• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama On Executive Actions: ‘I’ve Got A Pen And I’ve Got A Phone’

Status
Not open for further replies.
A president can only do with his pen or with executive orders what congress lets him do. A president can choose to ignore certain laws, choose to enforce some and not others and change laws to suit his whims if congress lets him. A president can do just about anything he wants if congress lets him. Congress as a co-equal branch of government can reign in any president in if they are willing to do so and make him abide by the powers stated in the Constitution if they want to.

Congress can make any president walk a tight rope or they can let him do anything he wants. The problem today is members of a president’s party in congress have become more a member of the president’s administration than a member of congress. Those members of the president’s party are not interested in keeping the powers stated in the constitution in congress. They are more than willing to cede those powers to the administration only because the president is of the same political party. They take no pride or responsibility of being congressmen and or a member of that august body and upholding that once proud institution’s status as a co-equal branch of government. Hence the imperial presidency who will use his pen and executive orders to bypass congress.

Since the congress of 1975-77 which reigned in the powers of the presidency, every president since that has added more powers to the presidency and congress has less and less. But it is congresses fault for letting each succeeding president add to the powers of the presidency.
 
I'm simply pointing out if Obama is being accused of circumventing Congress, it is only fair to let people know his predecessor did so as well at a higher rate.

I guess that would be a point to be made to someone that thinks that all executive orders circumvent Congress. I don't know that anyone here thinks that.

I am just concerned with individual EO's that are beyond the President's power as allowed in the Constitution. Specifically, those that do things that only Congress is allowed to do.
 
Of all the threads here, this one is the most important. He just declared that he is going to take power from Congress and make laws himself, a clear violation of separation of powers. In fact, clearly a power that the President does not have. This is what dictators do. A bit of coupe, if I may be so bold. The sad part is that the media, the left, and even most of the right are sitting by silently while this happens before our eyes.

This is not a Democrat v. Republican issue. It's a Constitutional and liberty issue.

Yes, it is. Is it time for Congress to rein the President in? Should we contact our elected representatives and let them know that this is unacceptable? It is, after all, an election year.
 
WOW that is some massively oblivious hypocrisy there. To write that whole long rant bitching and moaning about hypocrisy, while ignoring RIGHT OFF THE BAT, your own hypocrisy as you make it out to be something only one side is currently engaged in doing. As if the inverse isn't true, and there weren't plenty of democrats having a cow about it under Bush but don't vocalize anything when it's Obama doing it. The reality is BOTH sides of the political aisle routinely will get upset about something vocally when it's the other side, and will remain quiet about it or make excuses when it's their side...it's a natural occurence of tribalism.

Hold on now...

I thought I made myself clear that both sides can be hypocrites where claims of "power grabs" and "executive over-reach" are made (re: "how folks with idealogical bents stay mum when it's their guy in office abusing power yet claiming 'national security' to justify his actions (Republicans) but when it's the other guy in office (Democrat)...". Granted, I used an example of such an abuse of power from the perspective of the Democrats complaining when a Republican is in office, but I inferred that both sides can be hypocrites when it's their guy in office. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but frankly, I was agreeing with BmanMcfly when he touched on the matter. But just to clarify my position: BOTH SIDES DO IT when it's their guy in the WH and they have the majority, but the moment the inverse happens, they're the first to start crying "foul".

What I find funny about this entire situation is folks are upset over an act that hasn't even happened yet as far as the President's latest threat to use his executive authority to move the economy forward if Congress fails to act. They act as if this is the first time a sitting President has done such a thing. Still, I like the example you gave in post #112 reminding folks that "the Devil is in the details". To that, folks do have a legit concern about executive over-reach, but to complain about it not only before it happens but without knowing the specifics of what such an EO contains is folly.
 
It is not lame at all, when will liberals learn not all people agree with them?

When will Cons like you learn that not every liberal is Hitler.
 
no one said they were, well, except you

Nice try, you compared Obama by saying that "They said the same thing about Hitler". I see you're back peddling like a good conservative. If I were you I would back peddle too. Comparing Obama to Hitler is idiotic like you were trying to do.
 
