On October 14 2013 13:02 r.Evo wrote: Why could the executive order go wrong horribly? It kinda seems the best option out of what you're mentioning.
Any number of ways. The political blowback could be huge, it could be shot down by the supreme court and then discredit his administration and by extension the democratic party, etc.
On October 14 2013 13:02 r.Evo wrote: Why could the executive order go wrong horribly? It kinda seems the best option out of what you're mentioning.
Presidential power creep is always a little scary. Right now, it's attractive to shut Congress out of the process and just put the president in charge, but it sets a precedent that a future President Dickwad could abuse.
The amendment that guarantees that the executive branch must fulfill the country's debts is the 14th. (yes, a civil rights one).
The executive order could go wrong because of the methods of implementation (the trillion dollar coin and a few others which just sound crazy are realistic) and the fact that it takes away the power of the purse from congress, which is supposed to be their check on executive overreach. If someone like Cheney became president in the future it wouldn't really matter if he had a congress that disagreed with him.
There's also the issue that even if the house passes the CR the Senate still needs 60 votes to bring a vote up for debate (ie avoid the filibuster), unless they permanently change the rules to require only 51 (which, uh, why wouldn't they? - because both parties are afraid of being the minority party in the future). (In this specific case even the Senate Republicans are hating hard on the tea party republicans so it's not as much of an issue).
Here's the kicker; the Democrats have enough votes to pass a Clean Resolution. Basically a law with no pork, just raising the debt ceiling with no concessions. The issue is that the only person that can bring the bill to the floor is Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
Am I understanding it correctly that a procedural rule made it's way through (coincidentally on October 1st) that put the power over said Clean Resolution in the hands of one single person or am I misunderstanding something?
e: In addition assuming the above is correct the only way to change that (through a motion) would have to be offered by the majority leader or his designee aka only the dictator may undictator himself? :3
Is this scenario really happening?
The truly amazing thing is that that video indicates that it is NOT the Speaker, who is the ranking member of the majority party, but instead the majority leader (Eric Cantor, the number two republican in the House) who the rule change gave power to concerning the CR.
This makes sense when you consider how many Republicans (mostly Tea Party repubs) feel the Speaker is weak (in that he is willing to negotiate or not hold the line.)
I don't really follow politics, so I'm wondering if I'm understanding this correctly:
Republicans John Boehner and Eric Cantor are the only two members who can call up the Senate bill to immediately re-open the government (through a Clean Resolution, which the Democrats could have, and would have, passed), due to an alteration by Republicans to restrict the rest of the members' powers (read as: most importantly, the Democrats)? And so the Democrats could have moved to re-open the government via a standing House Rule, but are no longer able to because Republicans adjusted the policy (conveniently right before the government shut down) so that only two Republicans can pass the motion, and no one else?
What a great country we live in...
On October 14 2013 12:16 r.Evo wrote: How exactly did that rule get changed in the first place?
To me a change that says "only two people in the entire senate have the power to allow what gets voted on and what doesn't" doesn't exactly sound democratic or smart.
House resolutions only require a simple majority to pass. This one passing opens the floodgate imo.
Eeeeeyup, Republicans have a majority in the house, so there was literally nothing the democrats could do to stop that resolution, so they gave themselves complete and utter veto power over any bill the house would like to pass, by simply making it so that only they can even call for a vote on it.
So given that the Democrats are no longer able to pass a motion to re-open the government via the Clean Resolution, what options do Democrats have left?
And in general, assuming that Boehner and Cantor don't advocate the CR, how else could the government re-open?
It can't, unless Obama tries an executive order. The options for the democrats are: 1: play politics like they are now, and hope pressure causes the republicans to give in. 2: do nothing and see what happens 3: give in to the republican demands, validate the tactics they're using, and acknowledge defeat 4: Obama can try to give an executive order to force them to do it. The grounds for this would be the fact that the constitution says the government must pay it's debts. This would have to pass muster in the supreme court most likely, but Obama really doesn't want to play this card, as it could backfire horribly on him and the democrats. 5: Stir up a mob of people to march on washington. They're not going to do this.
I am certain it will be the option number 3 (in mild and not very obvious form, i.e. without acknowledging the defeat).
They will continue negotiating, and Democrats will eventually make some concessions (likely not ACA, some other concessions, but still concessions). Then left wing media will declare a victory for Democrats for saving ACA, and right wing media will declare a victory for Republicans for getting some perks from Democrats. Maybe there will even be an exchange of concessions (to make it look more equitable), but Republicans will get more then Democrats, as they usually do in recent years.
Ok, after writing this I see that it looks more like a combination of options 1 and 3. Anyway this is my bet.
On October 14 2013 13:09 Go0g3n wrote: I'm wondering if the following is technically possible?
A number of republicans switch party and join the democrats, thus granting majority to the democratic party....
A discharge petition would serve a similar function (bring the bill to the floor) without being as extreme. It requires more than half the House to sign (218 votes).
Here's the kicker; the Democrats have enough votes to pass a Clean Resolution. Basically a law with no pork, just raising the debt ceiling with no concessions. The issue is that the only person that can bring the bill to the floor is Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
Am I understanding it correctly that a procedural rule made it's way through (coincidentally on October 1st) that put the power over said Clean Resolution in the hands of one single person or am I misunderstanding something?
e: In addition assuming the above is correct the only way to change that (through a motion) would have to be offered by the majority leader or his designee aka only the dictator may undictator himself? :3
Is this scenario really happening?
The truly amazing thing is that that video indicates that it is NOT the Speaker, who is the ranking member of the majority party, but instead the majority leader (Eric Cantor, the number two republican in the House) who the rule change gave power to concerning the CR.
This makes sense when you consider how many Republicans (mostly Tea Party repubs) feel the Speaker is weak (in that he is willing to negotiate or not hold the line.)
I don't really follow politics, so I'm wondering if I'm understanding this correctly:
Republicans John Boehner and Eric Cantor are the only two members who can call up the Senate bill to immediately re-open the government (through a Clean Resolution, which the Democrats could have, and would have, passed), due to an alteration by Republicans to restrict the rest of the members' powers (read as: most importantly, the Democrats)? And so the Democrats could have moved to re-open the government via a standing House Rule, but are no longer able to because Republicans adjusted the policy (conveniently right before the government shut down) so that only two Republicans can pass the motion, and no one else?
What a great country we live in...
On October 14 2013 12:16 r.Evo wrote: How exactly did that rule get changed in the first place?
To me a change that says "only two people in the entire senate have the power to allow what gets voted on and what doesn't" doesn't exactly sound democratic or smart.
House resolutions only require a simple majority to pass. This one passing opens the floodgate imo.
Eeeeeyup, Republicans have a majority in the house, so there was literally nothing the democrats could do to stop that resolution, so they gave themselves complete and utter veto power over any bill the house would like to pass, by simply making it so that only they can even call for a vote on it.
So given that the Democrats are no longer able to pass a motion to re-open the government via the Clean Resolution, what options do Democrats have left?
And in general, assuming that Boehner and Cantor don't advocate the CR, how else could the government re-open?
It can't, unless Obama tries an executive order. The options for the democrats are: 1: play politics like they are now, and hope pressure causes the republicans to give in. 2: do nothing and see what happens 3: give in to the republican demands, validate the tactics they're using, and acknowledge defeat 4: Obama can try to give an executive order to force them to do it. The grounds for this would be the fact that the constitution says the government must pay it's debts. This would have to pass muster in the supreme court most likely, but Obama really doesn't want to play this card, as it could backfire horribly on him and the democrats. 5: Stir up a mob of people to march on washington. They're not going to do this.
I am certain it will be the option number 3 (in mild and not very obvious form, i.e. without acknowledging the defeat).
They will continue negotiating, and Democrats will eventually make some concessions (likely not ACA, some other concessions, but still concessions). Then left wing media will declare a victory for Democrats for saving ACA, and right wing media will declare a victory for Republicans for getting some perks from Democrats. Maybe there will even be an exchange of concessions (to make it look more equitable), but Republicans will get more then Democrats, as they usually do in recent years.
Ok, after writing this I see that it looks more like a combination of options 1 and 3. Anyway this is my bet.
I'll be very disappointed if they don't go #1. The poll results should make Democrats feel fucking invincible. Republicans lowest approval rating on record, huge gap in blame heavily to Republicans over Obama and Democrats. The longer the shutdown goes on, the more seats Republicans lose in 2014. Concessions would be shooting themselves in the both feet, damaging them now and in the next election.
Here's the kicker; the Democrats have enough votes to pass a Clean Resolution. Basically a law with no pork, just raising the debt ceiling with no concessions. The issue is that the only person that can bring the bill to the floor is Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
Am I understanding it correctly that a procedural rule made it's way through (coincidentally on October 1st) that put the power over said Clean Resolution in the hands of one single person or am I misunderstanding something?
e: In addition assuming the above is correct the only way to change that (through a motion) would have to be offered by the majority leader or his designee aka only the dictator may undictator himself? :3
Is this scenario really happening?
The truly amazing thing is that that video indicates that it is NOT the Speaker, who is the ranking member of the majority party, but instead the majority leader (Eric Cantor, the number two republican in the House) who the rule change gave power to concerning the CR.
This makes sense when you consider how many Republicans (mostly Tea Party repubs) feel the Speaker is weak (in that he is willing to negotiate or not hold the line.)
I don't really follow politics, so I'm wondering if I'm understanding this correctly:
Republicans John Boehner and Eric Cantor are the only two members who can call up the Senate bill to immediately re-open the government (through a Clean Resolution, which the Democrats could have, and would have, passed), due to an alteration by Republicans to restrict the rest of the members' powers (read as: most importantly, the Democrats)? And so the Democrats could have moved to re-open the government via a standing House Rule, but are no longer able to because Republicans adjusted the policy (conveniently right before the government shut down) so that only two Republicans can pass the motion, and no one else?
What a great country we live in...
On October 14 2013 12:16 r.Evo wrote: How exactly did that rule get changed in the first place?
To me a change that says "only two people in the entire senate have the power to allow what gets voted on and what doesn't" doesn't exactly sound democratic or smart.
House resolutions only require a simple majority to pass. This one passing opens the floodgate imo.
Eeeeeyup, Republicans have a majority in the house, so there was literally nothing the democrats could do to stop that resolution, so they gave themselves complete and utter veto power over any bill the house would like to pass, by simply making it so that only they can even call for a vote on it.
So given that the Democrats are no longer able to pass a motion to re-open the government via the Clean Resolution, what options do Democrats have left?
And in general, assuming that Boehner and Cantor don't advocate the CR, how else could the government re-open?
It can't, unless Obama tries an executive order. The options for the democrats are: 1: play politics like they are now, and hope pressure causes the republicans to give in. 2: do nothing and see what happens 3: give in to the republican demands, validate the tactics they're using, and acknowledge defeat 4: Obama can try to give an executive order to force them to do it. The grounds for this would be the fact that the constitution says the government must pay it's debts. This would have to pass muster in the supreme court most likely, but Obama really doesn't want to play this card, as it could backfire horribly on him and the democrats. 5: Stir up a mob of people to march on washington. They're not going to do this.
I am certain it will be the option number 3 (in mild and not very obvious form, i.e. without acknowledging the defeat).
They will continue negotiating, and Democrats will eventually make some concessions (likely not ACA, some other concessions, but still concessions). Then left wing media will declare a victory for Democrats for saving ACA, and right wing media will declare a victory for Republicans for getting some perks from Democrats. Maybe there will even be an exchange of concessions (to make it look more equitable), but Republicans will get more then Democrats, as they usually do in recent years.
Ok, after writing this I see that it looks more like a combination of options 1 and 3. Anyway this is my bet.
I'll be very disappointed if they don't go #1. The poll results should make Democrats feel fucking invincible. Republicans lowest approval rating on record, huge gap in blame heavily to Republicans over Obama and Democrats. The longer the shutdown goes on, the more seats Republicans lose in 2014. Concessions would be shooting themselves in the both feet, damaging them now and in the next election.
I guess it would depend on how the media spins it. If you look at the budget, Democrats are currently essentially championing a Republican Ryan's original budget: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/02/the-shutdown-is-ridiculous-the-fight-just-below-the-surface-is-not/ Obamacare has also been initially proposed by Republicans. While doing this (following a Republican party line with some time delay and giving concessions after concessions) Democrats manage to not lose their public support.
On October 14 2013 08:06 KwarK wrote: If parliament tried this kind of shit in my country we'd just call elections and get a new one that could govern. Gridlock is no good for anyone. You need a constitutional head of state with the power to dissolve the legislative and call elections.
Part of the reason the US has 3 separate and often competing branches of government is precisely to create gridlock, and to avoid too much getting done.
On October 14 2013 13:02 r.Evo wrote: Why could the executive order go wrong horribly? It kinda seems the best option out of what you're mentioning.
I don't know exactly what the exective order would say (I can't find context anywhere :/), but there are pretty solid limits on what the prez can actually do with executive orders. If it gets challenged and goes don, then obama loses a ton of legitimacy, and possibly gets impeached (GOP would love that shit).
On October 14 2013 13:02 r.Evo wrote: Why could the executive order go wrong horribly? It kinda seems the best option out of what you're mentioning.
I don't know exactly what the exective order would say (I can't find context anywhere :/), but there are pretty solid limits on what the prez can actually do with executive orders. If it gets challenged and goes don, then obama loses a ton of legitimacy, and possibly gets impeached (GOP would love that shit).
Impeachment is unlikely, as only the senate has that power, and it's under the control of the democrats right now. It might result in the democrats losing seats in the next election for refusing to impeach him though.
On October 14 2013 13:02 r.Evo wrote: Why could the executive order go wrong horribly? It kinda seems the best option out of what you're mentioning.
I don't know exactly what the exective order would say (I can't find context anywhere :/), but there are pretty solid limits on what the prez can actually do with executive orders. If it gets challenged and goes don, then obama loses a ton of legitimacy, and possibly gets impeached (GOP would love that shit).
Impeachment is unlikely, as only the senate has that power, and it's under the control of the democrats right now. It might result in the democrats losing seats in the next election for refusing to impeach him though.
conviction is unlikely. The house impeaches the president (i.e. calls the trial) and then the senate tries him. The republicans would be delighted to impeach obama even if they knew that he had no chance of being booted by a majority of his party (it requires 2/3rds).
Also, what exactly is the XO that is being suggest here?
is there any chance of the us government opening in the next week or so? i havent really been following this too closely but i have a school trip there in the coming weeks and if Yosemite and the other national parks remained closed im kinda fcked
On October 14 2013 15:21 TheNoob69 wrote: is there any chance of the us government opening in the next week or so? i havent really been following this too closely but i have a school trip there in the coming weeks and if Yosemite and the other national parks remained closed im kinda fcked
Any chance yes. However at this point it doesn't look great.
On October 14 2013 13:02 r.Evo wrote: Why could the executive order go wrong horribly? It kinda seems the best option out of what you're mentioning.
I don't know exactly what the exective order would say (I can't find context anywhere :/), but there are pretty solid limits on what the prez can actually do with executive orders. If it gets challenged and goes don, then obama loses a ton of legitimacy, and possibly gets impeached (GOP would love that shit).
Impeachment is unlikely, as only the senate has that power, and it's under the control of the democrats right now. It might result in the democrats losing seats in the next election for refusing to impeach him though.
Impeachment is a process similar to an indictment a formal charging of officials by officials. Challenging the reach of executive orders would occur though the normal court system though though impeachment. Impeachment is reserved for what has already been established as illegal, the charge can't be might be illegal.
On October 14 2013 13:02 r.Evo wrote: Why could the executive order go wrong horribly? It kinda seems the best option out of what you're mentioning.
I don't know exactly what the exective order would say (I can't find context anywhere :/), but there are pretty solid limits on what the prez can actually do with executive orders. If it gets challenged and goes don, then obama loses a ton of legitimacy, and possibly gets impeached (GOP would love that shit).
Impeachment is unlikely, as only the senate has that power, and it's under the control of the democrats right now. It might result in the democrats losing seats in the next election for refusing to impeach him though.
Impeachment is a process similar to an indictment a formal charging of officials by officials. Challenging the reach of executive orders would occur though the normal court system though though impeachment. Impeachment is reserved for what has already been established as illegal, the charge can't be might be illegal.
Ehhh, you'd think that, but you'd be surprised what crap they might think they can get away with. Regardless, I don't think it's even likely that they'd try.
On October 14 2013 08:06 KwarK wrote: If parliament tried this kind of shit in my country we'd just call elections and get a new one that could govern. Gridlock is no good for anyone. You need a constitutional head of state with the power to dissolve the legislative and call elections.
Part of the reason the US has 3 separate and often competing branches of government is precisely to create gridlock, and to avoid too much getting done.
Yes but this isn't checks and balances at work. It's a tantrum being thrown by grown men willing to cause damage to our country because they can't win the elections required to go about their wishes.
EPT
