• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Shift on Executive Power Lets Obama Bypass Rivals

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
The problem you are failing to acknowledge is that many Republicans in Congress (including but by no means limited to the Tea Party Caucus) are essentially refusing to do their own jobs, thus forcing the President's hand.
What actually is their job?
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
Key word being -- OPERATE -- none of this would be necessary if the Republicans were doing the job and working with the president to solve the problems that we have.
Instead the Republican or most of the republicans are the problem!
Nonsense. You're just scapegoating.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Key word being -- OPERATE -- none of this would be necessary if the Republicans were doing the job and working with the president to solve the problems that we have.
Instead the Republican or most of the republicans are the problem!
It may be that the way the President wants to address the problems does not seem to the Republicans the proper way to tackle the issues.

Obama had 2 years with a cooperative Congress under Democratic control to show he could do the job and failed to deliver.

Some may say that the Senate blocked him; apparently he was unable to show the SenateDemocrats that he was able to provide the proper leadership to get his priority packages through.

The Republicans may feel that he does not deserve more chances to make things worse.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,613
3,406
126
If I were Obama I would arrest Mitch McConnell and try him for treason because that is exactly what he is, a traitor to the nation, expressly placing the political ambitions of his party in direct conflict with the good of the nation. He's a piece of human shit and slime bag of the nth degree.
 

RedChief

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
533
0
81
If I were Obama I would arrest Mitch McConnell and try him for treason because that is exactly what he is, a traitor to the nation, expressly placing the political ambitions of his party in direct conflict with the good of the nation. He's a piece of human shit and slime bag of the nth degree.
...proving again that the quickest road to Fascism is Liberalism....
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
I answered your question, I just didn't give as many examples as you wanted.
Don't get angry at me because you asked a question you should have already known the answer to.
I'm not angry. I'm amused by your Internet badass act. Especially since you don't seem to actually know anything. You just toss bombs to defend your party. You failed.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,613
3,406
126
...proving again that the quickest road to Fascism is Liberalism....
Maybe McConnell a fascist, I don't know, but I do know he's a traitor pure and simple. And that lib to Nazi thingi sounds for all the world like conservative brain disease.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,709
20,057
136
DVC - You're still trying to blame the debt-downgrade on the Repubs? The message is pretty clear - stop spending. Democrats don't want to hear that message and spun it to the media. What I'm saying is that raising the debt ceiling should NOT be routine. It's a clear message that something is wrong and it should be investigated.

There were a few justified cases for the filibuster but I'll admit they're abusing it for partisan purposes. Still, that doesn't allow for Obama to circumvent the processes laid out.
You realize that when the US's credit rating was downgraded one of the primary reasons given was the brinksmanship of Congressional Republicans and their willingness to allow the US to default as a bargaining chip, right? That's not 'media spin', that's taking their report word for word.

So no, to say that the message was pretty clear to be 'stop spending' would be pretty wrong. Their concern was for mid to long range debt issues that come primarily from Medicare and the like, not from short term deficits anyway. You should really go read their report because what you said is simply inaccurate.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, I dislike Obama's agenda and I dislike Presidents (and government in general) overreaching. On the other hand, I really, really dislike pro forma sessions to stop recess appointments (especially to cripple departments and/or agencies you don't like), I think EVERY nominee deserves a timely hearing and an up or down vote (I don't give a damn if the Senate votes on nothing else but budget bills - in fact I'd prefer it - but advice and consent is one of the Senate's Constitutional responsibilities), and I recognize that this is a natural procession - people like power, and people who REALLY like power tend to be politicians, and every President (post-Truman anyway) tends to grab a little more power than his predecessor enjoyed. On the one hand I'd prefer a power-grabbing President to be more in line with me politically and philosophically. On the other hand, a power-grabbing President not at all in line with me politically and philosophically probably makes it easier for me to disapprove of the power-grabbing.

So on balance - meh?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,709
20,057
136
I have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, I dislike Obama's agenda and I dislike Presidents (and government in general) overreaching. On the other hand, I really, really dislike pro forma sessions to stop recess appointments (especially to cripple departments and/or agencies you don't like), I think EVERY nominee deserves a timely hearing and an up or down vote (I don't give a damn if the Senate votes on nothing else but budget bills - in fact I'd prefer it - but advice and consent is one of the Senate's Constitutional responsibilities), and I recognize that this is a natural procession - people like power, and people who REALLY like power tend to be politicians, and every President (post-Truman anyway) tends to grab a little more power than his predecessor enjoyed. On the one hand I'd prefer a power-grabbing President to be more in line with me politically and philosophically. On the other hand, a power-grabbing President not at all in line with me politically and philosophically probably makes it easier for me to disapprove of the power-grabbing.