Nice try, you compared Obama by saying that "They said the same thing about Hitler". I see you're back peddling like a good conservative. If I were you I would back peddle too. Comparing Obama to Hitler is idiotic like you were trying to do.

It is a good comparison and I am probably the 200,000th person that has done it, so you are behind, blocked, or just eat up with the messiah.
 
It is a good comparison and I am probably the 200,000th person that has done it, so you are behind, blocked, or just eat up with the messiah.

So you do admit it even though you just said you didn't :lamo

Can you please make up your mind? And no, it isn't a good comparison. It's moronic, but then what can you expect from a conservative hiding behind a false label.
 
Perhaps if this president would stop trying to skirt the Constitution at every turn, that much filibustering wouldn't be necessary.

And save us the "black guy" nonsense. I swear, liberals are more obsessed and prejudiced by race than anyone.

Every turn! every turn, or EVERY turn??
 
Ok great... And you spoke out against bush when he did it, right?

If so, your apology of Obama makes you a hypocrite.

Sorry, but I don't recall Obama lying us into a major war. I don't recall the Obama administration outing a CIA agent in time of war because the CIA agent's husband pointed out the Obama administration was lying. I don't recall Obama pressuring attorneys general to start election-fraud investigations just prior to an election when the attorneys general themselves said the charges were bogus, based on no credible evidence. I don't recall Obama taking over in times of an economic surplus, and leaving America's economy in the worst shape it had been in since the Great Depression.

I don't recall the Obama administration having a cabinet meeting ten days after he was first inaugurated where the main topic of discussion was the invasion of a country that had not attacked us and posed no clear and present danger to America. I don't recall Obama himself being personally warned - several times! - of an impending attack by al Qaeda...and then pointedly ignoring said warning. I DON'T RECALL OBAMA FLYING OUT OSAMA BIN LADEN'S FAMILY FROM AMERICA WHILE ALL THE REST OF AMERICA'S CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT WERE GROUNDED.

No, guy, Obama's administration is a hell of a lot better than Bush's. He's got a lot of faults - liberals like myself will tell you lots of his faults, just like you surely could point out Bush's faults.

But you know what? Ask liberals what Dubya did that was RIGHT, and most of us (like myself) will tell you that he DID do some things that were right. On the other hand, do you personally know any conservatives at all who would have the guts to say what Obama's done that was right? Scarce as hens' teeth, huh? You can find conservatives who can easily point out what Hitler and Stalin and Mao did that was right...but almost never Obama.

In other words, liberals have a heck of a lot less of a problem looking at both sides of the story, at saying what BOTH sides do that is right or wrong. Conservatives...not so much. This has been shown before in a scientific study concerning conservatives and liberals and cognitive dissonance. Of course, since that was a scientific study saying something you wouldn't want to hear, the demographics make it extremely likely that you'll completely disregard the results of the study and its implications.

And THAT, sir, is why you assumed I wouldn't defend Bush - because even if you personally might actually defend Obama concerning this or that decision, the vast majority of conservatives would not, could not bring themselves to do so...and you assumed that I was like them. FYI, I strongly admire Bush 41 and I've said many times - with good reason - that Reagan was one of the five best presidents ever.

Didn't think you'd hear that from a proud liberal, didja?
 
Last edited:
Yes we have all seen Conservatives try to play that card falsely many times in the past. You people love to act like he is breaking a slew of laws, and sometimes it goes to court and then what happens? Judges know the law, the constitution and the executive powers. You people not liking something does not make it a violation of the constitution or iillegal.
Do you even have a clue as to what the separation of powers here? Apparently not, I honestly think some of you progressives would support a dictatorship as long as the dictator is a Democrat. This is pathetic & very dangerous
 
Last edited:
Nice try, you compared Obama by saying that "They said the same thing about Hitler". I see you're back peddling like a good conservative. If I were you I would back peddle too. Comparing Obama to Hitler is idiotic like you were trying to do.

A tyrant doesn't have to be a mass murderer to be a tyrant. George III wasn't a mass murderer. In fact, Obama's comments remind me of the whole, "taxation without representation", bitch that started the revolution that built this great nation. Again, we have a head of state that wants to call the shots all on his own and screw what the people have to say about it.
 
Nice try, you compared Obama by saying that "They said the same thing about Hitler". I see you're back peddling like a good conservative. If I were you I would back peddle too. Comparing Obama to Hitler is idiotic like you were trying to do.

Obama is not like Hitler in alot of ways,Id say he's closer to the early Soviet leaders or Castro. With that said he does have similiarities with the Fueher in that he wants to replace the constitution with a dictatorship much the way Adolf did scrapping the German constitution. His recent statements couldnt be any clearer
 
*Sigh*

Yet another conservative who hates the president because of whatever reason, and will use any accusation he can think of against the president no matter how false his accusation is. To wit:

View attachment 67160203

Once again, if the uppity black guy in the White House does just what all the white guys did before him did, well, that's TYRANNY!!!!!

How many of those white dudes promised to "fundamentally change America"?
 
How many of those white dudes promised to "fundamentally change America"?

Lots of them. How many Republicans claimed that they would 'get rid of big government'? I mean, c'mon, guy - you need to learn to not read too much into what someone says, but base your judgement instead on what that someone does.
 
Do you even have a clue as to what the separation of powers here? Apparently not, I honestly think some of you progressives would support a dictatorship as long as the dictator is a Democrat. This is pathetic & very dangerous

Hilarious...

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." -- George W. Bush Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
 
Obama is not like Hitler in alot of ways,Id say he's closer to the early Soviet leaders or Castro. With that said he does have similiarities with the Fueher in that he wants to replace the constitution with a dictatorship much the way Adolf did scrapping the German constitution. His recent statements couldnt be any clearer

I'd say this is off the chart rhetoric but such ridiculous rhetoric is so common-place now that I don't think there is a chart any more.
 
Do you even have a clue as to what the separation of powers here? Apparently not, I honestly think some of you progressives would support a dictatorship as long as the dictator is a Democrat. This is pathetic & very dangerous

George Bush himself would have supported a dictatorship, he said so. Just as long as he was the dictator he said. Partisan Americans are the problem. Some few keep pointing this out but it doesn't seem to matter.
 
Obama is not like Hitler in alot of ways,Id say he's closer to the early Soviet leaders or Castro. With that said he does have similiarities with the Fueher in that he wants to replace the constitution with a dictatorship much the way Adolf did scrapping the German constitution. His recent statements couldnt be any clearer

Funny though that Obama has never said such a thing, whereas George Bush actually did. He said, my job would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship, just so long as I'm the dictator.
 
Lots of them. How many Republicans claimed that they would 'get rid of big government'? I mean, c'mon, guy - you need to learn to not read too much into what someone says, but base your judgement instead on what that someone does.

Quote ONE president that promised to, "fundamentally transform", America. We're waiting...
 
Quote ONE president that promised to, "fundamentally transform", America. We're waiting...

Quote me one president other than Bush that said "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." We're waiting.

Therefore according to YOUR logic, Bush must have been the next Hitler at the time. Done with your childish BS rhetoric?

Is Obama a horrible president? Yes. Is he the next Hitler or dictator? No.
 
Hilarious...
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." -- George W. Bush Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
George Bush was a progressive Republican who pretended to be conservative. And yes he started alot of the crap that has excellerated 10 fold under Obama. And yes I repeat myself in saying that this man wants to be a dictator. And I know you dont care cause he's your boy.
 
Quote me one president other than Bush that said "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." We're waiting.

Therefore according to YOUR logic, Bush must have been the next Hitler at the time. Done with your childish BS rhetoric?

Is Obama a horrible president? Yes. Is he the next Hitler or dictator? No.

Funny how you constantly whine about partisanship, then degrade Bush and defend Obama. Great job! Done with your hypocrisy?
 
I'd say this is off the chart rhetoric but such ridiculous rhetoric is so common-place now that I don't think there is a chart any more.
What is off the chart is your mind numbing ignorance for what is taking place right before your very eyes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom