| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Dems should get serious about the debt, true, but what the republicans have done is worse. If you want limits on power then the other branches have to behave responsibly. Otherwise, it does not work. until you address that, your claims have no merit. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On February 11 2014 14:46 Danglars wrote: One of the natural occurrences in constitutional government with separation in powers is one branch obstructing what another branch wishes it could do. Furthermore, if your section controls the spending and a minority wishes to expand it beyond current bounds, then that's a possible government shutdown and maybe a deserved one too. You cannot equate the two to excuse an authoritarian move. The constitution is not up for election every four years. Obstructive coalitions, The administrative state is vast and empowered by acts of congress. Yet the only elected official that has any say in its administration is the president. Congress never has a say in anything without bicameral passage. The president has a lot of power of administrative policy (and what do you know, ACA was written with a lot of power vested in the executive). Health and Human services department has wide discretion here. Furthermore, if the delay of the mandates was actually unconstitutional, why aren't any of the wingnut judges appointed by Bush striking down the delay of the mandates? There should be one out there. It isn't hard to find these guys. There are legions of hungry republican lawyers using them to the best of their abilities to thwart Democratic goals. Yet no Federalist society approved judges have actually struck down these mandate delays. If even those nutbags can't find it unconstitutional, maybe you should reconsider your assertion that it is unconstitutional. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 11 2014 15:16 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Furthermore, if the delay of the mandates was actually unconstitutional, why aren't any of the wingnut judges appointed by Bush striking down the delay of the mandates? There should be one out there. It isn't hard to find these guys. There are legions of hungry republican lawyers using them to the best of their abilities to thwart Democratic goals. Yet no Federalist society approved judges have actually struck down these mandate delays. If even those nutbags can't find it unconstitutional, maybe you should reconsider your assertion that it is unconstitutional. It's a black and white issue of unconstitutionality. The executive branch, through its administrative arms, cannot, under any circumstances, contradict statutory language. The executive branch can only work within the confines of the empowerment given to it by Congress. As for why there has been not been a ruling enjoining the president from doing what he's doing, I'm guessing that there are a few unique obstacles. First, there are some weird standing issues. In all likelihood, only a business subject to the mandate would be able to file suit. No sane business would do so, because it is in their interest to see this thing delayed. I suppose that an employee of a covered business could file suit, too, but that is unlikely because 1) lawsuits are retardedly expensive and 2) the employees generally don't want to piss of their employers. Second, the delays are relatively new, and these things typically cannot be resolved overnight. There is one lawsuit that was filed this past fall in Florida, but there hasn't been any resolution yet. I don't know what the current disposition is (I'm too lazy to go look), but I wouldn't be surprised if it there's no ruling until this Spring or even Summer. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 11 2014 15:14 zlefin wrote: If you want limits on power then the other branches have to behave responsibly. Otherwise, it does not work. until you address that, your claims have no merit. So I suppose that you're the leader of the Putin Fans of America fan club. Your argument is basically "Justification for Autocrats 101." Guess what? America is a nation governed by laws, and those laws are supposed to matter. Saying that this position "has no merit" is both absurd and dangerous. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
If you're going to use extreme rhetoric, I may as well too. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 11 2014 15:43 zlefin wrote: Tell the republicans, they're the ones that are violating the constitution. If you're going to use extreme rhetoric, I may as well too. You need to go take a civics class. Refusing to legislate or act isn't a violation of the Constitution. Congress could go golf every day if it wanted to. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
EDIT: Not gonna throw out red herrings | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
And from my POV you're the ones doing the actions you describe, in addition to disingenuously ignoring the republicans transgressions. But for fun's sake: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm Amendment 14, section 4. The republicans sought to tarnish the validity of the public debt in the us, in contravention of their oath to support the constitution. As we inherit the English common law tradition, and the oath of office includes clauses about actually trying to do your job faithfully and well; any decision to not do so is in violation of one's oath of office. Going to golf every day if there was work to be done would be a violation. and I shan't bother to argue these points with you further, as I do not believe you are arguing reasonably. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4769 Posts
