Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53

Thread: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

  1. #1
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    President Obama’s repeated use of presidential powers is causing a tough problem — his own supporters now expect him to use it to achieve everything they want.From immigration to the minimum wage, congressional Democrats and liberal activists this week urged Mr. Obama to declare an end run around Capitol Hill, assert executive authority and make as much progress as he can on the expansive agenda he laid out for his second term.


    Read more: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress - Washington Times
    Is the President digging himself a hole that even his own supporters will refuse to dig him out of? Consider Prof. Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor that has been a supporter, in his testimony before the Judiciary committee.

    Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and members of the Judiciary
    Committee, my name is Jonathan Turley and I am a law professor at George Washington
    University where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law. It
    is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the constitutional concerns raised by
    recent nonenforcement polices and the President’s duty to faithfully execute the law of
    the United States.

    The issue before the Committee is clearly a difficult one. It is often difficult to
    separate the merits of the underlying policies from the means used to achieve them. It so
    happens that I agree with many of the goals of the Administration in the various areas
    where the President has circumvented Congress. However, in the Madisonian system, it
    is often more important how you do things than what you do.
    We have long benefited
    from a system designed to channel and transform factional interests in the political
    system. When any branch encroaches upon the authority of another, it not only
    introduces instability into the system but leaves political issues raw and unresolved.

    However, to paraphrase one of Benjamin Franklin’s favorite sayings, the Constitution
    helps those branches that help themselves. Each branch is given the tools to defend itself
    and the Framers assumed that they would have the ambition and institutional self-interest
    to use them. That assumption is now being put to the test as many members remain silent
    in the face of open executive encroachment by the Executive Branch.


    While I believe that the White House has clearly “exceeded its brief” in these
    areas
    , this question of presidential nonenforcement has arisen periodically in our history.
    In the current controversy, the White House has suggested an array of arguments, citing
    the interpretation of statutory text, agency discretion, or other rationales to mask what is
    clearly a circumvention of Congress. It also appears to be relying on the expectation that
    no one will be able to secure standing to challenge such decisions in court.

    Finally, there is no question that the President as Chief Executive is allowed to set priorities of the
    administration and to determine the best way to enforce the law. People of good faith can
    clearly disagree on where the line is drawn over the failure to fully enforce federal laws.
    There is ample room given to a president in setting priorities in the enforcement of laws.
    A president is not required to enforce all laws equally or dedicate the same resources to
    every federal program.

    Even with this ample allowance, however, I believe that President Barack Obama has crossed the constitutional line between discretionary enforcement and defiance of federal law.

    Congress is given the defining function of creating and amending federal law. This is more than a turf fight between politicians. The division of governmental powers is designed to protect liberty by preventing the abusive concentration of power. All citizens –Democratic or Republican or Independent – should consider the inherent danger presented by a President who can unilaterally
    suspend laws as a matter of presidential license.


    In recent years, I have testified and written about the shift of power within our
    tripartite government toward a more Imperial Presidential model. Indeed, I last testified
    before this Committee on the assertion of President Obama that he could use the recess
    appointment power to circumvent the Senate during a brief intrasession recess.


    While I viewed those appointments to be facially unconstitutional under the language of Article I
    and II (a view later shared by two federal circuits), I was equally concerned about the
    overall expansion of unchecked presidential authority and the relative decline of
    legislative power in the modern American system. The recent nonenforcement policies
    add a particularly menacing element to this pattern. They effectively reduce the
    legislative process to a series of options for presidential selection ranging from negation
    to full enforcement. The Framers warned us of such a system and we accept it – either by
    acclaim or acquiescence – at our peril.


    The current claims of executive power will outlast this president and members
    must consider the implications of the precedent that they are now creating through
    inaction and silence. What if a future president decided that he or she did not like some
    environmental laws or anti-discrimination laws? Indeed, as discussed below, the
    nonenforcement policy is rarely analyzed to its natural conclusion, which leads to a
    fundamental shift in constitutional principles going back to Marbury v. Madison.


    The separation of powers is the very foundation for our system; the original covenant reached
    by the Founding Generation and passed on to successive generations. It is that system
    that produces laws that can be truly said to represent the wishes of the majority of
    Americans. It is also the very thing that gives a president the authority to govern in the
    name of all Americans. Despite the fact that I once voted for President Obama, personal
    admiration is no substitute for the constitutional principles at stake in this controversy.
    When a president claims the inherent power of both legislation and enforcement, he becomes a virtual government unto himself. He is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he becomes the very danger that the Constitution was designed to avoid.


    http://jonathanturley.files.wordpres...ouse-final.pdf

    Very strong indeed....Remember this is a supporter of Obama saying these things....

    Is Obama overreaching? And will the people put a stop to it?

    "Fundamental Transformation?"
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Obama went rogue along time ago as far as I'm concerned.

  3. #3
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,681

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Liberal activists are stupid. Even Obama's lawlessness is only a passive power. He chooses what laws not to enforce. With the minimum wage he would have to exert active power by enforcing a law that doesn't actually exist. At that point an impeachment is manditory.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  4. #4
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Liberal activists are stupid. Even Obama's lawlessness is only a passive power. He chooses what laws not to enforce. With the minimum wage he would have to exert active power by enforcing a law that doesn't actually exist. At that point an impeachment is manditory.
    He may be playing this exquisitely....He has the Senate for the time being, and he knows that Reid will do his bidding, and not convict. So, although the House can bring the proceedings, they will hesitate due to the image they got over Clinton. It is a dangerous game he is playing. But he has the repubs almost scared to stand up...It's up to us, if they don't have the balls to go up against this tyranny.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #5
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,566

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Liberal activists are stupid. Even Obama's lawlessness is only a passive power. He chooses what laws not to enforce. With the minimum wage he would have to exert active power by enforcing a law that doesn't actually exist. At that point an impeachment is manditory.
    I disagree. What Obama did (and will continue to do) with PPACA, is mainly said to be changing dates and numbers in a current law. Adding $8/hour to the minimum wage needs no federal spending and it is a "modification" or "rule change" to an existing federal law, just like Obama is doing with PPACA.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    The obamites have tasted the success of a dictator and now expect the dictator to work to their extreme favor.

  7. #7
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,681

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    I disagree. What Obama did (and will continue to do) with PPACA, is mainly said to be changing dates and numbers in a current law. Adding $8/hour to the minimum wage needs no federal spending and it is a "modification" or "rule change" to an existing federal law, just like Obama is doing with PPACA.
    But that is a matter of non-enforcement. That is a lot easier than trying to rewrite laws that would require enforcement.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  8. #8
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Is the President digging himself a hole that even his own supporters will refuse to dig him out of? Consider Prof. Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor that has been a supporter, in his testimony before the Judiciary committee.

    Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and members of the Judiciary
    Committee, my name is Jonathan Turley and I am a law professor at George Washington
    University where I hold the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law. It
    is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the constitutional concerns raised by
    recent nonenforcement polices and the President’s duty to faithfully execute the law of
    the United States.

    The issue before the Committee is clearly a difficult one. It is often difficult to
    separate the merits of the underlying policies from the means used to achieve them. It so
    happens that I agree with many of the goals of the Administration in the various areas
    where the President has circumvented Congress. However, in the Madisonian system, it
    is often more important how you do things than what you do.
    We have long benefited
    from a system designed to channel and transform factional interests in the political
    system. When any branch encroaches upon the authority of another, it not only
    introduces instability into the system but leaves political issues raw and unresolved.

    However, to paraphrase one of Benjamin Franklin’s favorite sayings, the Constitution
    helps those branches that help themselves. Each branch is given the tools to defend itself
    and the Framers assumed that they would have the ambition and institutional self-interest
    to use them. That assumption is now being put to the test as many members remain silent
    in the face of open executive encroachment by the Executive Branch.


    While I believe that the White House has clearly “exceeded its brief” in these
    areas
    , this question of presidential nonenforcement has arisen periodically in our history.
    In the current controversy, the White House has suggested an array of arguments, citing
    the interpretation of statutory text, agency discretion, or other rationales to mask what is
    clearly a circumvention of Congress. It also appears to be relying on the expectation that
    no one will be able to secure standing to challenge such decisions in court.

    Finally, there is no question that the President as Chief Executive is allowed to set priorities of the
    administration and to determine the best way to enforce the law. People of good faith can
    clearly disagree on where the line is drawn over the failure to fully enforce federal laws.
    There is ample room given to a president in setting priorities in the enforcement of laws.
    A president is not required to enforce all laws equally or dedicate the same resources to
    every federal program.

    Even with this ample allowance, however, I believe that President Barack Obama has crossed the constitutional line between discretionary enforcement and defiance of federal law.

    Congress is given the defining function of creating and amending federal law. This is more than a turf fight between politicians. The division of governmental powers is designed to protect liberty by preventing the abusive concentration of power. All citizens –Democratic or Republican or Independent – should consider the inherent danger presented by a President who can unilaterally
    suspend laws as a matter of presidential license.


    In recent years, I have testified and written about the shift of power within our
    tripartite government toward a more Imperial Presidential model. Indeed, I last testified
    before this Committee on the assertion of President Obama that he could use the recess
    appointment power to circumvent the Senate during a brief intrasession recess.


    While I viewed those appointments to be facially unconstitutional under the language of Article I
    and II (a view later shared by two federal circuits), I was equally concerned about the
    overall expansion of unchecked presidential authority and the relative decline of
    legislative power in the modern American system. The recent nonenforcement policies
    add a particularly menacing element to this pattern. They effectively reduce the
    legislative process to a series of options for presidential selection ranging from negation
    to full enforcement. The Framers warned us of such a system and we accept it – either by
    acclaim or acquiescence – at our peril.


    The current claims of executive power will outlast this president and members
    must consider the implications of the precedent that they are now creating through
    inaction and silence. What if a future president decided that he or she did not like some
    environmental laws or anti-discrimination laws? Indeed, as discussed below, the
    nonenforcement policy is rarely analyzed to its natural conclusion, which leads to a
    fundamental shift in constitutional principles going back to Marbury v. Madison.


    The separation of powers is the very foundation for our system; the original covenant reached
    by the Founding Generation and passed on to successive generations. It is that system
    that produces laws that can be truly said to represent the wishes of the majority of
    Americans. It is also the very thing that gives a president the authority to govern in the
    name of all Americans. Despite the fact that I once voted for President Obama, personal
    admiration is no substitute for the constitutional principles at stake in this controversy.
    When a president claims the inherent power of both legislation and enforcement, he becomes a virtual government unto himself. He is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he becomes the very danger that the Constitution was designed to avoid.


    http://jonathanturley.files.wordpres...ouse-final.pdf

    Very strong indeed....Remember this is a supporter of Obama saying these things....

    Is Obama overreaching? And will the people put a stop to it?

    "Fundamental Transformation?"
    GREAT POST!!!

    The President has exceeded his authority, and needs to be taken to task for it.

    Not because he's "Obama" or because he's a Democrat, but because he is setting a precedent for future Presidents that can lead to unabridged authoritarian rule by the Executive Branch.

    The Congress needs to take back their power, and exert that power themselves.

  9. #9
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    GREAT POST!!!

    The President has exceeded his authority, and needs to be taken to task for it.

    Not because he's "Obama" or because he's a Democrat, but because he is setting a precedent for future Presidents that can lead to unabridged authoritarian rule by the Executive Branch.

    The Congress needs to take back their power, and exert that power themselves.
    I couldn't agree more, however, in Boehner, and some throughout the House, and Senate, not a chance that will happen.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  10. #10
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I couldn't agree more, however, in Boehner, and some throughout the House, and Senate, not a chance that will happen.
    Not sure about Boehner. I feel he is just as pissed about this as you and I are. The problem is, what is the remedy.

    There are only two remedies at this time; 1) taking the Executive to court in the DC Circuit (which the Senate just packed with Democrat appointees), and of course... 2) impeachment.

    Neither are good options at this time.

    If the Executive Branch takes further actions, like raising the minimum wage or giving amnesty to illegal immigrants without Congressional approval, THEN the Congress can go to the court and if they won't issue a stay, then they can use the nuclear option of impeachment (although there's no way that will succeed as long as the Senate is in full Democrat control).

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •