26 2014 10:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 10:19 Nyxisto wrote:On June 26 2014 10:10 Introvert wrote:
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
I'd say a system which makes it easy for the president to wage war and hard to solve the actual problems of his own country is a pretty fucked up system and rather belongs into the 19th century than in the 21st. The rest of the world is pretty thankful that Obama is not using his broad and grand powers the way the amazingly intelligent Bush junior did. No, the president still requires Congress to authorize "war." Foreign policy =/= war. Btw, Bush got congressional approval (from both parties) for what he did in both countries. He didn't just decide to send troops in. Perhaps you should do some reading on the subject.
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
You mean that?
|
On June 26 2014 10:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 10:27 Introvert wrote:On June 26 2014 10:19 Nyxisto wrote:On June 26 2014 10:10 Introvert wrote:
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
I'd say a system which makes it easy for the president to wage war and hard to solve the actual problems of his own country is a pretty fucked up system and rather belongs into the 19th century than in the 21st. The rest of the world is pretty thankful that Obama is not using his broad and grand powers the way the amazingly intelligent Bush junior did. No, the president still requires Congress to authorize "war." Foreign policy =/= war. Btw, Bush got congressional approval (from both parties) for what he did in both countries. He didn't just decide to send troops in. Perhaps you should do some reading on the subject. That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
You mean that?
Whether it was Tonkin-esque, or something else is not my point. Iraq in particular was authorized by Congress, if I recall correctly.
Point is, the president has more power is some areas and less in others.
|
On June 26 2014 10:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 10:19 Nyxisto wrote:On June 26 2014 10:10 Introvert wrote:
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
I'd say a system which makes it easy for the president to wage war and hard to solve the actual problems of his own country is a pretty fucked up system and rather belongs into the 19th century than in the 21st. The rest of the world is pretty thankful that Obama is not using his broad and grand powers the way the amazingly intelligent Bush junior did. No, the president still requires Congress to authorize "war." Foreign policy =/= war. Btw, Bush got congressional approval (from both parties) for what he did in both countries. He didn't just decide to send troops in. Perhaps you should do some reading on the subject.
If you don't want people to equalize foreign policy with war then maybe the US should do a little bit less of the latter, because 90% of Americas foreign policy in the last three decades was war.
Point is, the president has more power is some areas and less in others.
Yes, and my point was that he has too much power in the wrong area and not enough in the right ones.
|
On June 26 2014 10:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 10:10 Introvert wrote:
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
I'd say a system which makes it easy for the president to wage war and hard to solve the actual problems of his own country is a pretty fucked up system and rather belongs into the 19th century than in the 21st.The rest of the world is pretty thankful that Obama is not using his broad and grand powers the way the amazingly intelligent Bush junior did.
It's only fucked up if you don't actually think about the implications of the alternative. We're right back to my point from a few weeks ago regarding the reckless tendency of the left to sacrifice form for results.
|
On June 26 2014 10:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 10:19 Nyxisto wrote:On June 26 2014 10:10 Introvert wrote:
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
I'd say a system which makes it easy for the president to wage war and hard to solve the actual problems of his own country is a pretty fucked up system and rather belongs into the 19th century than in the 21st.The rest of the world is pretty thankful that Obama is not using his broad and grand powers the way the amazingly intelligent Bush junior did. It's only fucked up if you don't actually think about the implications of the alternative. We're right back to my point from a few weeks ago regarding the reckless tendency of the left to sacrifice form for results.
It's not about turning the US into a totalitarian state. If it isn't even possible to pass a shabby 10 dollar minimum wage law without executive orders then the president is merely keeping the government functional.
|
On June 26 2014 10:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 10:19 Nyxisto wrote:On June 26 2014 10:10 Introvert wrote:
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
I'd say a system which makes it easy for the president to wage war and hard to solve the actual problems of his own country is a pretty fucked up system and rather belongs into the 19th century than in the 21st.The rest of the world is pretty thankful that Obama is not using his broad and grand powers the way the amazingly intelligent Bush junior did. It's only fucked up if you don't actually think about the implications of the alternative. We're right back to my point from a few weeks ago regarding the reckless tendency of the left to sacrifice form for results.
You can't blame people for being frustrated when it's impossible to pass legislation even though has support from 60%+ of the public, as well as bipartisan support in both chambers. This country faces a lot of serious problems, and it simply needs to be governed.
|
On June 26 2014 10:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 10:10 Introvert wrote:
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
I'd say a system which makes it easy for the president to wage war and hard to solve the actual problems of his own country is a pretty fucked up system and rather belongs into the 19th century than in the 21st.
The reason Presidents have more authority in foreign affairs is that it's too hard for another country to deal with a legislature.
I don't see why the President would need more authority over domestic affairs. They've already gained considerable power over the past century.
|
On June 26 2014 11:11 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 10:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2014 10:19 Nyxisto wrote:On June 26 2014 10:10 Introvert wrote:
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
I'd say a system which makes it easy for the president to wage war and hard to solve the actual problems of his own country is a pretty fucked up system and rather belongs into the 19th century than in the 21st.The rest of the world is pretty thankful that Obama is not using his broad and grand powers the way the amazingly intelligent Bush junior did. It's only fucked up if you don't actually think about the implications of the alternative. We're right back to my point from a few weeks ago regarding the reckless tendency of the left to sacrifice form for results. It's not about turning the US into a totalitarian state. If it isn't even possible to pass a shabby 10 dollar minimum wage law without executive orders then the president is merely keeping the government functional. Preserving the form of separation of powers governance means a single executive can't call a passed minimum wage act by Congress "shabby" and unilaterally declare it 15, 20, or 30$ by his pen (or a phone call to the Dept. of Labor). The same protection exists against any elected strawman-of-the-left that wants to cut it in half.
|
On June 26 2014 11:11 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 10:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2014 10:19 Nyxisto wrote:On June 26 2014 10:10 Introvert wrote:
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
I'd say a system which makes it easy for the president to wage war and hard to solve the actual problems of his own country is a pretty fucked up system and rather belongs into the 19th century than in the 21st.The rest of the world is pretty thankful that Obama is not using his broad and grand powers the way the amazingly intelligent Bush junior did. It's only fucked up if you don't actually think about the implications of the alternative. We're right back to my point from a few weeks ago regarding the reckless tendency of the left to sacrifice form for results. It's not about turning the US into a totalitarian state. If it isn't even possible to pass a shabby 10 dollar minimum wage law without executive orders then the president is merely keeping the government functional.
What if the President was the main opposition to the shabby 10 min wage law?
Not to mention that if Congress doesn't do it, states and local governments still can.
|
On June 26 2014 11:15 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 10:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2014 10:19 Nyxisto wrote:On June 26 2014 10:10 Introvert wrote:
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
I'd say a system which makes it easy for the president to wage war and hard to solve the actual problems of his own country is a pretty fucked up system and rather belongs into the 19th century than in the 21st.The rest of the world is pretty thankful that Obama is not using his broad and grand powers the way the amazingly intelligent Bush junior did. It's only fucked up if you don't actually think about the implications of the alternative. We're right back to my point from a few weeks ago regarding the reckless tendency of the left to sacrifice form for results. You can't blame people for being frustrated when it's impossible to pass legislation even though has support from 60%+ of the public, as well as bipartisan support in both chambers. This country faces a lot of serious problems, and it simply needs to be governed.
Doesn't matter. Shitting all over the institution isn't going to fix it.
|
On June 26 2014 12:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 11:15 Mercy13 wrote:On June 26 2014 10:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2014 10:19 Nyxisto wrote:On June 26 2014 10:10 Introvert wrote:
His power over conducting foreign policy is much different than his powers regarding the creation and execution of laws. So making such complaints is a sign that one doesn't understand how the system works, and that one is conflating the two distinct areas.
I'd say a system which makes it easy for the president to wage war and hard to solve the actual problems of his own country is a pretty fucked up system and rather belongs into the 19th century than in the 21st.The rest of the world is pretty thankful that Obama is not using his broad and grand powers the way the amazingly intelligent Bush junior did. It's only fucked up if you don't actually think about the implications of the alternative. We're right back to my point from a few weeks ago regarding the reckless tendency of the left to sacrifice form for results. You can't blame people for being frustrated when it's impossible to pass legislation even though has support from 60%+ of the public, as well as bipartisan support in both chambers. This country faces a lot of serious problems, and it simply needs to be governed. Doesn't matter. Shitting all over the institution isn't going to fix it.
The tears, the delicious tears. May I remind you that at the end of the day you make camp with a large group of professional institution-shitters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