On February 11 2014 16:15 zlefin wrote: I'm using extreme rhetoric, because you are using similar extreme rhetoric without justification. And from my POV you're the ones doing the actions you describe, in addition to disingenuously ignoring the republicans transgressions. But for fun's sake: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm Amendment 14, section 4. The republicans sought to tarnish the validity of the public debt in the us, in contravention of their oath to support the constitution. As we inherit the English common law tradition, and the oath of office includes clauses about actually trying to do your job faithfully and well; any decision to not do so is in violation of one's oath of office. Going to golf every day if there was work to be done would be a violation. and I shan't bother to argue these points with you further, as I do not believe you are arguing reasonably. The government takes in more each month than it makes in debt payments, so no, they weren't violating anything. if anything, all this talk about using the 14th amendment to unilaterally raise the ceiling was more unconstitutional than any threat about "default." Everyone here is arguing using reason and a basic desire to avoid falling into some sort of authoritarian state, your argument is that since one elected part of the legislature doesn't do what the president wants, he can just do it anyway. You might as well argue for the dissolution of the Congress and crown Obama monarch. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On February 11 2014 15:27 xDaunt wrote: It's a black and white issue of unconstitutionality. The executive branch, through its administrative arms, cannot, under any circumstances, contradict statutory language. The executive branch can only work within the confines of the empowerment given to it by Congress. As for why there has been not been a ruling enjoining the president from doing what he's doing, I'm guessing that there are a few unique obstacles. First, there are some weird standing issues. In all likelihood, only a business subject to the mandate would be able to file suit. No sane business would do so, because it is in their interest to see this thing delayed. I suppose that an employee of a covered business could file suit, too, but that is unlikely because 1) lawsuits are retardedly expensive and 2) the employees generally don't want to piss of their employers. Second, the delays are relatively new, and these things typically cannot be resolved overnight. There is one lawsuit that was filed this past fall in Florida, but there hasn't been any resolution yet. I don't know what the current disposition is (I'm too lazy to go look), but I wouldn't be surprised if it there's no ruling until this Spring or even Summer. I am ignoring the standing issue. Enterprising Republican lawyers would have been able to find someone with standing. On the merits, it is not a clear constitutional violation. Period. The Executive has the authority to determine how best to implement a law so long as he is pressing forwards in its implementation (Bush delayed medicare part D several times). The legal question is the following: is Obama attempting to thwart the law or is he trying to implement it? Do you think even for a second that Obama is trying to thwart the law here? Obama wants Obamacare to work. That is why he keeps rolling back stuff and changing dates on stuff that isn't ready. The Republican lawyers can't make a plausible case that Obama is attempting to thwart Obamacare, so they couldn't get review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Compare it to an opposite scenario. President Romney cuts power to the Obamacare exchange servers. That would be consciously attempting to thwart a law. That would get standing under the Administrative Procedure Act. "Even in cases where an agency outright refuses to enforce a policy in specified types of cases -- not the case here -- the Supreme Court has declined to intervene. As held by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a leading case on this subject, Heckler v. Chaney, courts must respect an agency's presumptively superior grasp of "the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities." Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested that courts could lose their deference to Executive Branch judgment if an "agency has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities." The Obama Administration has not and is not about to abdicate its responsibility to implement the statute on whose success his historical legacy will most centrally depend." http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_v._Chaney | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
‘‘SEC. 18A. AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT FOR EMPLOYEES OF LARGE EMPLOYERS. ‘‘In accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary, an employer to which this Act applies that has more than 200 full-time employees and that offers employees enrollment in 1 or more health benefits plans shall automatically enroll new full- time employees in one of the plans offered (subject to any waiting period authorized by law) and to continue the enrollment of current employees in a health benefits plan offered through the employer. Any automatic enrollment program shall include adequate notice and the opportunity for an employee to opt out of any coverage the individual or employee were automatically enrolled in. Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede any State law which establishes, implements, or continues in effect any standard or requirement relating to employers in connection with payroll except to the extent that such standard or requirement prevents an employer from instituting the automatic enrollment program under this section.’’. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
The legal question is the following: is Obama attempting to thwart the law or is he trying to implement it? Do you think even for a second that Obama is trying to thwart the law here? Obama wants Obamacare to work. That is why he keeps rolling back stuff and changing dates on stuff that isn't ready. The Republican lawyers can't make a plausible case that Obama is attempting to thwart Obamacare, so they couldn't get review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Do you think for a second that Obama is making these changes to get Obamacare to work? He's making a political judgment, and thinks the party would be better off with less people forced into part time work and less U6 unemployment when midterm elections come around. The delays that were present at the signing were to help with 2012 re-election, and the new delays by Mr. Pen-and-Phone are the same rationale, different means. Not that the means matter to the Democrats, or most of either party in Washington, so long as the ends are believed to be good. And when I say either party, I'm an equal opportunity criticizer of the ends justify the means philosophy in action.I won't comment on the rest of the discretion argument for constitutionality because its getting late here. I'll just leave you with the well-spoken Krauthammer: But generally speaking you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wantonly changing the law lawlessly. This is stuff you do in a banana republic. It’s as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants, and any provision. source/discussion contextIt’s now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains. I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes — and these are are not adjustments or transitions. These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election. And it’s changing the law in a way that you are not allowed to do. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18001 Posts
On February 11 2014 00:38 aksfjh wrote: But what happens when the best sources to learn this material are from people with vested interest in a private venture? Just because there is a larger interest doesn't mean there is a serious conflict of interest. Ultimately, this is the case for a lot of fields, where the experts that create the curriculum have to be fed by some private enterprise or individual. We have to analyze and watch their involvement, but we cannot possibly eliminate all the conflicting interests with the current way government is set up without seriously crippling our youngest students' learning potential. People from industry can come and give a special class on how it happens in the industry. Children aren't stupid, they know that if Mr. Texaco comes in to talk about oil, he will talk about it from Texaco's point of view. However if Ms. Newton the physics teacher gets her curriculum for the week pre-made by Mr. Texaco, the source gets fuzzed out, and it is no longer clear that it is not actually Ms. Newton, but Mr. Texaco, doing the teaching. Education is something that should be done by the government (which should have the best interest of its population as their primary interest, and not the best interest of big oil companies). The curriculum and school books should be made by people WITHOUT a vested interest (regardless of whether that is Mr. Texaco or Mr. Greenpeace: neither are unbiased). | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
If you want power, win the election and do what you have been elected for. This is democracy. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4769 Posts
On February 11 2014 23:46 WhiteDog wrote: I thought that the real problem was that the republicains have no electoral ground anymore so nobody cares about their complete lack of power. What can you do ? Going more and more to the right when inequalities have risen to 1930's levels, when we witness a huge unemployment and a desire for better conditions of living, is not popular. If you want power, win the election and do what you have been elected for. This is democracy. Actually, this is a republic. A democracy was something purposely avoided at our founding. I know you use it in the general sense, but because of your previous statement, it's an important thing to clarify. The House does have power, they control half of Congress- the half that by law is the only institution allowed to introduce spending/taxing bills. They DID win their elections. They may even take more seats in the Senate. Then what? Will Obama be allowed to walk over them too? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21694 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18001 Posts
On February 12 2014 02:57 Introvert wrote: Actually, this is a republic. A democracy was something purposely avoided at our founding. I know you use it in the general sense, but because of your previous statement, it's an important thing to clarify. The House does have power, they control half of Congress- the half that by law is the only institution allowed to introduce spending/taxing bills. They DID win their elections. They may even take more seats in the Senate. Then what? Will Obama be allowed to walk over them too? If congress passes bills that are technically impossible to execute, does that really reflect badly on the president if he doesn't execute them? For instance, if congress decides to pass a bill that by the end of 2016, all Americans should have a flying car. Can you really blame the president for not executing that bill? That seems to be the general state of the ACA. There are some aspects of it that were more wishful thinking than anything else (or potentially incompetence of the executive branch, but rather than playing the blame game, government should focus on salvaging the wreckage): is it really right to fine the companies for not rolling out Obamacare if the government's infrastructure is still so woefully inadequate that rolling out Obamacare this year is all but impossible? That seems to be all Obama is doing in this latest "scandal": saying that companies won't be fined if they haven't started on the Obamacare train this year. And how the hell do republicans get their panties in a bundle about a delay to Obamacare? I thought republicans were the ones who were actively trying to delay Obamacare as long as possible? But now that it's Obama who is delaying Obamacare they're crying murder? | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On February 12 2014 02:57 Introvert wrote: Actually, this is a republic. A democracy was something purposely avoided at our founding. I know you use it in the general sense, but because of your previous statement, it's an important thing to clarify. The House does have power, they control half of Congress- the half that by law is the only institution allowed to introduce spending/taxing bills. They DID win their elections. They may even take more seats in the Senate. Then what? Will Obama be allowed to walk over them too? I must be missing the part where Obama is walking all over Congress and somehow not doing his job... They are both acting within the powers granted to them by the Constitution. Either you admit that the Constitution isn't magical and doesn't ACTUALLY provide a complete framework for a fully functional government (which instead is filled in by respect from both sides), or you admit that they are both acting in accordance to how this government was envisioned. I guess the 3rd option is to keep living in that "right-wing bubble" where the "facts" are only facts if they are aired on Fox News, Rush, and the Wall Street Journal. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4769 Posts
