Dem. Rep. Nadler Calls Obama Absolute Monarch

[marshabar1]

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

Good speech.

[billisonboard]

At 1:56 of the video in the OP, the following statement is made:

"The power of the presidency, and I am not talking about this president, ...

The true issue is this:

Imperial Presidency is a term that became popular in the 1960s and that served as the title of a 1973 volume by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. to describe the modern presidency of the United States. The author wrote The Imperial Presidency out of two concerns; first that the US Presidency was out of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded the constitutional limits.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Presidency

Amplified here:

"On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this Administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any President has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools." — John Nichols www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

At the PBS link is a video in which there is a great discussion of the issue.

Too frequently, this issue is only seen through a partisan lens. The statement by Rep. Nadler is excellent. He indicates important understanding of the problem with his statement quoted above that it is "the presidency" not "this president". It is an issue that needs to be addressed. I think that the Libya situation is an excellent one for the Congress to take back some of the control that is constitutionally theirs. The House passing a bill that would require the President to cease and desist and requiring that he come to Congress for authorization is the action I believe should be taken. If President Obama fails to honor such a bill (regardless of any action or lack thereof by the Senate), the House should proceed with impeachment hearings.

[privateinvestor]

Bills don't you think you are spitting hairs again..if you listen to Nadler's speech on the floor of the House it is readily apparent he it indeed talking about Obama with the incursion into Libya by NATO forces including the USA; although he is careful for poltical reasons not to use his name..

[marshabar1]

Jun 24, 2011 18:30:43 GMT -5 Mad Dawg Wiccan said:

Good speech.

I agree.

[billisonboard]

Jun 24, 2011 21:31:39 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

Bills don't you think you are spitting hairs again..if you listen to Nadler's speech on the floor of the House it is readily apparent he it indeed talking about Obama with the incursion into Libya by NATO forces including the USA; although he is careful for poltical reasons not to use his name..

Nadler is clearly talking about Obama's actions. Obama, as the current president, is the individual engaging in actions conforming to the concept of an "imperial presidency" at this point in time. Prior to January 20th, 2009 when he was inaugurated, George Bush was the individual who was engaging in such activity. My link talks about how his actions were examples of the imperial presidency. This article: www.associatedcontent.com/article/245717/imperial_presidency_a_definition_.html?cat=37 suggests that you can go back to FDR.

Making it simply an "Obama" issue is not productive. Nadler shows a great understanding of this at 1:56 of the video in the OP. Congress needs to reassert its authority independent of who the individual is that occupies the White House.

[privateinvestor]

Making it simply an "Obama" issue is not productive. Nadler shows a great understanding of this at 1:56 of the video in the OP. Congress needs to reassert its authority independent of who the individual is that occupies the White House.

C'mon now Bills don't you think that this is an Obama issue with the congress?? In case you forgot Dennis "the menace" Kucinich is so ticked off at Obama he wants to sue him and Nancy Pelosi had to keep Kucinich from taking to the floor of the House to begin impeachment proceedings..

Making it an "Obama" issue is what this is all about in case you missed the news for the past few days ..Congress sent Obama a strong message with this vote....get out of Libya ASAP or funding will be cut off for that war....so you guessed it... deal with it..

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I actually agree with the assessment that this isn't simply an Obama issue. This idea of "executive order" as "royal decree" has been a problem for several administrations.

[hello fromWarsaw]

Whateverrrr. Obama is the adult here, tries to do what is right for the country and the world. Congress is PURE politics, especially the GD pubs...And he has done a lot of good things, despite their blind stupid opposition.

[billisonboard]

Jun 24, 2011 22:16:14 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

C'mon now Bills don't you think ...

Yes, I do. I have actually thought a great deal about the issue of the imperial presidency. I think that President Obama has handed to Congress a perfect opportunity to do something constructive about this problem of the imbalance in the power between the executive and legislative branches.

[billisonboard]

Jun 24, 2011 23:15:51 GMT -5 hello fromWarsaw said:

Whateverrrr. Obama is the adult here, tries to do what is right for the country and the world. Congress is PURE politics, especially the GD pubs...And he has done a lot of good things, despite their blind stupid opposition.

AND he overstepped his constitutional authority with his actions in regards to Libya.

[hello fromWarsaw]

Well he had 60 days to do what he wanted, and I don't think our people are involved in "hostilities" anymore. And no one is on the ground at all. And hee isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before.
If he HAD gotten authorization, I believe he could have. In the future, I see your point. But you DO know the pubs are FOS and would do much worse in his position, and have?

[billisonboard]

Jun 24, 2011 23:59:38 GMT -5 hello fromWarsaw said:

...
If he HAD gotten authorization, I believe he could have. In the future, I see your point. ...

That was what made it especially egregious.

[hello fromWarsaw]

No, he had to stop "hostilities" after 60 days, and did. AND this rule has been broken before. MUCH worse. NOT EGREGIOUS, didn't even break the rule, VERY arguably... Some Dems losing it here, and of course many Pubs just off the wall hypocritical.

[Deleted]

War-- do you really believe hostilities have ceased, or that we are not involved? Really??

thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/24/exclusive_top_us_admiral_admits_we_are_trying_to_kill_qaddafi


Exclusive: Top U.S. admiral admits we are trying to kill Qaddafi
Posted By Josh Rogin Friday, June 24, 2011

The top U.S. admiral involved in the Libya war admitted to a U.S. congressman that NATO forces are trying to kill Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. The same admiral also said he anticipated the need for ground troops in Libya after Qaddafi falls, according to the lawmaker.

House Armed Services Committee member Mike Turner (R-OH) told The Cable that U.S. Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of the NATO Joint Operations Command in Naples, Italy, told him last month that NATO forces are actively targeting and trying to kill Qaddafi, despite the fact that the Obama administration continues to insist that "regime change" is not the goal and is not authorized by the U.N. mandate authorizing the war.

"The U.N. authorization had three components: blockade, no fly zone, and civil protection. And Admiral Locklear explained that the scope of civil protection was being interpreted to permit the removal of the chain of command of Qaddafi's military, which includes Qaddafi," Turner said. "He said that currently is the mission as NATO has defined."

"I believed that we were [targeting Qaddafi] but that confirmed it," Turner said. "I believe the scope that NATO is pursuing is beyond what is contemplated in civil protection, so they're exceeding the mission."

Later in the same briefing, Turner said, Locklear maintained that the NATO mission does not include regime change. "Well, certainly if you remove Qaddafi it will affect regime change," Turner said that he replied. "[Locklear] did not have an answer to that."

Locklear also said that, upon Qaddafi's removal, ground troops would be needed during the immediate period of instability, Turner said. In fact, Locklear said publicly that a "small force" might be necessary following the collapse of the Qaddafi regime in a May 30 conference in Varna, Bulgaria.

Turner joined hundreds of other lawmakers in voting against authorizing the Libya war on Friday morning. The authorization resolution was defeated 123 to 297. A subsequent vote on a bill to defund the Libya mission also failed 180-238 .

Turner has been opposed to the Libya war from the start and even introduced a resolution opposing the effort. For him, Friday's chaotic Libya debate was a direct result of the administration's neglect and disrespect of Congress throughout the debate over the mission.

"The president hasn't come to Congress and said any of this, and yet Admiral Locklear is pursuing the targeting of Qaddafi's regime, Qaddafi himself, and contemplating ground troops following Qaddafi's removal," Turner said. "They're not being straightforward with Congress... It's outrageous."

Ignoring Congress allowed the administration to ignore the large, looming questions about the Libya war that congressmen are asking -- especially today, as another vote to defund the mission looms before the House next month, when the defense appropriations bill is set to be debated. But if the House does vote to defund the mission, Turner said, Obama will have nobody to blame but himself.

"I believe that this administration has handled this so badly, that if they had come to Congress, I think they would have done more of their homework. They have not done a full assessment of their mission, its scope, or the consequences if they're successful. Congress would have required that," Turner said. "Now it's a little late."

[privateinvestor]

Jun 24, 2011 23:44:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 24, 2011 22:16:14 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

C'mon now Bills don't you think ...

Yes, I do. I have actually thought a great deal about the issue of the imperial presidency. I think that President Obama has handed to Congress a perfect opportunity to do something constructive about this problem of the imbalance in the power between the executive and legislative branches.

I don't care how you try to spin the two votes only hours apart but I think Congress signaled what we in the rest of the country think about Obama who doesn't have broad support for the attacks on Libya. I agree with some it is hard to leave Libya without serious consequences. This was a direct slap at Obama who badly mishandled his duties to find backing for the Libyan fighting as required by the War Powers Act passed in 1973

You don't have to be an attorney to know that Obama had to seek congressional approval within 60 days of starting hostilities in Libya.

Obama's excuse it was not real hostilities since there are not any troops in Libya doesn't pass the smell test..IMHO

[billisonboard]

Jun 25, 2011 9:17:49 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

Jun 24, 2011 23:44:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Yes, I do. I have actually thought a great deal about the issue of the imperial presidency. I think that President Obama has handed to Congress a perfect opportunity to do something constructive about this problem of the imbalance in the power between the executive and legislative branches.

... This was a direct slap at Obama who badly mishandled his duties to find backing for the Libyan fighting as required by the War Powers Act passed in 1973

You don't have to be an attorney to know that Obama had to seek congressional approval within 60 days of starting hostilities in Libya.

Obama's excuse it was not real hostilities since there are not any troops in Libya doesn't pass the smell test..IMHO

I fully agree with that HO. I just see it as a piece of a bigger issue than Obama/Libya. I am very concerned about what the next president will do if this president is allowed to get away with this military involvement.

[privateinvestor]

What you die hard Obama fans and Liberals fail to address is that their candidate Mr Obama blasted President Bush for acting alone in launching overseas attacks and demeaned Bush for his lofty view of presidential power yet here he is doing much the same...his excuse he made some calls and thinks Libya is just a limited role for the USA....and then goes back to campaigning or playing more golf..

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

People in both parties pay lip service to the Constitution when it may be construed as obstructing their opponents politically. However, as a practical matter both parties simply ignore it and do as they please. Few people in either party- practically nobody in the Democratic Party, and maybe a handful of Republicans have any real respect for the Constitution.

Republicans talk about reforming entitlements. But I can only think of two, and there may possibly be more- elected Republicans that will acknowledge entitlements are illegal to start with. They are authorized NOWHERE in the Constitution. Now, some people woud erroneously argue that there's a "general welfare" clause, but this argument is patently false. The justices that interpreted the Constitution this way should have been impeached and removed from the bench.

The general welfare clause which has been deliberately expanded well beyond anything the founders contemplated reads, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to … provide for the … general Welfare of the United States". The reason for the explicit power to 'lay and collect taxes' was necessary because it was widely believed Congress had no such authority and without the power to raise funds, government couldn't carry out it's limited duties-- one of which was to 'provide for the general welfare'. But what did "welfare" mean? It meant GENERAL- that's what it meant. It means what the Constitution says: everything "general welfare" is describes, and limited by Article I, Section 8.

The founders and in particular the man widely regarded as the "Father of the US Constitution" James Madison said concerning the alleged 'general welfare clause' had this to say, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

Thomas Jefferson, the most widely quoted founder by the left, though they'll never quote him on his thoughts on general welfare:

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "
-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 17:380

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 2:221

[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.
-- James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 6, 1788, Elliot's Debates (in the American Memory collection of the Library of Congress)

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the 4th resolution.
-- James Madison, Proposing Bill of Rights to House, June 8, 1789


So, in short both sides should cut the bullshit. Nobody in either party is really interested in the Constitution. They all-- Republicans and Democrats alike have nothing short of utter contempt for the Constitution, and the people that Document represents and was written to protect.

[marshabar1]

So, in short both sides should cut the bullshit. Nobody in either party is really interested in the Constitution. They all-- Republicans and Democrats alike have nothing short of utter contempt for the Constitution, and the people that Document represents and was written to protect.