- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 22, 2014 at 3:51 am #819650
metrognomeParticipantbrew – way to keep the conversation classy. I’m sure your respectful comments about the people with whom you disagree will do a lot to convince others that your deliberately thought out, carefully conceived and constructed arguments are ones they should adopt.
November 22, 2014 at 3:59 am #819651
brewParticipantNot interested in convincing anyone. Just stating my honest to goodness opinion!
November 22, 2014 at 4:18 am #819652
JayDeeParticipantI know that the rules of this site prevent us from attacking a poster individually.
–
So what facts do you disagree with? The President (just happens to be Obama this time) has full legal authority to do what he has done (see earlier post).
–
Opinions grounded on belief are just that: Belief. If the Republicans won the election, then they can propose new immigration related legislation: Not belief, fact. So they should do so, and let us see what they propose. Deporting 5 million illegals? State your honest to goodness opinion…
November 22, 2014 at 4:32 am #819653
dobroParticipant“And yes, the majority of the people are against Obama and his policies.”
Did you notice that the people of the United States elected him to two terms by some of the largest majorities in recent history? That’s a fact, not an “honest to goodness opinion”.
“Not interested in convincing anyone.”
You’re doing fine there.
“…few of the lackeys here actually care about facts.”
Good thing your post is completely free of facts then. you’ll fit right in with all the lackeys.
“…lackeys that fail to hold him or his dimwit party accountable.”
Or maybe the dimwits would be a better fit for you.
November 22, 2014 at 5:04 am #819654
brewParticipant“Did you notice that the people of the United States elected him to two terms by some of the largest majorities in recent history? That’s a fact, not an “honest to goodness opinion”.”
Guess you were too busy watching the kardashians and missed the latest democrate slaughter. That is Fact. Oh, and what is Obamas current approval rating?
You’re doing fine there.
You can’t convince those that blindly follow.
Good thing your post is completely free of facts then. you’ll fit right in with all the lackeys.
Not free of facts, you just choose to ignore them. Undisputed facts – Obama and his administration are Liars and hypocrites.
Or maybe the dimwits would be a better fit for you.
Indeed it may. However, I am not a lackey! (wink!)
November 22, 2014 at 5:46 am #819655
dobroParticipant“Guess you were too busy watching the kardashians and missed the latest democrate slaughter. That is Fact. Oh, and what is Obamas current approval rating?”
Another guy with a lot of assumptions. I’ve never watched the Kardashians. I don’t think Obama was running in the last election. And in the last approval poll that counted, Obama had 52% and 332 electoral votes.
“You can’t convince those that blindly follow.”
More assumptions about people you don’t know. This says more about your lack of ability to convince folks of anything than about peoples choices in whom they follow.
“Not free of facts, you just choose to ignore them. Undisputed facts – Obama and his administration are Liars and hypocrites.”
Undisputed opinions – Obama and his administration are Liars and hypocrites. Fixed that for you. You don’t need to thank me.
November 22, 2014 at 6:07 am #819656
captainDaveParticipantJanS: How is Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation remotely similar to Obama’s executive orders? Just because Nancy Pelosi says its the same doesn’t mean it actually is.
Many members of congress are opposing Obama’s legal authority (Both Demarcates and Republicans)
Obama Said: “To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.”
Obama says there wouldn’t not be a problem if a bill was passed. Well, I don’t know how much more obvious it needs to be that something is seriously wrong with the process.
Whether you believe that Obama is right or congress is right, it doesn’t matter. What maters is that the democratic process, as we have known it for 200 years, is broken and the only chance to fix it is under the authority of the constitution residing with the states.
Washington Post:
What do you call a government where democracy has failed?
A: Tyranny
November 22, 2014 at 6:38 am #819657
dobroParticipant“What maters is that the democratic process, as we have known it for 200 years, is broken and the only chance to fix it is under the authority of the constitution residing with the states.”
This is your opinion, not a fact. We just had an election-democratic process. Obama issued an executive order, as many presidents have done before him-democratic process. Congress could pass a bill tomorrow and make Obama’s order moot-democratic process. Obama could sign or veto the bill-democratic process. The only thing broken is the Republican-led House of Representatives who refuse to take a vote or get anything done. Sure, they (and you) say the country is in peril, in peril I say, and they’ll get right to squelching that dictator Obama…just as soon as they get back from their extended Thanksgiving vacation. In peril, I say!!!
November 22, 2014 at 8:03 am #819658
JanSParticipantdobro…if they think this country is in peril now, just wait 2 years, after they haven’t passed one meaningful bill to do something for the people of this country…jobs, vets, infrastructure, and on and on..do they really think the results on Nov. 04 meant something is going to turn around? The Repubs will be running the show, and we have to hold their feet to the fire to make sure they do the right thing, and not just obstructing (and giving more money to the already obscenely rich)…I, of course, am not holding my breath
November 22, 2014 at 4:13 pm #819659
rwParticipantI hate to interject facts into another one of our (largely) emotion-based debates. The Brookings Institute earlier this year published an analysis of presidential use of executive actions, and found that President Obama has used this authority less frequently than any president since Chester Arthur (remember him) who was president from 1885-1889 & 1893-1897. In addition, Republicans tend to use executive action more often than Democrats.
November 22, 2014 at 5:17 pm #819660
JoBParticipantNovember 22, 2014 at 5:19 pm #819661
JoBParticipantmetrognome..
you still get the win from me
nothing like a good dose of reason in the morning to start your day off right
November 22, 2014 at 6:04 pm #819662
dhgParticipantLackies and dimwits? Carter, Clinton and Obama are actually very intelligent and very well-educated. Bush and Reagan, not so much.
To say “Will of the People” is to giveaway your stance. That is a favorite phrase of the Republicans whenever they win. When they lose, or when they have taken an unpopular stand, it means nothing to them. It is only deployed when they think they have the majority.
As for our broken system: What’s to be done when the Republicans shut down the House and refuse to pass ANYTHING because they don’t like the Pres?
November 22, 2014 at 7:49 pm #819663
waynsterParticipantpolitics do they ever change…..not much if you are in the GOP……
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2000/10/22
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2000/11/05
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2008/10/12
November 23, 2014 at 1:39 am #819664
JanSParticipantjust came across this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22665-2004Oct10.html
November 23, 2014 at 2:56 am #819665
JoBParticipantfrom Jan’s link
“Since he took office, Vice President Cheney has led the Bush administration’s effort to increase the power of the presidency. “I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job,” he said after a year in office, calling it “wrong” for past presidents to yield to congressional demands. “We are weaker today as an institution because of the unwise compromises that have been made over the last 30 to 35 years.”
Cheney has tried to increase executive power with a series of bold actions — some so audacious that even conservatives on the Supreme Court sympathetic to Cheney’s view have rejected them as overreaching. … “
need anyone say more?
November 23, 2014 at 4:53 am #819666
JanSParticipantdhg…I hold no value for someone who says he is only posting his opinion, and then starts name calling…lackeys and dimwits. I do not listen to them, nor take them seriously. One can have a good conversation , even a disagreeing discussion , without stooping to that.
November 23, 2014 at 8:53 am #819667
captainDaveParticipantThe attempted presidential power expansion by Bush was wrong. But that is ancient history. Do we throw out the Constitution so that Obama supporters can have a tit for tat against the rest of the country?
Obviously, executive orders are common with all presidents because they are head of the executive branch. Don’t confuse lawful executive orders with unlawful actions. The POTUS pledges an oath to uphold the laws made by Congress–not to make the laws like an imperial ruler.