On February 12 2014 03:08 Gorsameth wrote: When the Republicans are willing to govern instead of merely obstruct there welcome to complain. Until then id say f*ck em. Don't get your way, so make threats to bypass the system. Sounds great! If congress passes bills that are technically impossible to execute, does that really reflect badly on the president if he doesn't execute them? For instance, if congress decides to pass a bill that by the end of 2016, all Americans should have a flying car. Can you really blame the president for not executing that bill? That seems to be the general state of the ACA. There are some aspects of it that were more wishful thinking than anything else (or potentially incompetence of the executive branch, but rather than playing the blame game, government should focus on salvaging the wreckage): is it really right to fine the companies for not rolling out Obamacare if the government's infrastructure is still so woefully inadequate that rolling out Obamacare this year is all but impossible? That seems to be all Obama is doing in this latest "scandal": saying that companies won't be fined if they haven't started on the Obamacare train this year. And how the hell do republicans get their panties in a bundle about a delay to Obamacare? I thought republicans were the ones who were actively trying to delay Obamacare as long as possible? But now that it's Obama who is delaying Obamacare they're crying murder? Where is the proof that the employer mandate can't be executed? They've known about it for years! This delay reeks of political maneuvering. Obama has a history of this (when he changed the grandfathering section). The president didn't seem interested in working with congress during the shutdown even, "I will not negotiate" he said. He could have tried to strike a deal. The Republicans wanted to delay the individual mandate, but Obama said no. Obama would rather rule by edict, only delaying what he deems necessary, without congressional input. I must be missing the part where Obama is walking all over Congress and somehow not doing his job... They are both acting within the powers granted to them by the Constitution. Either you admit that the Constitution isn't magical and doesn't ACTUALLY provide a complete framework for a fully functional government (which instead is filled in by respect from both sides), or you admit that they are both acting in accordance to how this government was envisioned. I guess the 3rd option is to keep living in that "right-wing bubble" where the "facts" are only facts if they are aired on Fox News, Rush, and the Wall Street Journal. You are missing it, it's been pointed out here multiple times. By the way, I don't watch, hear, read or any of those things on any sort of regular basis. I've read one Fox article in the past 2 weeks. Heard 0 seconds of Rush in that time and read 0 WSJ articles. I've read more CNN and ABC articles than any right wing source. Good assumption though. I could make a similar one about HuffPo and thinkprogress. If you haven't noticed, virtually all of my sources are "neutral" or left leaning. I do that on purpose- it forces people to engage instead of attacking the source, the most common way (in my experience) that the left avoids having to defend their actual positions. The best part is that their own polices and positions suck so much that I don't need right wing sources to provide my facts. I agree with you to some extent about the Constitution. But no one said it was magical. I am a large fan of it, but it obviously did not have enough protections built into it. The Framers thought that since the powers it contained were enumerated, it would be treated as a limiting document, not an empowering one. Also, the assumptions they made about the media being the watchdog obviously were wrong. Finally, many of the did discuss the type of people this Constitution would be good for. They knew a certain national psyche and value system would need to be in place, as well as a willingness to be informed and independent. The Framers/ratifiers figured the people would fear centralized government, and that in times of fear when people wanted a more powerful state, that the idea of enumerated powers and the Bill of Rights would protect the citizenry. We've drifted pretty far from that, but hopefully the Tea Party movement is the beginning of a change. But that's off topic. But the overall point you guys make is something I find the most interesting. You all seem to believe that if Congress is not cooperating, the president can just do whatever he wants. Instead of merely arguing that the president is acting within his power, you all indicate that you don't actually CARE if he's technically allowed to do something or not. While claiming to be "pro democracy and separation of powers" everyone sees no problem with his numerous threats to act without Congress because they are "getting in the way." And yet, the left whined and whined about Bush and "abuse of power." Senator Reid took to the floor to protest changing the filibuster when the Republicans considered it- now that he's in charge, he'll just change it! If "obstructionism" is enough of a reason to break (or threaten to break) the rules, then what's the point of having any rules? | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
The same can be said of Congress. And the point of having rules (in Congress) is to keep the body functioning. If it's not functioning because of the (abuse of the) rules, then why bother with them? | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Summer Champion…
RSL Revival
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
Online Event
SC Evo League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