So on balance - meh?
For obvious balance of power reasons I am very much in support of Congress' ability to vote down nominees that it doesn't like. I totally agree with you however that this power should not extend to actions that cripple agencies or render them effectively nonfunctional just because the current Congress doesn't like them.

If an agency exists through force of law, it is Congress' obligation to see that it is staffed and serving its function. If Congress doesn't like the agency, then eliminate it. If you can't eliminate it, then do your job and make sure the government runs the way the laws say it should.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
We are all familiar with Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube... v Sawyer (I think it was Sawyer)

It seems subsequent Courts have referred to this analysis by Jackson as pretty much spot on even though they can't find or couldn't find any basis for his position in any of the documents looked at for this or any other case. So, it seems to be simply his rationalization of what the implied Executive powers should be, but one which has been used over and over again.

He more or less said... "... Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate,
depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress.”

He then provided the world with his opinion for analyzing the scope of presidential power...

More or less... IF the President is in accord with Congress' express or implied position he is at his strongest point. IF the Congress is silent on the matter he is at a mid point and IF Congress has expressed its position and it is contrary to the President's action he is at his weakest...

If he appoints folks during recess that is expressed in the Constitution and not an issue.

If we're talking about his implementation of laws he is complying with his oath of office.
IF no law exists dealing with the issue at hand he would probably be also complying with his oath of office.
But, if Congress makes a law and he goes the other way then we have a problem.

I can't see any authority for the President to decide Congress got it wrong and create his own version... that would be, in my opinion, a violation of his oath of office.




 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
For obvious balance of power reasons I am very much in support of Congress' ability to vote down nominees that it doesn't like. I totally agree with you however that this power should not extend to actions that cripple agencies or render them effectively nonfunctional just because the current Congress doesn't like them.

If an agency exists through force of law, it is Congress' obligation to see that it is staffed and serving its function. If Congress doesn't like the agency, then eliminate it. If you can't eliminate it, then do your job and make sure the government runs the way the laws say it should.
Vote down, absolutely. Delay indefinitely, no. Republicans used to understand that they couldn't always get everything they want and they dealt with it; now they seem to have lost that understanding.

Of course, in fairness Democrats have never understood that and typically flee the state if faced with not getting their way. :D
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,907
1,056
126
...proving again that the quickest road to Fascism is Liberalism....
You do realize that fascism is a far-right ideology right? I think you might be thinking of totalitarianism. And that can be led to by any sufficiently extreme ideology. The USSR being far left for example and the Nazi party being far right. You go too far one way or the other and you get a totalitarian state. Unfortunately the GOP in the last 15-20 years has gone the farthest away from center that any legitimate party in the US has ever been.

So even though you may have people like Moonbeam going overboard, that's not the party, that's one man who has no say in the matter and clearly would not work out as a prominent voice for a party. But then you have the NRA and GOP who keep putting people like Ted Nugent out fron. What's worse, a nobody on the internet who identifies with the left thinking a party leader of the opposing party is a traitor and should be arrested? Or a person who the right has several times given the microphone to be a leading voice for the party making subtle threats of violence against a leader of the opposing party?

The right is currently far closer to a totalitarian state than the left will ever be in my lifetime.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Maybe McConnell a fascist, I don't know, but I do know he's a traitor pure and simple. And that lib to Nazi thingi sounds for all the world like conservative brain disease.
I'm in two minds regarding the Senate and their 60 vote super majority...
Which grants McConnell the ability to make his position legal...

The Constitution gives Congress expressed power to regulate their own body... The 60 vote thingi, therefore, is within their authority and Since Congress makes the laws they can legally not make laws...

IT is us who put these folks in office and so in a sense we are responsible for what goes on in Government. The notion of majority rule (except where the Constitution defines majority to be more than 50% + 1) is nice but the rules of the Senate are just as nice, imo... IF their rules allow them to block something by virtue of one person filibustering then there it is. IF anyone is guilty of treason it would be that filibusterer, me thinks. But, of course, you can't conspire to do something that is legal... I don't think... So, 'no harm, no foul'...
 

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,664
1
81
I have no problem fighting unchecked power with unchecked power. Only then can the shackles and constraints of our Constitution be removed from the Federal govt. and placed around we the people, where they belong.

I also like the idea of passing bills before finding out what is in them & going against free market principles to save the free market.

I like the many wars, bank backdoors, the bailouts, the czars and lobbyists, corporate personhood, patentable humanhood... the works. I personally don't think Obama and Romney would go far enough.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,613
3,406
126
I'm in two minds regarding the Senate and their 60 vote super majority...
Which grants McConnell the ability to make his position legal...

The Constitution gives Congress expressed power to regulate their own body... The 60 vote thingi, therefore, is within their authority and Since Congress makes the laws they can legally not make laws...