Two unprecedented issues have recently happened. Obama has chosen not to enforce laws that are not to his liking, and congress (it seems so far) has failed to use the power of the purse to limit the president’s power grabs. (The government has been closed down nearly 20 times in the last few decades under both democrat and republican presidents.) It used to be part of the political process to keep the president in check–but apparently not anymore.
Obama has created precedence for what some are calling the Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine. This means that any future president will have the authority to decree laws without congressional authority. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that recent erosion of constitutional processes is a bad thing for all citizens in the long term (other than the crony elite, of course).
I have as much dislike for the policies of corporatist republicans as I do for socialist democrats. The resulting effects of lost freedoms and reduced individual prosperity are essentially the same under either agenda. It seems to me that both sides have conspired to radically increase the powers of the presidential office so that we citizens no longer have a chance to restore representational government.
Over the last 200+ years, congress has kept the office of the president in check. A constitutionally controlled balance of power between conservative and progressive thinking created a free, prosperous and companionate society.
Without the states invoking article V to ensure a balance of power between all branches of the federal government, the office of the president could easily be transformed into an imperial presidency where all law is ultimately decided by the ideals and whims of one man or women. It is difficult to know what kind of ruling authority we will have in the future without a solid constitutional basis.
For those who think the president should not be held to the limitations of the Constitution, be careful what you wish for. Some of the most notorious dictators in history rose to power under the corruption of constitutional authority.
November 23, 2014 at 9:20 am #819668
JanSParticipanthe’s going to be gone in two years…think there’s time for that to happen? And in 2 years can he just decide no more elections and keep being dictator, or does he have to abdicate? Could you please fill us all in?
Oh, and…so other presidents have done the same thing…executive orders…but…those were OK? Those were legal? Or do we have to throw them all out? Can we prosecute or impeach them posthumously? Or is there something different about Barack Obama that makes him the only president who, if he does it, is breaking the law and going against the constitution. Could you please go into that a little more? What is it about this man that you dislike so much. Executive orders are legal…please explain why the legality of it doesn’t apply to him..specifically? Also, if the top guy, the president, really is run by Congress, should we simply do away with the presidency, and turn it all over to Congress? If they run him, what’s the point of even having one? And, if we keep the presidency, how will you deal with the next one when they also do something by executive order? Will they be on the same path to dictatorship, and will the steps that they have to follow for that to happen be refined by then? Or do they simply apply to this man, this one time, for some reason that’s different than all the other presidents we’ve had? (I still want to know what that one thing is that makes him different…no one says when they complain about him, and I just can’t put my finger on it).Thanks in advance for your answers…
November 23, 2014 at 3:40 pm #819669
JoBParticipantCaptainDave
Bush is ancient history?
You can overlook his expansion of Presidential Powers because that’s ancient history but can’t abide Obama using even a fraction of that expanded power because it sets a precedent?
as an argument this fails logic 101
November 23, 2014 at 4:42 pm #819670
miwsParticipant….corporatist republicans…..
And their corporate Sugar Daddies are getting Boehners whenever we “Little Guys”, that should be working together to ward off the corporate machine, are divided and going at each others’ throats.
Mike
November 23, 2014 at 6:08 pm #819671
dobroParticipant“The POTUS pledges an oath to uphold the laws made by Congress…”
Um, actually, no. Here’s the oath that POTUS speaks…I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Nothing in there about obeying Congress.
“It used to be part of the political process to keep the president in check–but apparently not anymore.”
Then why not some concern about how Congress acts? If they are “failing to keep the president in check” why isn’t that the fault of Congress? You know who runs the branch of government that originates finance bills and has the power to impeach? Yes, that would be the branch run by lazy, do-nothing Republicans who refuse to show up for work and do their jobs.
“Obama has created precedence for what some are calling the Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine. This means that any future president will have the authority to decree laws without congressional authority.”
This is a pack of nonsense drawn from either a fox news broadcast or a right wing email chain.
“Over the last 200+ years, congress has kept the office of the president in check.”
