Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 8, 2024 22:28:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 17:28:11 GMT
These assholes need to stop with their epic pissing match and get on with the actual work of running the country. I am so sick of this bullshit. Remember how you feel right now...when you're voting in November.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 31, 2014 17:34:13 GMT
I find coverage in The Hill often gives a quick summary of the situation and the basic pros and cons for each side. For more detailed pros and cons, I often look to Real Clear Politics as they publish links to opinions from both sides. Thanks for providing these non biased links BeckyTech, but they're both for The Hill. Yikes! Sorry! I corrected my original post. Here is Real Clear Politics. Thanks for letting me know.
|
|
scrapaddie
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,090
Jul 8, 2014 20:17:31 GMT
|
Post by scrapaddie on Jul 31, 2014 17:44:01 GMT
I think that the point is that Obama is invoking powers that, constitutionally, are not his to invoke. There is a reason we have the three branches, checks, balances, etc. if Obama cannot get what he wants legitimately, he is willing to sacrifice the constitution. That is the way I see it.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 31, 2014 17:46:49 GMT
rainbow Rainbow do we have any confirmation yet on whether skypea is actually skybar or not? I have to admit her post on page 1 of this thread doesn't "feel" like Original Skybar.
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jul 31, 2014 17:52:55 GMT
I am not happy that things have gotten to this point in general, but since they have I actually don't really have a problem with asking the court system to address the question. Where else are two co-equal branches of government supposed to turn when they disagree on whether or not the other is overstepping their constitutional bounds? Does the president....any president....have the authority to change parts of a law or is that power reserved for the lawmakers? I don't know, but it seems like a reasonable question to ask.
That said, I'm not naive enough to think that politics don't play a huge role in it, but I think it's a legitimate question, and I don't know where else it would be asked but in the court system.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 8, 2024 22:28:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 17:53:17 GMT
I think that the point is that Obama is invoking powers that, constitutionally, are not his to invoke. There is a reason we have the three branches, checks, balances, etc. if Obama cannot get what he wants legitimately, he is willing to sacrifice the constitution. That is the way I see it. That's what I'm seeing too.
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Jul 31, 2014 17:59:11 GMT
I think the Republicans have a point. The law should have been implemented as it was written. As the effects of the law starting being felt, the administration issued orders delaying them or extending deadlines, sometimes even exempting groups like labor unions from parts of the law (specifically the reinsurance tax). It's not the executive branch's job to change the law; that task belongs to Congress. The executive branch is supposed to enforce the law, something that the president has NOT fulfilled with this law. So basically this is a test to see if Obama overstepped his constitutional limits. I do,however, wish the Republicans had filed suit at the various times these orders were issued. It would make it seem like they cared more about the people affected by the law than about scoring political points. This is my understanding as well. One point I would like to add is that the President had boasted that he has a phone and a pen and will go around the legislative process. When the House send a bill to the Senate, Harry Reid won't put it out for a vote. Then John Boehner throws gas on the flames with this suit and in the meantime nothing gets done. It is not a good situation - and the President the House and the Senate all share the blame.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,015
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jul 31, 2014 18:04:42 GMT
This is why talking points work. Each side picks a message and repeats it and repeats it and repeats until it becomes the truth, even when it isn't. Both charts are from The Washington Post. He's not doing anything differently (except maybe doing it less) than any President before him. Republicans just don't agree with his political ideology but rather than argue and win on their own ideas, it's a better tactic just to discredit him altogether. All the legal experts say the lawsuit will be thrown out because the House doesn't have standing. John Boehner had better hope that's the case because if he prevails, he's single handedly upending 200 years of the delicate balance that makes it all work. If the legislature and executive can now sue each other whenever they don't like how the other is doing its job, that probably signals the end of this exercise in self-governance.
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Jul 31, 2014 18:21:31 GMT
I think the content of the Executive Orders is what is important, not the number.
Also, as a point of reference, in June 2014 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the President exceeded his constitutional authority in making NLRB appointments in 2012 when he declared the Senate to be in recess.
