Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

    Originally posted by Kepler View Post
    I think the last sentence is the biggee. The growth of the imperial powers of the executive over the last 50 years is a direct result of Congress shirking their responsibilities. Of course each branch will push for more power, but the Founders designed a system of government where the other two branches can push right back. The primary problem has been Congress stopped pushing. I don't mean for specific policies -- they still push just as hard against the executive for those -- but to protect their sphere of powers. They were complicit in the growth of the imperial executive because it served their personal political interests. They covered their ass. And now they protest, "hey -- the executive is too powerful!" Well no shit, boys. Where were you when it mattered?

    This is something that completely cuts across party lines. Republican and Democratic executives have been too powerful, and Republican and Democratic legislatures have been too passive.
    So, is the only way to restore the balance is to elect a president who wants to do nothing and forces the Congress to do their thing? I can imagine the "news" organizations wondering what the heck is going on when the president at the inaugural address tells everyone that the administration's goal is to do nothing that is not spelled out in the Constitution. He/she then turns to the congressional leaders and says "You're supposed to govern, now do your job. Every regulation that comes out in the Federal Register will be approved by the Congress or it will not happen. I have a veto over your actions, you have one over mine."

    The medics would have to be called to the West Front to tend to the heart attacks and fainting spells
    CCT '77 & '78
    4 kids
    5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
    1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

    ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
    - Benjamin Franklin

    Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

    I want to live forever. So far, so good.

    Comment


    • Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

      Originally posted by joecct View Post
      So, is the only way to restore the balance is to elect a president who wants to do nothing and forces the Congress to do their thing? I can imagine the "news" organizations wondering what the heck is going on when the president at the inaugural address tells everyone that the administration's goal is to do nothing that is not spelled out in the Constitution. He/she then turns to the congressional leaders and says "You're supposed to govern, now do your job. Every regulation that comes out in the Federal Register will be approved by the Congress or it will not happen. I have a veto over your actions, you have one over mine."

      The medics would have to be called to the West Front to tend to the heart attacks and fainting spells
      The only way that could possibly happen is if an ideologue (for once I use that non-disparagingly) like Ron Paul was elected. I can imagine him saying, "my job is to lead the country, not write the laws." But I think even Paul would engage in a type of abuse if he vetoed a law on the grounds of Unconstitutionality. That's not his job, it's the Court's. He can veto a law for any other reason you can name -- he can say the number of words in the title is unlucky (I guarantee this has happened at least once in an Asian country; those people are weird). And then if Congress overrides the veto he must enforce the law with an equal weight to any other.

      That's the way it's s'pposed to be.
      Cornell University
      National Champion 1967, 1970
      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

      Comment


      • Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

        Originally posted by Kepler View Post
        The only way that could possibly happen is if an ideologue (for once I use that non-disparagingly) like Ron Paul was elected. I can imagine him saying, "my job is to lead the country, not write the laws." But I think even Paul would engage in a type of abuse if he vetoed a law on the grounds of Unconstitutionality. That's not his job, it's the Court's. He can veto a law for any other reason you can name -- he can say the number of words in the title is unlucky (I guarantee this has happened at least once in an Asian country; those people are weird). And then if Congress overrides the veto he must enforce the law with an equal weight to any other.

        That's the way it's s'pposed to be.
        IIRC, the only reason that Presidents prior to Andrew Jackson vetoed a law was that they thought it was unconstitutional. I could see (no I couldn't) a president vetoing a bill because it was an unwarranted intrusion of federal power upon the states.
        CCT '77 & '78
        4 kids
        5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
        1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

        ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
        - Benjamin Franklin

        Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

        I want to live forever. So far, so good.

        Comment


        • Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

          Originally posted by Kepler View Post
          But I think even Paul would engage in a type of abuse if he vetoed a law on the grounds of Unconstitutionality. That's not his job, it's the Court's.
          But Mr. Obama also signaled that he intended to use signing statements himself if Congress sent him legislation with provisions he decided were unconstitutional. He promised to take a modest approach when using the statements, legal documents issued by a president the day he signs bills into law that instruct executive officials how to put the statutes into effect. But Mr. Obama said there was a role for the practice if used appropriately.

          In exercising my responsibility to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded,” Mr. Obama wrote in a memorandum to the heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch.
          Hmmmm
          "I'm not crazy about reality, but it's still the only place to get a decent meal."
          Groucho Marx
          "You can't fix stupid. There's not a pill you can take; there's not a class you can go to. Stupid is forever. "
          Ron White
          "If we stop being offensive, the Terrorists win."
          Milo Bloom

          Comment


          • Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

            Originally posted by busterman62 View Post
            Hmmmm
            I agree completely. Constitutionality is not the President's call.

            If Congress had yarbles they would override the veto (even if they didn't have a super-majority actually in favor of the law) in order to protect their rights. Then a challenge to the law would be brought and the Court would make the call.

            Edit: I read too fast. In the case of signing statements I have no idea what Congress can do about it. I think it would be appropriate for somebody with standing to bring suit concerning the differential enforcement of the law and have the Court in effect overrule the signing statement and order the president to enforce the law.

            The better, long term solution is to ban signing statements. Since the executive will never do that willingly, and I guess signing statements as a concept have survived Court scrutiny, it could be remedied via Amendment. But the more likely way is by showering shame upon any executive who uses it for other than some sort of benign procedural purpose.

            Fun fact: who pioneered the modern abuse of signing statements? None other than that stalwart of strict construction, Sammy Alito.

            The upswing in the use of signing statements during the Reagan administration coincides with the writing by Samuel A. Alito — then a staff attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel — of a 1986 memorandum making the case for "interpretive signing statements" as a tool to "increase the power of the Executive to shape the law." Alito proposed adding signing statements to a "reasonable number of bills" as a pilot project, but warned that "Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation."[13]

            A November 3, 1993 memo from White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum explained the use of signing statements to object to potentially unconstitutional legislation:

            "If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority."[3]

            This same Department of Justice memorandum observed that use of Presidential signing statements to create legislative history for the use of the courts was uncommon before the Reagan and Bush Presidencies. In 1986, Attorney General Edwin Meese III entered into an arrangement with the West Publishing Company to have Presidential signing statements published for the first time in the U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, the standard collection of legislative history.
            Last edited by Kepler; 09-21-2012, 11:43 AM.
            Cornell University
            National Champion 1967, 1970
            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

            Comment


            • Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

              Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
              But, I forgot, you're pro big government, so you like them mandating things to us.
              Like voter ID, constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, overturning Roe, religious curriculum in public schools...

              Comment


              • Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

                Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
                Like voter ID, constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, overturning Roe, religious curriculum in public schools...
                74% in WAPO poll (including 65% of African Americans) and 70% in CBS/NYT poll don't find voter ID to be a huge barrier to voting. Why do you? I'm from Chicago, I know why I support voter ID. And these requirements are being passed by states, not Uncle Sugar.
                2011 Poser of the Year & Pulitzer Prize winning machine gunner.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
                  Like voter ID, constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, overturning Roe, religious curriculum in public schools...
                  Don't forget the manditory transvaginal ultrasounds....

                  It's only a big government mandate when it's something they don't agree with.
                  Last edited by ericredaxe; 09-21-2012, 08:21 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

                    Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
                    Like voter ID, constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, overturning Roe, religious curriculum in public schools...
                    State issues, not federal. And when it comes to the voters, gay marriage is below the Mendoza Line.
                    CCT '77 & '78
                    4 kids
                    5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                    1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                    ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                    - Benjamin Franklin

                    Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                    I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

                      Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                      The only way that could possibly happen is if an ideologue (for once I use that non-disparagingly) like Ron Paul was elected. I can imagine him saying, "my job is to lead the country, not write the laws." But I think even Paul would engage in a type of abuse if he vetoed a law on the grounds of Unconstitutionality. That's not his job, it's the Court's. He can veto a law for any other reason you can name -- he can say the number of words in the title is unlucky (I guarantee this has happened at least once in an Asian country; those people are weird). And then if Congress overrides the veto he must enforce the law with an equal weight to any other.

                      That's the way it's s'pposed to be.
                      Yeah, not so much. Presidents can veto for anything, including a belief its unconstitutional. The courts only gets involved once the law is a law (ie signed or overridden veto).

                      Comment


                      • Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

                        Originally posted by unofan View Post
                        Yeah, not so much. Presidents can veto for anything, including a belief its unconstitutional. The courts only gets involved once the law is a law (ie signed or overridden veto).
                        We all understand a president can do this; the entire argument is whether a president ought to do this. Same as with signing statements.
                        Cornell University
                        National Champion 1967, 1970
                        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                        Comment


                        • Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

                          Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                          We all understand a president can do this; the entire argument is whether a president ought to do this. Same as with signing statements.
                          I'd say it'd be wrong not to. If Congress passes a law which is clearly unconstitutional, the President should veto it if nothing else than to save the money wasted trying to enforce it and defend it in the courts.

                          The President has veto power. I don't really care why he uses it. Thinking a law is unconstitutional is among the better reasons in my mind.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

                            Originally posted by joecct View Post
                            State issues, not federal. And when it comes to the voters, gay marriage is below the Mendoza Line.
                            Mendoza's gay?
                            2011 Poser of the Year & Pulitzer Prize winning machine gunner.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

                              You thought No Child Left Behind was bad... http://www.aim.org/special-report/te...ol-curriculum/

                              Comment


                              • Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

                                Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
                                You thought No Child Left Behind was bad... http://www.aim.org/special-report/te...ol-curriculum/
                                I'm more scared of the dedication it takes to come up with that much stupid.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X