Really? Ever hear of FDR? Abraham Lincoln? GWB? Many history books are available at the library.
November 23, 2014 at 6:47 pm #819672
JoBParticipantall that crap just plain isn’t true
whether you believe it or not
it isn’t true
look it up.
we did.
November 23, 2014 at 6:57 pm #819673
metrognomeParticipantfor anyone who is interested in slogging thru this, here is DOJ’s opinion regarding the 3 questions asked by DHS.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/
2014/11/20/2014-11-19-auth-prioritize-removal.pdf
(sorry, had to break so as not to cover the right nav bar)
Some excerpts:
Title
The Department of Homeland Security’s Authority to
Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States and to Defer Removal of Others
Summary
The Department of Homeland Security’s proposed policy to prioritize the removal of certain aliens
unlawfully present in the United States would be a permissible exercise of DHS’s discretion to
enforce the immigration laws.
The Department of Homeland Security’s proposed deferred action program for parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents would also be a permissible exercise of DHS’s discretion to enforce the immigration laws.
The Department of Homeland Security’s proposed deferred action program for parents of recipients of deferred action under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program would not be a permissible exercise of DHS’s enforcement discretion.
Opinion (excerpt)
‘As has historically been true of deferred action, these proposed deferred action programs would not “legalize” any aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States: Deferred action does not confer any lawful immigration status, nor does it provide a path to obtaining permanent residence or citizenship. Grants of deferred action under the proposed programs would, rather, represent DHS’s decision not to seek an alien’s removal for a prescribed period of time.’
…
‘As a general rule, when Congress vests enforcement authority in an executive agency, that agency has the discretion to decide whether a particular violation of the law warrants prosecution or other enforcement action. This discretion is rooted in the President’s constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, and it reflects a recognition that the “faithful[]” execution of the law does not necessarily entail “act[ing] against each technical violation of the statute” that an agency is charged with enforcing. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). Rather, as the Supreme Court explained in Chaney, the decision whether to initiate enforcement proceedings is a complex judgment that calls on the agency to “balanc[e] . . . a number of factors which are
peculiarly within its expertise.” Id. These factors include “whether agency resources are best spent on this violation or another, whether the agency is likely to succeed if it acts, whether the particular enforcement action requested best fits the agency’s overall policies, and . . . whether the agency has enough resources to undertake the action at all.”’
maybe someone should send this to Faux Noise
p.s. I am quite insulted at being called a ‘lackey’, which is a GS-12; I have taken the appropriate tests an have been certified a ‘minion’, which is a GS-17.
November 23, 2014 at 7:38 pm #819674
captainDaveParticipantJanS: The issue that many people have with Obama is the degree of his lawless behavior (and the willingness for congress to go along with it). Here are a few of the many articles that indicate a more than minor problem at the federal level:
http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/31/is-the-president-incompetent-or-lawless
This is why I made this post. If our federal government no longer follows the constitution, the only recourse left is to invoke article V. Here is some information on the use of Article V: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
As you can see, no state constitutional convention has ever been conducted. However, on numerous occasions, Article V was used by state legislatures to incentivize Congress to do the right things–a couple times in recent decades to coming within one or two states of calling a convention.
dobro: Yes. Departure from constitutional governance is a problem of our congressional leadership as well as Obama–as was pointed out in my earlier post. I appreciate your conviction to your party. However, please take a look at this issue on a holistic non-partisan basis. Realize that this country is made up of people with all sorts of different convictions. It is imperative that our constitutional process is maintained so that people can continue to freely have discourse.
miws: Yes. There seems to be very consorted efforts to divide and conquer the people of this country. Pretty much what is prescribed in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. (This is a good book for any of you hard-liners on here who love the idea of living in old soviet society)
metrognome: You are getting lost in the weeds of judicial legalese and not paying attention to the overall constitutional issue. We have (or had) three branches of government. Are you advocating that the federal government become some sort of a judicial parliament?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.