Reply With Quote
Ask Ted about the shutdown he started.
In the nation's history, there is simply no precedent for an American president so wantonly ignoring federal law
When Mr. Obama disagreed with federal immigration laws, he instructed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the laws. He did the same thing with federal welfare law, drug laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
On many of those policy issues, reasonable minds can disagree. Mr. Obama may be right that some of those laws should be changed. But the typical way to voice that policy disagreement, for the preceding 43 presidents, has been to work with Congress to change the law. If the president cannot persuade Congress, then the next step is to take the case to the American people. As President Reagan put it: "If you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat" of electoral accountability.The Obama administration has been so brazen in its attempts to expand federal power that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Justice Department's efforts to expand federal power nine times since January 2012.The law (Obamacare) says that businesses with 50 or more full-time employees will face the employer mandate on Jan. 1, 2014. President Obama changed that, granting a one-year waiver to employers. How did he do so? Not by going to Congress to change the text of the law, but through a blog post by an assistant secretary at Treasury announcing the change.The law says that only Americans who have access to state-run exchanges will be subject to employer penalties and may obtain ObamaCare premium subsidies. This was done to entice the states to create exchanges. But, when 34 states decided not to establish state-run exchanges, the Obama administration announced that the statutory words "established by State" would also mean "established by the federal government."Most strikingly, when over five million Americans found their health insurance plans canceled because ObamaCare made their plans illegal—despite the president's promise "if you like your plan, you can keep it"—President Obama simply held a news conference where he told private insurance companies to disobey the law and issue plans that ObamaCare regulated out of existence.In the more than two centuries of our nation's history, there is simply no precedent for the White House wantonly ignoring federal law and asking private companies to do the same. As my colleague Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa asked, "This was the law. How can they change the law?"
Similarly, 11 state attorneys general recently wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying that the continuing changes to ObamaCare are "flatly illegal under federal cons utional and statutory law." The attorneys general correctly observed that "the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action."
Ask Ted about the shutdown he started.
Oh, *now* executive power is bad. When we were talking about the limitless expansion of the executive power when dubya was the head honcho, and we were saying that eventually the presidency would flip and you'll have the same , it was all crickets.
I still remember Cobra going with some theory that the executive is the enforcer of the laws and so it has charte-blanque, or some such
Why do you hate America, Nono?
TC is a ridiculous laughingstock, and so are the screwy Texans who elected him, and so is his screwy papa.
Some of that is here, I think: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...ing+statementsOh, *now* executive power is bad. When we were talking about the limitless expansion of the executive power when dubya was the head honcho, and we were saying that eventually the presidency would flip and you'll have the same , it was all crickets.
I still remember Cobra going with some theory that the executive is the enforcer of the laws and so it has charte-blanque, or some such
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21103361232677
Eternally, Fox/Repugs/VRWC are depending the disengagement, ignorance, stupidity of their base and anybody else who would consider voting Repug.
==========
False Comfort & Impossible Promises: Uncertainty, Information Overload & the Unitary ExecutiveCynthia R. Farina
Cornell Law School
February 4, 2010
University of Pennsylvania Journal of Cons utional Law, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2010
Abstract:
The movement toward President-centered government is one of the most significant trends in modern American history. This trend has been accelerated by unitary executive theory, which provided cons utional and “good government” justifications for what political scientists have been calling the “personal” or “plebiscitary” presidency.
This essay draws on cognitive, social and political psychology to suggest that the extreme cognitive and psychological demands of modern civic life make us particularly susceptible to a political and cons utional ideology organized around a powerful and beneficent leader who champions our interests in the face of internal obstacles and external threats. The essay goes on to assess the representational and managerial claims of unitary executive theory in light of relevant work in election studies, public administration, and related areas. It concludes that the very conditions that make the personal, unitary executive presidency so appealing also ensure that no President can possibly be the leader it promises.
The essay concludes by considering the post-2008 revisionism that characterizes the George W. Bush presidency as a perversion of unitary executive theory. It points out that the Bush presidency not only was recognizably the kind of presidency contemplated by the theory, but also that the theory’s uncomplicated, unconditional cer ude - qualities that make it so effective in responding to the cognitive and psychological stress of modern American life - predispose unitary executive Presidents and their followers to extremism.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1548014
Unitary Executive is of course a conservative theory that directly violates the conservatives'/originalists' beloved Cons ution, and apparently the execution of UE powers only applies to Repug Presidents, not Democratic Presidents.
perhaps pertinent as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ecutive_orders
http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...sposition.html
As I watched the SOTU, I found myself thinking that I'd be fascinated to see Obama press one very minor piece of a Republican legislative agenda just to see if the Republicans in Congress would obstruct its passage or embrace Obama.
House GOP Leaders Declare 4 Areas Where They Can Work With Obama
House Republican leadership said they've identified four areas where they believe they can work with President Barack Obama based on principles he laid out in his State of the Union address this week.
The four areas are: skills training, natural gas, workplace rules and federally-funded research. The Republican leadership points to bills in each area that the House has passed, but either the Senate has not taken up the legislation or the White House has threatened to veto it.
The full letter is below.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/203422707/...etter-to-Obama
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...+%28TPMNews%29
Ted Cruz gripes that ‘folks in the media’ still blame him for government shutdown
Freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) chided reporters on Tuesday for continuing to ask him about last fall’s Republican-led shutdown of the federal government. According to Yahoo! News, the Tea Party favorite is trying to change the subject every time he’s asked about it.
From a risible appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer” last Sunday to a press conference on Tuesday, Cruz appears determined to shift the blame for the disastrous political maneuver on to Democrats and the Obama administration.
“I didn’t threaten to shut down the government the last time. I don’t think we should ever shut down the government. I repeatedly voted to fund the federal government,” Cruz told Schieffer. “It was Harry Reid and President Obama.”
His remarks on Tuesday continued in that vein.
“I understand that there are a lot of folks in the media that love to talk about the shutdown from four months ago,” he said. “What we ought to be talking about is the fact that we have the lowest labor force participating in 30 years since 1978, that Obamacare has taken away more than 5 million people’s health insurance plans, that people are hurting, that income inequality has increased under the Obama agenda and that there is an abuse of power and lawlessness.”
“So that’s what we ought to be talking about. Efforts that distract from that conversation, I think, are deliberate efforts of smoke and mirrors distracting from the questions coming from the American people,” he insisted.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/2...e+Raw+Story%29
Oh, *now* executive power is bad. When we were talking about the limitless expansion of the executive power when dubya was the head honcho, and we were saying that eventually the presidency would flip and you'll have the same , it was all crickets.
I still remember Cobra going with some theory that the executive is the enforcer of the laws and so it has charte-blanque, or some suchFrom the article:
But this should not be a partisan issue. In time, the country will have another president from another party. For all those who are silent now: What would they think of a Republican president who announced that he was going to ignore the law, or unilaterally change the law? Imagine a future president setting aside environmental laws, or tax laws, or labor laws, or tort laws with which he or she disagreed.
I'm not understanding what your chart, or executive orders for that matter, have to do with the article.
Really? Some of you never cease to amaze...
yep, but they're a source of never-ending entertainment
I don't disagree with what he's saying. Some of us were not silent when the presidency was red or blue. The problem with politicians like him, is that once the presidency switches, they go silent and enjoy the perks.
I also can't take seriously anybody from the legislative flatly stating that "law x is uncons utional". They're certainly en led to their opinion, but that role is reserved to the judiciary. I'm sure he also thought the individual mandate was uncons utional until it wasn't.
WATCH: Jon Meacham Offers The Worst Criticism Of Obama’s Executive Orders
During a Thursday morning appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, former Newsweek editor-in-chief Jon Meacham offered an incredibly silly criticism of President Obama’s plan to use executive orders to advance his agenda, when he picked two of the worst possible examples to “prove” his point that such a move would be unprecedented.
“We make fun of the executive orders and that is in fact something that — you know, you never really heard Lincoln and FDR say, ‘I’m going to rebuild America on an executive order,” Meacham told hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezkinski. “You know, it’s not something that resonates off the tongue.”
Of course, as Meacham — who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2008 for his biography of Andrew Jackson — should know, this is completely and obviously false. Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued more executive orders than any other president in the 20th century, as this chart from MSNBC’s Maddow Blog makes clear (note that President Obama ranks last, with just 168 executive orders throughout his first five years in office).
As for Abraham Lincoln, it doesn’t take a history expert to know that he literally attempted to rebuild a war-torn America via executive orders — including, most famously, the Emancipation Proclamation.
Meacham’s odd attack against President Obama’s promise to use executive orders in precisely the same way his predecessors did — except with lesser frequency — fits neatly with a pattern that has emerged throughout Obama’s time in office. Whether it’s issuing executive orders, or making recess appointments, or nominating judges to fill vacancies on federal courts, or utilizing the NSA, the president’s critics have become alarmingly eager to throw historical precedent out the window in the name of crafting a good political burn.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/watch-jo...cutive-orders/
It would make more sense for him to explain why the law is uncons utional but then most of his followers would stop paying attention because they might have to think.
Q: I’ve searched your website for George W. Bush’s signing statements and only find about 140. The Boston Globe said there were 750. Where are the rest of them?
A: In an article published on April 30, 2006, the Globe wrote that “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.”
In a clarification issued May 4, 2006, the Globe note that Bush had not really challenged 750 bills (which would have implied 750 signing statements), but “has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.”
not a peep from the Repugs, and my bet is many of them were Repug bills 2001-2006.
The law =/= The president's actions; which is what the article was about.
perhaps. Perhaps not though.
huh?I also can't take seriously anybody from the legislative flatly stating that "law x is uncons utional". They're certainly en led to their opinion, but that role is reserved to the judiciary. I'm sure he also thought the individual mandate was uncons utional until it wasn't.
So what has he actually done that you personally are so angry about?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
