What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

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

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

Kepler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

joecct said:
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
Click to expand...

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

Kepler said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Kepler said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

busterman62 said:
Hmmmm
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Bob Gray said:
But, I forgot, you're pro big government, so you like them mandating things to us.
Click to expand...

Like voter ID, constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, overturning Roe, religious curriculum in public schools...
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Slap Shot said:
Like voter ID, constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, overturning Roe, religious curriculum in public schools...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Slap Shot said:
Like voter ID, constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, overturning Roe, religious curriculum in public schools...
Click to expand...

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

Slap Shot said:
Like voter ID, constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, overturning Roe, religious curriculum in public schools...
Click to expand...
State issues, not federal. And when it comes to the voters, gay marriage is below the Mendoza Line.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Kepler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

unofan said:
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).
Click to expand...
We all understand a president can do this; the entire argument is whether a president ought to do this. Same as with signing statements.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Kepler said:
We all understand a president can do this; the entire argument is whether a president ought to do this. Same as with signing statements.
Click to expand...

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

FlagDUDE08 said:
You thought No Child Left Behind was bad... http://www.aim.org/special-report/t...l-ayers-and-obamas-federal-school-curriculum/
Click to expand...

You always have to dump an article when its author heads up an organization to designed to fight 'anti Americanism'.

Lets take a look at this program...and boy does it look bad...from that horribly biased wikipedia:

Race to the Top, abbreviated R2T, RTTT or RTT, is a $4.35 billion United States Department of Education contest created to spur innovation and reforms in state and local district K-12 education.

State applications for funding were scored on selection criteria worth a total of 500 points. In order of weight, the criteria were[1]:

Great Teachers and Leaders (138 total points) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance (58 points)
Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals (25 points)
Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals (21 points)
Providing effective support to teachers and principals (20 points)
Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs (14 points)

State Success Factors (125 total points) Articulating State's education reform agenda and LEAs' participation in it (65 points)
Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain proposed plans (30 points)
Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing gaps (30 points)

Standards and Assessments (70 total points) Developing and adopting common standards (from the Common Core State Standards Initiative) (40 points)
Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality assessments (20 points)
Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments (10 points)

General Selection Criteria (55 total points) Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charters and other innovative schools (40 points)
Making education funding a priority (10 points)
Demonstrating other significant reform conditions (5 points)

Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools (50 total points) Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (40 points)
Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs (10 points)

Data Systems to Support Instruction (47 total points) Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system (24 points)
Using data to improve instruction (18 points)
Accessing and using State data (5 points)
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Sounds nice, but should the federal government make decisions on the effectiveness of local education?

I know, it's for the children!
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

joecct said:
Sounds nice, but should the federal government make decisions on the effectiveness of local education?

I know, it's for the children!
Click to expand...

The federal government making any decision like that is a step towards socialism. It failed in Russia. It's failing in Europe. Those who do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top