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.
On January 16 2014 15:23 Danglars wrote: Obama's latest flub isn't quite as easily packaged as, "You didn't build that," but it'll do. You can't tell too much of the truth or people might learn how little respect you have for the constitution. It's just that thing you pledged to protect and defend back last January. + Show Spoiler +
Boehner shows some signs of life. Once in a while he surfaces from the closed-door hand wringing sessions of moderate Republicans (Graham and McCain do openly on the talk shows) to show he believes in something. Not the kind of principles worth fighting for but, eh, Boehner will be Boehner.
That picture doesn't explain anything. Anyone who doesn't pay attention to the political news is going to be like "wtf, obama has a pen+phone but republicans have a constitution? The hell does that mean?".
Without context I guess you could assume that it means that Obama doesn't have the same religious worship of the constitution that the GOP has?
On January 16 2014 16:30 Introvert wrote: It seems we have at least made progress here since December. I don't see people defending the legality of these arbitrary changes, so now the thread just wants to say "but Bush could have done it!"
Conservatives don't really care if Bush did something or not, anyway. Only Republicans care- those loyal to the party above all else will defend him. The Tea Party movement began with the Bush bailouts and TARP. Accusations of hypocrisy are meaningless and misplaced.
I think the only people who care about the appointments controversy are those with a partisan ax to grind. Given a choice between the president abusing the appointments power by declaring that the Senate is in recess, or the Senate abusing its appointments power by filibustering everything, I'm pretty indifferent. I don't think either is working as intended.
Edit: Oh sorry, you were talking about how the administration is changing the effect of legislation through its enforcement discretion. Are you sure this is unconstitutional? Like pretty much every question dealing with the Constitution, I'm sure it can be argued either way : )
Well, you are wrong on the first point. The appointments clause is important. You don't get to break the rules just because things aren't going your way. This ends justify the means idea is crap, yet it seems to be really popular.
It really can't be argued effectively. The duty of the legislature is to make and pass legislation, the duty of the president is to execute it. The President can veto legislation, but even then Congress can override him. So no, Congress IS the final word, they actually write the laws. Obama arbitrarily changing them is out of the question. Go ahead, try and argue that he can use "discretion" to edit legislation. see how that goes. Even a (mainly) lefty law professor like Jonathan Turley knows that. I can't find the link right now, but I provided sometime last month. The president does NOT have the power to alter legislation.
Your concerns are really non-unique. Executive orders can, and have been for quite some time, be used to clarify enforcement of laws. It's when they in effect make new law that it really becomes controversial.
The former is their purpose, changing the law is not.
That picture doesn't explain anything. Anyone who doesn't pay attention to the political news is going to be like "wtf, obama has a pen+phone but republicans have a constitution? The hell does that mean?".
Without context I guess you could assume that it means that Obama doesn't have the same religious worship of the constitution that the GOP has?
I find it very odd that wanting the rules to be followed constitutes a "religious worship of the Constitution." Do you value the first amendment? How about the fourth amendment? I know the left really doesn't care about 9th/10th amendments, but what about the first eight? Would you prefer they be followed? The appointments clause and the clause explaining the duty of the president to faithfully execute the laws are as much a part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.
These responses are perfect examples of what I mentioned the other day- in between their hatred of the powerful corporation, their hatred of the wealthy, and their calls for more and more regulations, the left sees absolutely no problem with those in government expanding their own power and authority on even the slightest of whims (unless it's a Republican). We hate Wal-Mart because they don't pay their employees enough! We need more rules, heighten the minimum wage- look how they are abusing people! But if Obama decides, "No, I decide when Congress is in session, I decide when the rules are to followed, I decide what deadlines in the law are" they don't bat an eye. Apparently those in government are necessarily more modest, more loving, more kind, more moral, and less corruptible than the rest of the filthy citizenry. Well, if they don't have a "R" after their name.
Edit: I'm going to make a bold prediction and say the Supreme Court rules against the administration on the appointments clause by more than 5-4. I haven't actually heard/read the transcript yet, so I reserve full right to change my assessment later
Not that the opposite side of the political spectrum would be any better. Using the constitution as an excuse for less gun control, deregulation in the interest of corporations and whatnot.
But Obama really is ridiculous. When he got elected I was like "hey this guy looks, cool he seems really progressive!" And now he's blowing up people with drones, hunting down the press and whistle-blowers and basically spies on everyone.
when it comes to dealing with terrorists, and things like drone use; regardless of their stated views, presidents across the political spectrum act pretty much the same.
On January 17 2014 03:58 Introvert wrote: I find it very odd that wanting the rules to be followed constitutes a "religious worship of the Constitution." Do you value the first amendment? How about the fourth amendment? I know the left really doesn't care about 9th/10th amendments, but what about the first eight? Would you prefer they be followed? The appointments clause and the clause explaining the duty of the president to faithfully execute the laws are as much a part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.
The most important amendment is clearly the third. I'll be damned if anyone will be quartering redcoats in my home.
On January 17 2014 03:58 Introvert wrote: Edit: I'm going to make a bold prediction and say the Supreme Court rules against the administration on the appointments clause by more than 5-4. I haven't actually heard/read the transcript yet, so I reserve full right to change my assessment later
I'm not sure that qualifies as a bold prediction. This appointment issue isn't really a "partisan" one, and the fact that three federal appeals courts sided against the administration already is really telling.
y'know, with regard to the spying hysteria, Obamster actually used to espouse views sharply in contrast with those favoring the increased NSA/intelligence activity we have today.
but in his own words, upon becoming commander in chief,, his own views toward 'security & freedom' required a shift after becoming immersed into the world of national security.
so it's not like he's just always been this hardcore 1984-guy. I wonder whether provided with the task of ensuring national security during a time of rising global instability, specifically the growing of the 'hotbeds' of extremism, some of the critics might've found themselves redefining their security vs. freedom values
There is more to the government than Judicial / Executive / Legislative. A vast amount of the government is employed in what I call the Administrative branch. The Administrative branch is the millions of people working for the various lettered agencies (DOD / EPA / CIA), or indirectly employed via the government benefits system (medicaid / medicare / school funding). The Administrative branch is empowered into existence by act of congress, but by and large are totally outside of the control of congress. In some cases the president puts appointees in, in other cases he has more direct control.
Only the president keeps these various agencies and workers in line. Even then he doesn't have total control (see NSA / DOD spending). The president has significant discretion in how to make sure these congressionally mandated agencies and spending priorities actually work. The various ACA changes fall well within that Administrative state realm of of Executive discretion. That congress hasn't made any changes to ACA, doesn't mean the Executive adjust how the rules are applied as the law actually gets put into practice.
PS: If the ACA rule changes were close to unconstitutional, there would some court rulings by some wingnut district court judge somewhere.
On January 17 2014 03:58 Introvert wrote: Edit: I'm going to make a bold prediction and say the Supreme Court rules against the administration on the appointments clause by more than 5-4. I haven't actually heard/read the transcript yet, so I reserve full right to change my assessment later
I'm not sure that qualifies as a bold prediction. This appointment issue isn't really a "partisan" one, and the fact that three federal appeals courts sided against the administration already is really telling.
I think it's bold for this thread. I said when I first mentioned it a couple days ago that it really isn't partisan, it's Constitutional. And I did say I was liking what I saw (the case seems pretty clear cut to me). But as Farv was so kind to remind me, constitutional issues ARE partisan. To an extent at least. This is also the Supreme Court we are talking about here. I'm not sure it will be unanimous like some of their EPA rulings have been, but I have hope. (I know, the EPA rulings are not similar to this case.)
There is more to the government than Judicial / Executive / Legislative. A vast amount of the government is employed in what I call the Administrative branch. The Administrative branch is the millions of people working for the various lettered agencies (DOD / EPA / CIA), or indirectly employed via the government benefits system (medicaid / medicare / school funding). The Administrative branch is empowered into existence by act of congress, but by and large are totally outside of the control of congress. In some cases the president puts appointees in, in other cases he has more direct control.
Only the president keeps these various agencies and workers in line. Even then he doesn't have total control (see NSA / DOD spending). The president has significant discretion in how to make sure these congressionally mandated agencies and spending priorities actually work. The various ACA changes fall well within that Administrative state realm of of Executive discretion. That congress hasn't made any changes to ACA, doesn't mean the Executive adjust how the rules are applied as the law actually gets put into practice.
PS: If the ACA rule changes were close to unconstitutional, there would some court rulings by some wingnut district court judge somewhere.
I really liked where you were going with this as you explained that the bureaucracy is large and outside the control of congress...then you used it to defend these deadline delays. Your first paragraph outlines one of the biggest problems we have today.
These deadlines don't fall within that realm, anyway. As far as I'm aware, all the deadlines were in the bill that passed Congress, they weren't on decided later. So no, they not under his discretion, they are part of the law itself. The president's duty is to enforce the bills that become law. He has leeway on HOW, but he is still obligated to DO them. So when the bill says "A happens on date X/Y/Z", the president is required to ensure that A is done on date X/Y/Z.
Since we're talking about abuse of executive power, and Introvert you seem to think nothing this bad has happened before, I have a question for you. Which would you consider worse, the abuse of executive orders or directly bypassing Article 1, section 8 of the constitution. Twice. I mean yeah after 9/11 the president asked congress to give him the power to invade countries without going to war, but still. Logic seems pretty thin there.
On January 17 2014 12:43 Jormundr wrote: Since we're talking about abuse of executive power, and Introvert you seem to think nothing this bad has happened before, I have a question for you. Which would you consider worse, the abuse of executive orders or directly bypassing Article 1, section 8 of the constitution. Twice. I mean yeah after 9/11 the president asked congress to give him the power to invade countries without going to war, but still. Logic seems pretty thin there.
Wait, what? What gives you the idea I think this is the first abuse of executive power? This thread is for discussion current politics, am I supposed to give an exhaustive history of all abuses from 1788 until now?
There is absolutely no way you could get that from what I said if you spent a couple seconds understanding it. If you are referring to the appointment clause, this case actually IS unprecedented. No president did what Obama did. Presidents have tried to skirt it before, but no attempt was so brazen and absurd as this one. So in this case, the excuse "but he did it!" doesn't even apply.
If you are referring to his pen and phone statement, then it still doesn't matter. He doesn't get to ignore the existence of the House (which is essentially what his statement means).
The two events are not comparable. It's not like Congress was hoodwinked into a war. But you seem to be playing party politics. Defending Obama by pointing to Bush. I don't care about what party they belong, so that's not relevant. Bush seems like a thoroughly decent human being, but he was wrong on so much.
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans selected Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), who is on the record questioning whether humans are causing climate change, to head of the Science Committee's environment subcommittee.
Schweikert will replace Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), who moved to the House Appropriations Committee. He said he plans to use his new post to target the Obama administration's regulatory agenda.
"Too often, this Administration has tried to bypass Congress and impose its will on the American people through regulatory fiat,” Schweikert said Thursday in a statement, The Hill reported. “We have a responsibility to provide a check-and-balance to ensure there is fairness and openness in the process and that taxpayers are not being subjected to onerous and unnecessarily burdensome rules and regulations."
A main component of the Obama administration's environmental work is new limits on power plants' greenhouse gas pollution. Schweikert has argued that the idea of man-made global warming may be "folklore."
"Understanding what part of climate change is part of a natural cycle and what part has human components is the first step," he said as a candidate in 2008. "Our elected officials must be careful to react to facts and not folklore."
I have been reading rumors that MIchele is planning to divorce Barak (after his term comes to an end). Is there something to the matter in this, or it is just stupid speculation?
ZeaL., you have to look to the news article I had previously quoted. It was Obama touting his power and his ability to do things with his pen and phone and not Congress. The real comparison here is that Boehner got pitched a softball and swung the bat at it. The man's more zombie than living in terms of leadership. If Boehner saw that slow pitch, it had to have been a flub of epic proportions, in essence.
On January 16 2014 06:59 itsjustatank wrote: uh I have no horse here stop assuming. all im saying that assuming any president hasnt done such and such with the xo power is partisan naivete when the large majority of them are classified
this goes far beyond your petty and insignificant partisan bickering. im talking about the executive oder as a tool on its own.
I'm talking about executive orders and enforcement discretion as they are currently being applied to passed legislation. This is a president deciding not to act within his constitutional authority.
On January 16 2014 00:04 Mindcrime wrote:
On January 15 2014 21:59 Danglars wrote:
On January 15 2014 21:39 Mindcrime wrote:
On January 15 2014 17:30 Danglars wrote:
On January 15 2014 16:35 Introvert wrote:
On January 15 2014 14:44 Danglars wrote:
Calling for “all hands on deck” to assist the economy, President Barack Obama is urging his Cabinet to identify ways to keep his administration relevant to people struggling in the up-and-down recovery.
With two weeks left before delivering an economy-focused State of the Union address to Congress, Obama is picking up the pace of his jobs message and demonstrating how he can advance his economic agenda administratively and through his ability to coax action from important interest groups.
“We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” Obama said Tuesday as he convened his first Cabinet meeting of the year.
Obama continued: ”And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”
Why wait for legislative action when you're in the executive with a pen and a phone?
This president has zero respect for the system. Swore an oath to uphold the Constitution but tramples all over it. Yet he is cheered on by his side for "taking action" and "doing the right thing" against those "terrorists, the Republicans."
The same lefties that call for more rules and regulations on private citizens and private entities advocate the expansion of the "fourth branch of government," the administrative state. They wish to grant their leaders with more and more executive power to use at their own discretion, outside the confines of already existing rules. It's schizophrenic.
The person who adopts these two ideas at once is either in a state of contradiction with themselves or is incredibly naive.
And they are the very ones turning their analysis on its tail when a Republican takes the presidency. Gotta compromise, gotta reach across the aisle, gotta reach consensus. It's okay passing Obamacare without a single Democratic vote ... Democrats are in charge, ideologically aligned with progressives. It's not okay passing the Patriot Act with large Republican majorities. (Heck can you even imagine Bush changing the effects of the Patriot Act or even TARP 1 with a stroke of his pen, as Obama has done over a dozen times with PPACA. There would have been widespread calls for his resignation. Changing laws is constitutionally in the power of the legislative branch.)
You do realize what I wrote was about changing past laws with a stroke of a pen ... executive orders and agency directives. Because it didn't happen with Bush. Liberal Democrats just better at pushing the limits of the presidency and postponing/lessening backlash.
Wait, are you asserting that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 authorized the transfer of money to GM and Chrysler? that GM and Chrysler qualify as financial institutions?
If you want to break open the can of worms that was TARP's wording, we're going to be here a while. Bills with wide discretionary power on allocating funds is a different topic.
Your concerns are really non-unique. Executive orders can, and have been for quite some time, be used to clarify enforcement of laws. It's when they in effect make new law that it really becomes controversial.
You know where the law says what employers are required to provide their employers? Yes, Obama decreed certain aspects delayed. Or all the plans canceled for no longer adhering to Obamacare? You know illegal plans under passed law? Yeah, let's make those temporarily not illegal. Individual Mandate? Yeah well the text of the law is one thing, but let's take this pen and make it go away if you have a hardship exemption due to lost coverage.
Clarify the enforcement of laws is one thing, this is another. Wholesale changes of its content, dates, exemptions ... all post-passage ... has made the bill more of a mutating organism than a document. Power to amend existing law is rightfully vested in the legislature by voting process, not in the Executive. Previously no President has gone so far as to change existing law by fiat than this one. It is unprecedented despite jabbering to the contrary.
The number of Americans who believe global warming isn't happening has risen to 23 percent, up 7 percentage points since April 2013.
The latest survey, taken in November 2013, finds that the majority of Americans — 63 percent — do believe in climate change, and 53 percent are "somewhat" or "very" worried about the consequences.
The proportion of people who do believe in climate change has been steady since April 2013, but the proportion of those who say they "don't know" whether climate change is happening dropped 6 percentage points between April and November 2013, suggesting that many "don't knows" moved into the "not happening" category.
"People who prior said don’t know are increasingly saying they don't believe it," said Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, which released the new results today (Jan. 16).
On January 17 2014 03:58 Introvert wrote: I find it very odd that wanting the rules to be followed constitutes a "religious worship of the Constitution." Do you value the first amendment? How about the fourth amendment? I know the left really doesn't care about 9th/10th amendments, but what about the first eight? Would you prefer they be followed? The appointments clause and the clause explaining the duty of the president to faithfully execute the laws are as much a part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.
No, it's just annoying to have those hypocrites wave their constitutions in to the cameras (which they always carry around in their pockets!) when it comes to the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment, while on the other hand usually shitting over the first, 4th, 8th, 14th, 15th amendments and probably a few others as well.
On January 17 2014 17:19 zlefin wrote: Stupid republican ignoring the actual facts on global warming, and lying to the American people about it. Shameful, that's what it is; shameful.
No models or predictions accounted for the standstill of global temperature since 1997, now scientists claim it will continue to pause for 30 years or so...
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9Z1PN0q.jpg)