I think when the President proclaimed he would go around the Legislative process with his phone and pen the SCOTUS sat up and took notice.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,015
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jul 31, 2014 18:30:46 GMT
Which is absolutely true but leaves out the backdrop of the gamesmanship that's been played lately into whether or not Congress actually goes into official recess - gamesmanship that's for the sole purpose of preventing the President from making recess appointments. He tried to call their bluff and he lost. Why the need for recess appointments at all? Gamesmanship about Congressional approval of executive appointments. It's like never ending ping pong between Congress and the executive branch.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 8, 2024 22:28:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 18:34:14 GMT
I think the content of the Executive Orders is what is important, not the number. That's right. Comparing the numbers is looking at the wrong thing.Also, as a point of reference, in June 2014 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the President exceeded his constitutional authority in making NLRB appointments in 2012 when he declared the Senate to be in recess. I think when the President proclaimed he would go around the Legislative process with his phone and pen the SCOTUS sat up and took notice. Even if Congress stood up and applauded like lobotomized monkeys in suits, when he said he would make them obsolete.
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Jul 31, 2014 18:51:34 GMT
Which is absolutely true but leaves out the backdrop of the gamesmanship that's been played lately into whether or not Congress actually goes into official recess - gamesmanship that's for the sole purpose of preventing the President from making recess appointments. He tried to call their bluff and he lost. Why the need for recess appointments at all? Gamesmanship about Congressional approval of executive appointments. It's like never ending ping pong between Congress and the executive branch. Except that in this case it was the Senate (not the House) and it is clear that Harry Reid follows the Obama playbook. He is as much of the problem as John Boehner is. No one gets a pass from me. They all stink.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 8, 2024 22:28:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 19:06:53 GMT
I think the content of the Executive Orders is what is important, not the number. Also, as a point of reference, in June 2014 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the President exceeded his constitutional authority in making NLRB appointments in 2012 when he declared the Senate to be in recess. I think when the President proclaimed he would go around the Legislative process with his phone and pen the SCOTUS sat up and took notice. And why is he doing that? Is it because he wants to or is he being forced to this to get something done.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jul 31, 2014 19:08:56 GMT
rainbow Rainbow do we have any confirmation yet on whether skypea is actually skybar or not? I have to admit her post on page 1 of this thread doesn't "feel" like Original Skybar. just you wait !
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 31, 2014 19:15:43 GMT
I think the content of the Executive Orders is what is important, not the number. Also, as a point of reference, in June 2014 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the President exceeded his constitutional authority in making NLRB appointments in 2012 when he declared the Senate to be in recess. I think when the President proclaimed he would go around the Legislative process with his phone and pen the SCOTUS sat up and took notice. And why is he doing that? Is it because he wants to or is he being forced to this to get something done.
But that is not the method the Constitution established in order to get things done. In fact, the Constitution was meant to protect citizens from an executive branch that would get too many things done. The point was to have as little government involvement as possible. Just because things aren't going your way doesn't mean you get to go around the Constitution to get your agenda done. And I agree that I don't like the precedence of suing another branch of government. But I also wonder how else the executive branch can be held accountable in this situation for going around the Constitution. And yes, many presidents have used executive order. However, we do need to compare the context and not just sheer number.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 8, 2024 22:28:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 19:15:56 GMT
I think that the point is that Obama is invoking powers that, constitutionally, are not his to invoke. There is a reason we have the three branches, checks, balances, etc. if Obama cannot get what he wants legitimately, he is willing to sacrifice the constitution. That is the way I see it.
It is easy to generalize and say something like "Obama is invoking powers that, constitutionally, are not his to invoke".
But my question to anyone who would like to answer it is just exactly what "powers" has President Obama invoked that, constitutionally, were not his to invoke?
Be specific otherwise its just someone repeating the talking points of the right without understanding what they are saying.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 8, 2024 22:28:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 19:17:38 GMT
And why is he doing that? Is it because he wants to or is he being forced to this to get something done.
But that is not the method the Constitution established in order to get things done. In fact, the Constitution was meant to protect citizens from an executive branch that would get too many things done. The point was to have as little government involvement as possible. Just because things aren't going your way doesn't mean you get to go around the Constitution to get your agenda done. And I agree that I don't like the precedence of suing another branch of government. But I also wonder how else the executive branch can be held accountable in this situation for going around the Constitution. And yes, many presidents have used executive order. However, we do need to compare the context and not just sheer number. You didn't answer the question. So I'll ask it again. Why is he doing it? Why does he feel the need to do it?
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 31, 2014 19:30:24 GMT
The Executive branch does not have the power to write laws or to make changes to laws that currently exist. He can suggest changes and submit bills to Congress. It's the job of the Legislative Branch to make the laws or make changes to existing laws. By using his pen and phone to make changes to an existing law, he circumvented the Constitutionally established means of lawmaking to enact his agenda.
Specifics can be found in the US Constitution. All legislative (law-making) power shall be vested in Congress. (Article 1, Section 1) and [the Executive Branch] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. (Article 2, Section 3)
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Jul 31, 2014 19:33:05 GMT
I think the content of the Executive Orders is what is important, not the number. Also, as a point of reference, in June 2014 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the President exceeded his constitutional authority in making NLRB appointments in 2012 when he declared the Senate to be in recess. I think when the President proclaimed he would go around the Legislative process with his phone and pen the SCOTUS sat up and took notice. And why is he doing that? Is it because he wants to or is he being forced to this to get something done.
Obama did have the house and senate majority in his first two years. He squandered it. The freshman Senator from Illinois did not spend enough time in the Senate to build relationships and forge alliances with either his party or the Republicans. He missed the opportunity to do that early in his Presidency as well. All other Presidents before him had to master the art of finding common ground and compromise- he just can't seem to do it. His tone has been so inflammatory that I have no idea what he wants to accomplish because all he does is go on fund raising trips and take the opportunity to knock the other side with snarky, childlike comments. He has convinced me he does not know how to lead. The polls have consistently shown low ratings and confidence for Congress, no argument there. But if you pay attention to the polls, the sentiment in the Country (despite what you read on the refugee pea board) is turning against him and Americans have lost confidence in their President. Not good when it happened to Bush, not good now.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jul 31, 2014 19:38:41 GMT
Both charts are from The Washington Post. He's not doing anything differently (except maybe doing it less) than any President before him. Republicans just don't agree with his political ideology but rather than argue and win on their own ideas, it's a better tactic just to discredit him altogether. All the legal experts say the lawsuit will be thrown out because the House doesn't have standing. John Boehner had better hope that's the case because if he prevails, he's single handedly upending 200 years of the delicate balance that makes it all work. If the legislature and executive can now sue each other whenever they don't like how the other is doing its job, that probably signals the end of this exercise in self-governance.
yes, he is. It isn't about how MANY are done - it's what they are about and result in doing. Changing law isn't what they are about but that's what BO is doing. He wants to control all 3 branches. He has 2 and part of the 3rd... He discredits himself. He needs no help in that.
I couldn't read the 2nd chart you posted so will assume that like the 1st one it just shows # of ex orders done for each admin.
again, it isn't about not liking how the other is doing their job. It's about actually doing it - and not taking control of the jobs belonging to others according to our constitution. So much for his knowledge of the law. Tho, I think he does know a lot about it - enough to be dangerous and wiggle around it (along with the help of all of his partners in destruction).
The repubs / house are doing their job - they've passed many bills. It's the senate refusing to deal with them and then shouting that the repubs aren't doing anything. yes they are and the dems are lying.
He has delayed starting dates in OC because the backlash that will come from it will hurt the dems in the elections. And those who still (at this time) have insurance thru their employer.
And there's the little (not) problem of those who will lose/won't get a subsidy.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jul 31, 2014 19:56:02 GMT
And why is he doing that? Is it because he wants to or is he being forced to this to get something done.
Obama did have the house and senate majority in his first two years. He squandered it. The freshman Senator from Illinois did not spend enough time in the Senate to build relationships and forge alliances with either his party or the Republicans. He missed the opportunity to do that early in his Presidency as well. All other Presidents before him had to master the art of finding common ground and compromise- he just can't seem to do it. His tone has been so inflammatory that I have no idea what he wants to accomplish because all he does is go on fund raising trips and take the opportunity to knock the other side with snarky, childlike comments. He has convinced me he does not know how to lead. The polls have consistently shown low ratings and confidence for Congress, no argument there. But if you pay attention to the polls, the sentiment in the Country (despite what you read on the refugee pea board) is turning against him and Americans have lost confidence in their President. Not good when it happened to Bush, not good now. He is doing it to take over our country and is very close to it. Turley says we are very close to a constitutional crisis because of what BO is doing. That's BOs goal.
He's pitting the American people against each other. people against bz, gov against the people and people against people (including race). With most everything in an uproar it'll be easy to take over. He has his own media (so control of that) - even the MM seems to be getting ticked off at having to have their stuff approved by admin, not being able to get real photos (being given canned photos by this admin).
He's cutting back our military (that'll increase unemployment) and opening our borders (letting in the enemy). He main responsibility is to protect our country - and he doesn't want to do that either. But don't forget, our borders have never been more secure...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 8, 2024 22:28:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 20:09:16 GMT
What a fine mess the Congress has left. The excuse they are using is they want the President to enforce the current laws. But while they are saying that, its really a smoke screen for hiding the fact they are not going to do anything. The Republicans really don't want the President to enforce the current laws and they know that he won't.
Think about it for just a second. Say the President said fine we'll enforce the laws that no one has enforced since they were passed in 1986. Send ICE agents out to raid all business and requiring they show proof the people they hired actually are documented and if not ship them all back to where they came from. Can you imagine the pandemonium that would ensue? Both from a humanitarian and business aspect.
What the Republicans are after are the "dreamers" even though way back when the Dream Act first came to light it was a bipartisan bill. But because President Obama wanted to get it enacted all of a sudden the Republicans think its a bad idea. They are trying to claim the President won't deport anyone when in fact, up until very recently, he was on track of deporting more folks than "W" and I believe Clinton.
Congress won't act and then gets all pissy when the President finds out what he can do and then does something without them.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 31, 2014 20:18:21 GMT
But that is not the method the Constitution established in order to get things done. In fact, the Constitution was meant to protect citizens from an executive branch that would get too many things done. The point was to have as little government involvement as possible. Just because things aren't going your way doesn't mean you get to go around the Constitution to get your agenda done. And I agree that I don't like the precedence of suing another branch of government. But I also wonder how else the executive branch can be held accountable in this situation for going around the Constitution. And yes, many presidents have used executive order. However, we do need to compare the context and not just sheer number. You didn't answer the question. So I'll ask it again. Why is he doing it? Why does he feel the need to do it? While I know without doubt YOU know why, I will spell it out because you have asked me to. Obama and Democrats in Congress raced to push through his ACA bill even though there were flaws. The ACA was (narrowly) passed by Congress, signed into law by the President, held as Constitutional as a tax by the Supreme Court. Now that there are logistical flaws with enacting the law that was so quickly pushed through Congress, Obama wants changes to be made to the law to prevent those flaws from impacting certain groups. However, the Republicans in Congress are willing to let the flaws go unaddressed because it proves they were right about the ACA bill. The President doesn't want the flaws to tarnish the Democrat's "success" with ACA. Republicans are okay with the ACA being proven unsuccessful. The President wants to avoid going through the Republicans in Congress because they won't make the changes to the law that will make it more successful to implement. The President is using executive order to go around the Republicans in Congress. You know the answer as well as I do. MY point was that the REASON, while frustrating for both Democrats and Republicans, is not important here. The end doesn't justify the means. Disregarding the Constitution is equivalent to breaking the law. So I ask you: WHY are Republicans in Congress willing to let the ACA be implemented with all of it's logistical flaws? If the Republicans passed a flawed bill through Congress and it was upheld by the SCOTUS, you know the Democrats would absolutely let it fail. Both sides play political games and it costs tax payers.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 8, 2024 22:28:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 20:23:55 GMT
Think about it for just a second. Say the President said fine we'll enforce the laws that no one has enforced since they were passed in 1986. Send ICE agents out to raid all business and requiring they show proof the people they hired actually are documented and if not ship them all back to where they came from. Can you imagine the pandemonium that would ensue? Both from a humanitarian and business aspect.
What the Republicans are after are the "dreamers" even though way back when the Dream Act first came to light it was a bipartisan bill. But because President Obama wanted to get it enacted all of a sudden the Republicans think its a bad idea. They are trying to claim the President won't deport anyone when in fact, up until very recently, he was on track of deporting more folks than "W" and I believe Clinton.
Congress won't act and then gets all pissy when the President finds out what he can do and then does something without them.
Pandemonium from enforcing the laws? Because the pandemonium we have now from open borders is so much better? Haven't they done that to businesses in the past? As far as deporting more folks than Bush, they are counting deportations differently and adding in cases they didn't use to when Bush was in office. So, don't count on those numbers being accurate. This administration has been known for that. Changing up the procedure to get different (better) results.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,015
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jul 31, 2014 20:37:11 GMT
That entirely depends on your political perspective. I personally didn't think it was so great when President Bush signed an executive order exempting us from portions of the Geneva Convention so that we could waterboard prisoners or the one where he absolved religious organizations from following anti-discrimination hiring laws or when he signed a National Security Directive giving himself virtually unlimited authority in the event of a national emergency. The point being, of course, that whether or not you think the content of an executive order is egregious has more to do with the person signing the order than the power to issue them in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 31, 2014 20:45:27 GMT
Let's put it this way. Why can't the President enforce the law that he wrote, campaigned on, and claims to stand by as it was originally written and signed into law? Perhaps members of Congress had very good reason for not wanting to rush into a vote on ACA before everyone had a chance to read the whole thing. Instead of the President admitting his bill was flawed and needs revision, he will just order the revisions he wants without having them go through the proper law-making process. That's a dangerous route regardless of which political party is represented in the Executive Branch.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Aug 1, 2014 2:38:39 GMT
lol! there is much BO can do within the law and without a new bill being passed for now. That he won't do that tells a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Aug 1, 2014 2:43:22 GMT
That entirely depends on your political perspective. I personally didn't think it was so great when President Bush signed an executive order exempting us from portions of the Geneva Convention so that we could waterboard prisoners or the one where he absolved religious organizations from following anti-discrimination hiring laws or when he signed a National Security Directive giving himself virtually unlimited authority in the event of a national emergency. The point being, of course, that whether or not you think the content of an executive order is egregious has more to do with the person signing the order than the power to issue them in the first place. interesting - with the recent news about the CIA and ways of interrogation etc just coming out. It was a bunch of crap set up to cause the uproar over it. Lies and more lies.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Aug 1, 2014 2:51:09 GMT
and what did the dems put in the bill prior to bringing it up for a vote? That makes difference.
Recent [HASH]s show that isn't true. W was deporting many more than BO. This admin likes to make up their own [HASH]s - on many items.
In one day I heard on the news of 3 illegals violating the law and not being deported. most recent was killing a Phx area officer. Another was convicted of rape (I think), served his time and when released they took him back to the area he committed the rape and turned him loose. That was in VA I think. LE there is outraged about it.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Aug 1, 2014 3:44:02 GMT
That entirely depends on your political perspective. I personally didn't think it was so great when President Bush signed an executive order exempting us from portions of the Geneva Convention so that we could waterboard prisoners or the one where he absolved religious organizations from following anti-discrimination hiring laws or when he signed a National Security Directive giving himself virtually unlimited authority in the event of a national emergency. The point being, of course, that whether or not you think the content of an executive order is egregious has more to do with the person signing the order than the power to issue them in the first place. Yup. What US president hasn't been roundly criticized for abusing executive power? Mr. Reagan...Mr. Clinton...both Bushes - especially GW, what with presidential unilateralism being a pet theory of Mr. Cheney's. And certainly the wartime presidents, going back to Mr. Lincoln. (Can you imagine if there had been an internet when he suspended habeus corpus? ) The increased willingness to just cut-and-paste, and repeat social-media fueled accusations on faith alone, is troubling. Yes, from both sides.
|
|