View Full Version : I'm feeling that today is a low point in DC politics.....
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-14, 8:01pm
What do you'all make of John Boehner moving ahead with suing Barack Obama? I personally am utterly disgusted....I'm thinking nothing will come of it other than possible political gains for the Republican party (?). I'm thinking this will be a monumental waste of time and money and quite inexcusable given the real problems this country faces. Rob
I'm thinking this will be a monumental waste of time and money and quite inexcusable given the real problems this country faces. Rob
What if one of the real problems the country faces today is the abuse of executive power?
If there are three co-equal branches of government and the executive has declared that it will by-pass the legislative in order to achieve goals, is that typical of a democratic republic or is it more along the lines of something else?
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-14, 8:05pm
What if one of the real problems the country faces today is the abuse of executive power?What if, on the other hand, one of the real problems this country faces is the GOP blocking anything the President tries to pass? There is more than one way of looking at this issue is my point. Rob
What if, on the other hand, one of the real problems this country faces is the GOP blocking anything the President tries to pass? There is more than one way of looking at this issue is my point. RobYou know that the President doesn't pass anything don't you? He is limited to signing onto whatever Congress passes or exercising veto power. Transfering power to the administrative state, against the will of the people or even giving them a chance to approve/disapprove through their representatives is a sign of an over-reaching executive branch.
Are you OK with that?
What if, on the other hand, one of the real problems this country faces is the GOP blocking anything the President tries to pass?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nKyihoV9z8
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-14, 8:26pm
You know that the President doesn't pass anything don't you? He is limited to signing onto whatever Congress passes or exercising veto power. Transfering power to the administrative state, against the will of the people or even giving them a chance to approve/disapprove through their representatives is a sign of an over-reaching executive branch.
Are you OK with that?In this particular case, due to the animosity I believe the GOP holds towards the President, I can live with it. It seems to handle things this way is the only way to accomplish anything. Sad that things have sunk to this and sadder still that full salaries are being drawn by both sides during this train wreck. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-14, 8:27pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nKyihoV9z8Nice clip, Bae. The only problem I can see is that this was made in the 1970's - Washington seems to have gotten much much nastier since then. Rob
In this particular case, due to the animosity I believe the GOP holds towards the President, I can live with it.
So, it's situational then? Is that any way to run a country?
gimmethesimplelife
6-25-14, 8:33pm
So, it's situational then? Is that any way to run a country?With all due respect, I'd love to ask the GOP leaders that same question myself. LOL. This question multi-tasks and could be asked of either side - but it's the Republicans stirring the pot this time. Rob
This question multi-tasks and could be asked of either side - but it's the Republicans stirring the pot this time. Rob
That pot stirring seems to be a chicken/egg sort of thing. I guess if you feel that a President, any President, is entitled to do whatever he/she wants, any representational roadblock might be a problem. That also suggests a form of government this country has never been hindered with.
If you feel that Presidential authority is rightly checked by a representative Congress and the Constitution of the United States, you might see things differently, as well as being more in line with this country's founding principles.
Whenever I hear complaints that our wannabe autarch isn't being shown the proper deference, I offer thanks to the brilliant, cynical men who designed our system.
That pot stirring seems to be a chicken/egg sort of thing. I guess if you feel that a President, any President, is entitled to do whatever he/she wants, any representational roadblock might be a problem. That also suggests a form of government this country has never been hindered with.
If you feel that Presidential authority is rightly checked by a representative Congress and the Constitution of the United States, you might see things differently, as well as being more in line with this country's founding principles.
Right or wrong, use of executive authority by the president has been a part of our history and has been commonly used by all contemporary presidents. GW did it hundreds of times. More times than Obama. There are some obvious limits, which maybe the courts will have to help define if this goes forward. I have to wonder if it is the executive orders themselves or just because it is Obama and a dose of grandstanding by the conservatives.
Right or wrong, use of executive authority by the president has been a part of our history and has been commonly used by all contemporary presidents. GW did it hundreds of times. More times than Obama. There are some obvious limits, which maybe the courts will have to help define if this goes forward. I have to wonder if it is the executive orders themselves or just because it is Obama and a dose of grandstanding by the conservatives.Yes, GW Bush signed 291 executive orders vs B Obama's 182 to date. Both numbers are fairly low compared to other Presidents, going back to FDR's 3500 or so. Here's a list to compare if you're interested. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
I think there may indeed be grandstanding involved, but wonder if the President's promise to bypass Congress by any means necessary doesn't play a large part in it.
If a President decides to take the representative out of a representative government, he should probably expect pushback such as the Supreme Court provided today in their unanimous decision that he violated the Constitution with his NLRB appointments last year.
It looks to me like several presidents have had their executive orders overturned by the courts. In Obama's case I suspect he is doing a big of grandstanding of his own and is indeed being rebellious of his constant battles with congress.
I do have to wonder if it appropriate for the Speaker of the House to sue the President. Is this new or is it unprecedented? It seems to me like people are generally pretty tired of all the back biting among our national officials and the loss of confidence in Congress. It would seem less about politics and more about the constitution if it came from some one other than one of the president's biggest critics among his political contemporaries.
In Obama's case I suspect he is doing a big of grandstanding of his own and is indeed being rebellious of his constant battles with congress.
The Supreme court unanimously agrees:
Supreme Court strikes down Obama recess appointments
By JOSH GERSTEIN (http://www.politico.com/reporters/JoshGerstein.html) | 6/26/14 10:19 AM EDT Updated: 6/26/14 5:44 PM EDT
In a rebuke to President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court struck down (http://images.politico.com/global/2014/06/26/12-1281_bodg.pdf) three of his recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board as unconstitutional.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-recess-appointments-108347.html#ixzz35mkJIjLu
It looks to me like several presidents have had their executive orders overturned by the courts. In Obama's case I suspect he is doing a big of grandstanding of his own and is indeed being rebellious of his constant battles with congress.
I do have to wonder if it appropriate for the Speaker of the House to sue the President. Is this new or is it unprecedented? It seems to me like people are generally pretty tired of all the back biting among our national officials and the loss of confidence in Congress. It would seem less about politics and more about the constitution if it came from some one other than one of the president's biggest critics among his political contemporaries.
Well, given that all Obama's fans seem to be all in favor of his use of pen and phone to advance his agenda when bills he supported didn't get through Congress, just who would have brought the suit? In all my history reading, I don't remember a.president this blatant about making an end run around Congress on a regular basis to get his way.
Obama also made a.comment recently that he didn't like the two senators per state, regardless of state size, because it didn't allow him to get his legislation through Congress. He's supposed to be a Constitutional scholar, but anti-Constitutional might be more appropriate.
Well, given that all Obama's fans seem to be all in favor of his use of pen and phone to advance his agenda when bills he supported didn't get through Congress, just who would have brought the suit? In all my history reading, I don't remember a.president this blatant about making an end run around Congress on a regular basis to get his way.
I see it as a sword with two sides. I can't recall in all my history a congress gridlocking so many issues with no intentions of compromise. One of which shut down much of the government for 16 days. Some sources say that this Congress has been the least effective since WWII. It is more like the Hatfields and McCoys than the leaders of our country.
I do have to wonder if it appropriate for the Speaker of the House to sue the President.
I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it in order to initiate a legal claim, the claimant must have standing. If the suit primarily involves the President's bypassing Congress, the party with standing would indeed be the Congress and the primary claimant would one of the two Congressional leaders.
Every politician should be held to a legal standard, even the President. The proper way to ensure that is to settle any issues through the courts, so, I'd say that it is entirely appropriate for the Speaker of the House to initiate legal proceedings if warranted.
ApatheticNoMore
6-26-14, 7:28pm
Well, given that all Obama's fans seem to be all in favor of his use of pen and phone to advance his agenda when bills he supported didn't get through Congress, just who would have brought the suit?
Hmm that seemed pretty obvious to me. Something like the ACLU maybe? They can hardly be accused of being Obama fans OR of being purely partisan. Although they may be more focused strictly on the Bill of Rights as opposed to other constitutional issues, I don't know.
It seems the type of thing to me that if it was truly non-partisan would be brought by "good government" groups (but they are corrupted? I don't know, everything is these days though far more often by money than partisanship. But the ACLU hs been strong on the civil liberties aspect). They have definitely fought excess presidential power:
In response to press reports that the United States had placed U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi on a secret kill list, in August 2010, the ACLU and CCR filed a lawsuit challenging the government’s asserted authority to carry out targeted killings of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone. The lawsuit argued that the executive branch’s claimed authority to impose an extrajudicial death sentence on U.S. citizens and others found far from any actual battlefield violates both the Constitution and international law
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/targeted-killings
Obama also made a.comment recently that he didn't like the two senators per state, regardless of state size, because it didn't allow him to get his legislation through Congress. He's supposed to be a Constitutional scholar, but anti-Constitutional might be more appropriate.
How Senators are elected has been changed before, so it could change, but not easily. Most countries do have much more proportional representation.
ApatheticNoMore
6-26-14, 7:35pm
I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it in order to initiate a legal claim, the claimant must have standing. If the suit primarily involves the President's bypassing Congress, the party with standing would indeed be the Congress and the primary claimant would one of the two Congressional leaders.
But couldn't ANY U.S. citizen be argued to have standing? As Congress is supposed to somehow represent us right? (our "representatives") I find the idea that it's "all about them" (the congresscritters) sadly laughable, although I don't know how it would be interpreted legally. But it seems to me a really good legal case could be made that any U.S. citizen has standing on the matter.
iris lilies
6-26-14, 7:38pm
... Most countries do have much more proportional representation.
Agreed, bring on a US version of The House of Lords. And lets just bring back the Stuart kings while we are at it, they wouldn't do any worse than the DC bunch especially Charles II and a couple of the Scottish Jameses.
But couldn't ANY U.S. citizen be argued to have standing? Again, I'm not a lawyer, although I would suspect that any individual standing is represented through their elected representatives.
I wish the clowns in DC would work for the people of the US and not for their own twisted special interests.
Its not like "the people" are sending any kind of consistent message to the political class. Its hard to know what to pander to with such a capricious electorate.
"If House Republicans are really concerned about me taking too many executive actions, the best solution to that is passing bills." President Barack Obama
There aren't many statements that leave me speechless.
There aren't many statements that leave me speechless.
That is an astounding attitude isn't it? Do exactly what I want and I won't overstep my authority.
I'm guessing that a revolution or coup isn't actually necessary to institute a dictatorship, simply allowing a soft dictatorship to harden works just as well.
gimmethesimplelife
7-2-14, 11:33am
There aren't many statements that leave me speechless.Speechless? I don't know. That quote from Obama makes sense to me, especially since every step of the way the GOP blocks him out of what can seem like pure spite. I'd be seeking alternatives to get things done too and also calling the GOP on their BS too. I can see there have been some issues in this administration, I'm not denying that, but on this one I stand with Obama. I find it speechless that the GOP seems to get a free pass to block Obama at every turn. And at taxpayer expense, nonetheless. Rob
BTW Good to see you here Greg, I haven't see you in awhile.
Speechless? I don't know. That quote from Obama makes sense to me, especially since every step of the way the GOP blocks him out of what can seem like pure spite. I'd be seeking alternatives to get things done too and also calling the GOP on their BS too. I can see there have been some issues in this administration, I'm not denying that, but on this one I stand with Obama. I find it speechless that the GOP seems to get a free pass to block Obama at every turn. And at taxpayer expense, nonetheless. Rob
Do you think it would be better if we simply abolished a representative Congress and allowed the Executive free reign?
gimmethesimplelife
7-2-14, 11:52am
Do you think it would be better if we simply abolished a representative Congress and allowed the Executive free reign?Alan, I don't know how to answer your question. My belief is that this Congress could care less whether they represent their constituents or get anything done - as I've said I believe the GOP often blocks Obama out of pure spite. So given that I don't see any value in this Congress - how do I answer your question? Were things not so nasty and so gridlocked to the point of the Speaker of the House threatening to sue the President, I might not see things this way and might even agree with you. Under the current conditions, i don't know how to answer your question, however. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
7-2-14, 11:57am
Do you think it would be better if we simply abolished a representative Congress and allowed the Executive free reign?
Well congress hasn't declared war since WWII right? So that's pretty free reign as is going on 75 years now. Congress doesn't even know what the NSA is doing and isn't informed about it, in fact the NSA limits how much congress can know about them and spies on them, why one might even wonder who is really making the decisions.
Thanks Rob, busy summer. Did you ever consider that the "gridlock" might really be a form of check and balance? There's a lot of that built into our system and we've always had at least two parties in the mix that didn't share the same points of view (otherwise it would be...one party). Who knows? Maybe we already have enough laws and could use some leadership for a change. From either party.
Don't worry, Rob, there won't be any mention of such a thing as too much presidential power if the Republicans every re-take that office.
Yes, indeed. How could we forget so soon "I'm the decider," and "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier...just so long as I'm the dictator." George Bush, of course, issued many more executive orders than President Obama has.
What do you'all make of John Boehner moving ahead with suing Barack Obama? I personally am utterly disgusted....I'm thinking nothing will come of it other than possible political gains for the Republican party (?). I'm thinking this will be a monumental waste of time and money and quite inexcusable given the real problems this country faces. Rob
I know I am probably overly skeptical, but I think it is the same ole "bait and switch" tactic to keep the media, and us, from the issues
we need to be facing in our country.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.