2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

[joecct]

Replace "what the president wants" with "what the majority of voters want" and you have a more intellectually honest question.

Watch what happens this week.

[LynahFan]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Watch what happens this week.

You mean after Obama implements a few common-sense measures that Congress should have passed years ago and that 90% of the population would agree with, but a vocal, minuscule special interest group spins them as bordering on treason?

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

You mean after Obama implements a few common-sense measures that Congress should have passed years ago and that 90% of the population would agree with, but a vocal, minuscule special interest group spins them as bordering on treason?

Most actual workaday members of the interest group agree with them, too. It's just the industry lobby opposing them, and even they only do it in order to trigger panic buying to fatten their wallets.

It's a wonderful racket. I mean, except for all the needless deaths (the vast majority being the gun owners' own family members), but hey, gotta keep those profits rolling in.

[joecct]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

You mean after Obama implements a few common-sense measures that Congress should have passed years ago and that 90% of the population would agree with, but a vocal, minuscule special interest group spins them as bordering on treason?

It's the principle that a president can bypass the legislative to implement his personal wishes (if 90% of the populace agrees, then the Congress would have a different makeup). It's another step in tilting the balance way towards the Executive.

[GrinCDXX]

Why do you say that? Your insertion, I'd argue, of what the majority of voters want can't be verified if they're not asked directly. You're committing a logical fallacy. Ask the majority of voters, would they have wanted No Child Left Behind? What about ______ that President _____ implemented?

Presidents have long had a history of initiating projects or making various decisions that were terribly unpopular. Those decisions might've been the best route for the country to take, but it wasn't necessarily the electorate's will.

Polls have shown the vast majority of respondents favor expanded background checks. From what I understand, that is what the president is planning.

[GrinCDXX]

Watch what happens this week.

I don't have to. A vocal minority will scream bloody murder.

[GrinCDXX]

It's the principle that a president can bypass the legislative to implement his personal wishes (if 90% of the populace agrees, then the Congress would have a different makeup). It's another step in tilting the balance way towards the Executive.

You're suggesting that the makeup of congress is a simple referendum on a single issue?

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

(if 90% of the populace agrees, then the Congress would have a different makeup).

A complete b.s. remark and your're smarter than this.

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

US citizens want more gun control than what Obama is proposing...by a long shot.

Here's the focus of the Obama gun control approach:

Gun control advocates and White House officials say the focus remains on the so-called "gun show loophole," which allows certain sellers of guns -- at gun shows and elsewhere -- to avoid conducting background checks before making sales. Congress would still need to act in order to make background checks fully universal. But advocates and administration lawyers have struck upon a provision in the law that could allow for Obama to expand the background check requirement to additional sellers. Federal law currently requires all individuals "engaged in the business" of selling guns to obtain a license and conduct background checks on buyers. But others who only make occasional sales or are selling firearms from a personal collection are exempted from the background check requirement.

Here's a poll on current public opinion:

Currently, 85% of Americans – including large majorities of Democrats (88%) and Republicans (79%) – favor expanded background checks, little changed from May 2013 (81%). Almost identical shares of Republicans (81%) and Democrats (79%) support laws to prevent the mentally ill from buying guns. But other proposals are more divisive: 85% of Democrats favor creation of a database for the federal government to track gun sales, compared with 55% of Republicans. And while 70% of Democrats back an assault-weapons ban, only about half of Republicans (48%) favor this proposal. due to 'no opinion results', even more Republicans support an assault weapons ban than reject it

http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/...-on-gun-sales/

[joecct]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Guys

It's not the gun control, which may be a good thing, it is the usurpation of the powers of the legislative branch by the executive branch.

It's not a recent thing, either. Congress is too often delegating what the effect of a law is by letting the executive branch make rules to explain/enforce the law.

If this keeps up, the effectiveess of Congress will me marginalized to zero. Then we have a mess.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Guys

It's not the gun control, which may be a good thing, it is the usurpation of the powers of the legislative branch by the executive branch.

It's not a recent thing, either. Congress is too often delegating what the effect of a law is by letting the executive branch make rules to explain/enforce the law.

If this keeps up, the effectiveess of Congress will me marginalized to zero. Then we have a mess.

The thing is, it's not a usurpation. Congress has given up its authority because they want to CYA on any issue that is even remotely controversial. If you're looking for villains, Congress is every bit as complicit in the breakdown of the balance of powers.

[joecct]

The thing is, it's not a usurpation. Congress has given up its authority because they want to CYA on any issue that is even remotely controversial. If you're looking for villains, Congress is every bit as complicit in the breakdown of the balance of powers.

Didn't my 2nd paragraph blame the Congre$$?

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Didn't my 2nd paragraph blame the Congre$$?

It did. I'm just saying that it isn't so much the executive and the legislature locked in a tug of war and the executive winning than it is the originally conceived balance of power getting pulled out of shape because Congress has a perverse incentive to relinquish their responsibilities, not only because they duck criticism, but also because they can then hypocritically double back and blame it on "executive overreach."

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

This is so frustrating.

I may have mentioned in the past that Seinfeld sucks. And Seinfeld does, indeed, suck. But that's fantastic.

[unofan]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Guys

It's not the gun control, which may be a good thing, it is the usurpation of the powers of the legislative branch by the executive branch.

It's not a recent thing, either. Congress is too often delegating what the effect of a law is by letting the executive branch make rules to explain/enforce the law.

If this keeps up, the effectiveess of Congress will me marginalized to zero. Then we have a mess.

That's not usurpation by the executive, that's abdication by Congress.