IT is us who put these folks in office and so in a sense we are responsible for what goes on in Government. The notion of majority rule (except where the Constitution defines majority to be more than 50% + 1) is nice but the rules of the Senate are just as nice, imo... IF their rules allow them to block something by virtue of one person filibustering then there it is. IF anyone is guilty of treason it would be that filibusterer, me thinks. But, of course, you can't conspire to do something that is legal... I don't think... So, 'no harm, no foul'...
To state that your first priority as a Senator is to defeat the President of the United States in the next election by making it impossible for him to do his job via blocking him from leading is an act of treason against the well being of the citizens of the United States. The issue of treason goes not to filibustering legislation but in so stating such an intention. It is not the duty of a Senator which he swore to uphold, that he would do what it takes first and primarily to prevent the President from winning a second term by blocking any action he takes to serve the nation and blaming him for as the one who is ineffective.

The average person has no idea what these traitors are up to. They are causing the very dictatorship they rail against because they are assholes and then when they get into power they will point to precedent and do the same thing. Fucking worthless cretinous scum.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
To state that your first priority as a Senator is to defeat the President of the United States in the next election by making it impossible for him to do his job via blocking him from leading is an act of treason against the well being of the citizens of the United States. The issue of treason goes not to filibustering legislation but in so stating such an intention. It is not the duty of a Senator which he swore to uphold, that he would do what it takes first and primarily to prevent the President from winning a second term by blocking any action he takes to serve the nation and blaming him for as the one who is ineffective.

The average person has no idea what these traitors are up to. They are causing the very dictatorship they rail against because they are assholes and then when they get into power they will point to precedent and do the same thing. Fucking worthless cretinous scum.
But that is exactly what the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide. They did not want a King or a Parliament. They wanted checks on the Power granted... Well... perhaps except for the SCOTUS given they decide what they can do with only impeachment as the remedy.

So we have a Senator who views the President as he does. He has the votes to continue a filibuster. The Constitution gives the Senate that power... explicitly. Blocking nominations or treaties is not the same as Not allowing for a proposed law to go forward. Similar but not the same.

McConnell was voted into office cuz he thinks as he does so he's not a traitor to the State he represents... He goes to DC and gathers about him other like minded Senators who also were elected based on their thinking and together they opt to do nothing in an articulated attempt to get a president who also thinks like they do... Seems quite normal to me.

IF we don't like it we can replace the Senators with folks who think like us... Seems to me that that solves the issue.

We need to realize that regardless of the mind issues that put these 'undesirables' in office they were put there by the process. It is the process that matters much more than the folks who can be changed...

When one cuts off their nose to spite their face they succeed in doing nothing more than creating a more ugly face...
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,193
630
126
It may be that the way the President wants to address the problems does not seem to the Republicans the proper way to tackle the issues.

Obama had 2 years with a cooperative Congress under Democratic control to show he could do the job and failed to deliver.

Some may say that the Senate blocked him; apparently he was unable to show the SenateDemocrats that he was able to provide the proper leadership to get his priority packages through.

The Republicans may feel that he does not deserve more chances to make things worse.
If you dont have 60 party votes in the Senate, you cant do shit.

When exactly did Obama have 60 votes party votes in the Senate?

It wasn't like Bush where he had a majority in the house and 60 votes in the Senate to ram a shit ton of stuff through.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,464
2
0
If you dont have 60 party votes in the Senate, you cant do shit.

When exactly did Obama have 60 votes party votes in the Senate?

It wasn't like Bush where he had a majority in the house and 60 votes in the Senate to ram a shit ton of stuff through.
are you talking about when the dems passed a budget? oh wait . . .:whiste:
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,613
3,406
126
But that is exactly what the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide. They did not want a King or a Parliament. They wanted checks on the Power granted... Well... perhaps except for the SCOTUS given they decide what they can do with only impeachment as the remedy.

So we have a Senator who views the President as he does. He has the votes to continue a filibuster. The Constitution gives the Senate that power... explicitly. Blocking nominations or treaties is not the same as Not allowing for a proposed law to go forward. Similar but not the same.

McConnell was voted into office cuz he thinks as he does so he's not a traitor to the State he represents... He goes to DC and gathers about him other like minded Senators who also were elected based on their thinking and together they opt to do nothing in an articulated attempt to get a president who also thinks like they do... Seems quite normal to me.

IF we don't like it we can replace the Senators with folks who think like us... Seems to me that that solves the issue.

We need to realize that regardless of the mind issues that put these 'undesirables' in office they were put there by the process. It is the process that matters much more than the folks who can be changed...

When one cuts off their nose to spite their face they succeed in doing nothing more than creating a more ugly face...
Trying traitors is part of the process too. If the folk don't like it, they could always vote me out of office.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY