Obama's Use of Executive Power

[Phoenix84]

Here's an interesting article on Obama's increasing use of executive power to bypass duly elected officials under his banner "we can't afford to wait."

"One Saturday last fall, President Obama interrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue not on the agenda. He declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism."

“We had been attempting to highlight the inability of Congress to do anything,” recalled William M. Daley, who was the White House chief of staff at the time. “The president expressed frustration, saying we have got to scour everything and push the envelope in finding things we can do on our own.”

"For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals."

"But increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts “We Can’t Wait,” a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies — on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more."

One of my favorites...

“Even someone who has studied the Constitution and holds it in high regard — he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the polls crucially depend upon action.”

Obama.... respect for the constitution....


But in all seriousness, I find it alarming and quite scary that Obama is becoming more and more like a despotic dictator than a president. I realize that Bush was no saint in this regard either, but how can we continue to ignore his abuses of power, and ever increasingly bold efforts to shift the balance of power to the presidency?

What also bothers me is the Republicans are playing to his political games and letting him get away with it because they don't want to be portrayed by Obama as "obstructionists." What do they think we elected them to do, if not to stop Obama's radical agendas? In fact, they're pissing off their conservative base precisely BECAUSE they are ineffective at stopping the president. If they really cared about getting re elected, they'd stop the bat shit crazy legislation and executive orders from this regime.

[billisonboard]

"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

"The founding fathers expected an executive who tried to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch... They [Congress] have basically renounced — walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check." — Bruce Fein

www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

Imperial Presidency 101 - Unitary Executive Theory and the Imperial Presidency
civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/p/imperial101.htm

As long as this viewed in terms of abuse of power by President "X", instead of a long term growth in the imbalance of power between the legislative and executive branches, nothing will be done about it.

[Virgil Showlion]

How does Pres. Obama actively seeking out ways to circumvent Congress constitute them "walk[ing] away from their responsibility to oversee and check"?

The enduring criticism is that Congress is doing anything and everything in its power to obstruct the man. I find it hard to believe that the House isn't exercising every last bit of "overseeing and checking" it possibly can on any agenda items the two parties don't have in common.

Billis is right when he states the problem is chronic, progressive, and systemic rather than limited to Pres. Obama. But to see Obama actively, openly seeking to circumvent Congress as part of his executive strategy is unsettling to say the least, and we've witnessed several dark milestones during his first term (the invasions of Libya and Syria being prime examples).

[billisonboard]

Apr 23, 2012 9:05:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

... But ....

yeah

[Virgil Showlion]

Yeah, I know. :-\ Let's call it the pre-invasion of Syria, where Sec. Clinton brokers a half-dozen token ceasefires that last sixteen hours apiece, declares the US has "no other option", and gasses up the choppers.

At least we can be thankful TPTB still pay due respect to theatrical diplomacy.

And "yet" being the operative word, since I'll eat my hat if US troops aren't walking Syrian streets by this time next year—whether you or Congress like it or not.

[billisonboard]

Apr 23, 2012 8:45:29 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

...

As long as this viewed in terms of abuse of power by President "X", instead of a long term growth in the imbalance of power between the legislative and executive branches, nothing will be done about it.

Less than one half hour.

[floridayankee]

"For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals."

Imagine that. Do as I say, not as I do!!

Just one more piece of evidence to prove that there isn't a damned bit of difference between D and R these days. Of course, both sides agree that it is necessary when their side does it and an impeachable offense when the other side does it.

[Virgil Showlion]

The slide has to be spearheaded by somebody, Bills. Pres. Obama happens to be that man right now, and he happens to be the one aggressively pushing the imbalance in the wrong direction.

If you contest that fact, by all means let us know.

If you feel that criticism of Obama's "We Can't Wait" campaign is a bad idea, let us know. If you feel isn't isn't a reasonable front on which to wage war against creeping executive powers, let us know.

And certainly, if you suggest a better approach to curtailing executive powers rather than firing off sanctimonious one-liners, I'm sure we would all appreciate it.

[billisonboard]

Apr 23, 2012 9:43:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The slide has to be spearheaded by somebody, Bills. Pres. Obama happens to be that man right now, and he happens to be the one aggressively pushing the imbalance in the wrong direction.

If you contest that fact, by all means let us know.

If you feel that criticism of Obama's "We Can't Wait" campaign is a bad idea, let us know.

That is one issue. Great political debate. Have fun.

If you feel isn't isn't a reasonable front on which to wage war against creeping executive powers, let us know.

And certainly, if you suggest a better approach to curtailing executive powers rather than firing off sanctimonious one-liners, I'm sure we would all appreciate it.

Now, on the "chronic, progressive, and systemic rather than limited to Pres. Obama" issue of the imbalance between the legislative and the executive branch: I think discussing the issue of the "imperial presidency" instead of boots and hats would be a better approach. Drawing examples of presidential abuse of power from multiple administrations would help. Another useful thing would be sticking to actual examples and not guessing how any particular president "will" abuse power in the future.

[Virgil Showlion]

Another useful thing would be sticking to actual examples and not guessing how any particular president "will" abuse power in the future.

Fair enough.

Pres. Bush pushed the envelope, but he largely had the support of Congress for his funny business. If you want to go back to Pres. Clinton, be my guest.

Personally, I think a worthy battle to fight is "No War without a Supermajority". "No war" meaning no missile strikes, no arms deals, no boots on the ground, no armed drones in the air, no troops or heavy equipment buildups at the border, no forward bases twenty miles from the border.

If a country is worth bombing and shelling back into the stone age, this fact should be evident to at least two thirds of Congress. A bill absolutely denying the executive branch automatic permission to invade, pre-invade, bomb, or otherwise attack the infrastructure of a hostile nation, would be an excellent start to curtailing executive powers.

And with any luck, the bill would be passed before Obama, Romney, or whoever committed to marching into Iran.

[billisonboard]

Apr 23, 2012 10:24:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Another useful thing would be sticking to actual examples and not guessing how any particular president "will" abuse power in the future.

Fair enough.
...
And with any luck, the bill would be passed before Obama, Romney, or whoever committed to marching into Iran.

[deziloooooo]

"What do they think we elected them to do, if not to stop Obama's radical agendas? In fact, they're pissing off their conservative base precisely BECAUSE they are ineffective at stopping the president. "

Methinks your one of the conservative base who is so pissed off, according to you. Why would you think that the POTUS would be concerned about how you feel on legislation..he knows how you feel and it is anti anything he might propose..

As far as using executive privileges, when the opposition blocks and stalls any legislation, even appointee's that are needed , and doing o because of political reasons not questionable reasons of the suitability of a appointee that would be examined in hearings before the appointment was or was not confirmed, they are and continue to do so..then it behooves a POTUS to look for alternative ways to govern, all legal, all been done by other POTUS in the past..

This you seem to not understand or if understand , not wanting to examine truthfully..more sour grapes on your part..

If so, get over it, suck it up would be my suggestion...

[deziloooooo]

Apr 23, 2012 9:05:52 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

How does Pres. Obama actively seeking out ways to circumvent Congress constitute them "walk[ing] away from their responsibility to oversee and check"?

The enduring criticism is that Congress is doing anything and everything in its power to obstruct the man. I find it hard to believe that the House isn't exercising every last bit of "overseeing and checking" it possibly can on any agenda items the two parties don't have in common.

Billis is right when he states the problem is chronic, progressive, and systemic rather than limited to Pres. Obama. But to see Obama actively, openly seeking to circumvent Congress as part of his executive strategy is unsettling to say the least, and we've witnessed several dark milestones during his first term (the invasions of Libya and Syria being prime examples).

Seems we were a minor partner in Libya and to feel anything of guilt for the fall and IMHO the subsequent death of Qaddafi , the man who ordered the bombings of night clubs in Germany..American lives targeted and taken there..also the subsequent bombing of the Airliner..the hugh civilian deaths there, forgetting his own record toward his own people..and his support of other terrorist training camps that graduates of were then sent around the world to do their work of indiscriminate killings..to complain about that IMHO makes no sense..in fact that one of the main perps in this finally got his comeuppance is fine by me, about time..just because he paid compensation , not sure if he ever really apologized..well I didn't accept it then and not now either..never felt the payoff got him off the hook actually..

since when did we invade Syria..??

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 23, 2012 10:38:40 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 23, 2012 10:24:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Fair enough.
...
And with any luck, the bill would be passed before Obama, Romney, or whoever committed to marching into Iran.

I don't consider that "guessing".

Or maybe it is, but it's tantamount to "guessing" that it will rain in New York sometime in 2012.

Syria—I don't know. They might stay out of Syria.

But not Iran. Like it or not, you guys are going into Iran. Sorry to have to be the one to tell you.

since when did we invade Syria..??

My guess is fall 2012. That is a guess.

Patience, my friend. Patience.

[Virgil Showlion]

It's not a joke. Canadians sent jets into Libya for missile strikes and air support. We're spending billions on upgrading our fighters and bombers.

A dollar spent razing Arab cities to pave the way for Islamic "republics" is a dollar well spent. We could've wasted it on hospitals, lowering tuition costs, environmental cleanup initiatives, research grants, and other useless crap.

[floridayankee]

Apr 23, 2012 13:48:19 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

But that is really my point. If we go in, you probably will be as well. Why stop starting wars just because we can't afford them? We've been on this crazy tear since Bush invaded Iraq 1775, at least , when France and the Netherlands (mostly) financed our Revolutionary War. War is Peace, you know.

Fixed that for you Dem. You were off by a couple years there.

[Phoenix84]

Bills is right, this didn't start with Obama, as the article stated, but what's most troubling is he's made it a cornerstone of his executive process. As much as we hate the "obstructionist" system, it was designed that way by the founders of this country. It was so one person or party couldn't dominate national policy. But now when the president enc outers "checks and balances" now it's "obstructionist" to getting things done and he increases his power. Now instead of dealing with the opposing party, the party in power just wants to bypass them altogether and enact their agenda. And both parties do this.

This is serious stuff, how long until a current or future president decides to suspend elections "for the good of the country" or moves to restrict free speech?

[Phoenix84]

"If a country is worth bombing and shelling back into the stone age, this fact should be evident to at least two thirds of Congress. A bill absolutely denying the executive branch automatic permission to invade, pre-invade, bomb, or otherwise attack the infrastructure of a hostile nation, would be an excellent start to curtailing executive powers."

I agree with this. And I think trying to restore the balance of power between the branches is a fight worth having.

I also find this ironic after Obama has touted that the Supreme court could take the "unprecedented" step of overturning a bill passed by congress, then turn around and try to bypass congress as part of his strategy. The guy's a total political chameleon, he'll say whatever seems appropriate at the time.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 23, 2012 16:57:49 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"If a country is worth bombing and shelling back into the stone age, this fact should be evident to at least two thirds of Congress. A bill absolutely denying the executive branch automatic permission to invade, pre-invade, bomb, or otherwise attack the infrastructure of a hostile nation, would be an excellent start to curtailing executive powers."

I agree with this. And I think trying to restore the balance of power between the branches is a fight worth having.

I also find this ironic after Obama has touted that the Supreme court could take the "unprecedented" step of overturning a bill passed by congress, then turn around and try to bypass congress as part of his strategy. The guy's a total political chameleon, he'll say whatever seems appropriate at the time.

that doesn't really distinguish Obama at all. every president since Truman has usurped congressional control in terms of making war, and none has been called out for it. i actually blame congress for that. if the first time it happened, the president was IMPEACHED, then none that followed would have dared cross that line.

[gavinsnana]

I recall Bush doing this and got hammered for it.. So, where's that hammer now?

[floridayankee]

Here you go nana...