Obama to Assert Unilateral Agenda

[WCH]

Obama to Assert Unilateral Agenda - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night will seek to shift the public's souring view of his leadership, a challenge the White House sees as critical to shaping the nation's policy direction over the next three years.

Mr. Obama will emphasize his intention to use unilateral presidential authority—bypassing Congress when necessary—to an extent not seen in his previous State of the Union speeches, White House officials said.

He also is expected to announce that some of the nation's largest employers, including Xerox Corp. XRX -4.42% , AT&T Inc., T -1.12% Lockheed Martin Corp. LMT -1.81% and Procter & Gamble Co. PG +1.20% , have signed a White House pledge agreeing not to discriminate against the long-term unemployed when making hiring decisions, according to a draft of the policy and interviews with several people familiar with the matter.



Let me guess...something about inequality?

 

[Zyphlin]

With a Supreme Court case looming relating to one such example of him bypassing Congressional authority and attepmting to use unilateral authority, I can see a SOTU focused on his unilateral powers to be a potential Political pitfall. If that case at the SCOTUS goes against him, then a SOTU thumping his chest about his ability to circumvent the checks and balances viewed as essential to our form of government in order to take extensive unilateral action will surely provide ample kindling to those who'd like to make the issue into a bonfire

 

[Pamila321]

I think your suggestion would be helpful for me. I will let you know if this works for me Thanks and keep posting such a informative blogs.

 

[Canell]

Emperor Obama? :roll:

 

[WI Crippler]

The danger for Obama to say he will do whatever he feels needs to be done with or without the approval of Congress is the precedence it will set. Some Obama supporters will applaud his "aggressive tone", because they feel he will advance their agenda. But the danger is that someday it might be a POTUS that will be seeking to advance an agenda that you don't like, and it will be the precedence that Obama sets that will allow future Presidents to circumvent checks and balances on a whim. So file this moment away for future reference.

 

[Samhain]

His increase in minimum wage for federal contracts should be interesting since Congress didn't appropriate additional funds to pay contracts with the new baseline.

I don't think he really thought that one through.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

His increase in minimum wage for federal contracts should be interesting since Congress didn't appropriate additional funds to pay contracts with the new baseline.

I don't think he really thought that one through.

I think this relates to how much the contractors to the government pay their employees, not how much the government pays directly to anyone.

 

[Samhain]

I think this relates to how much the contractors to the government pay their employees, not how much the government pays directly to anyone.

So last year, a best-bid contract would have been 3 million, and this year its 3.5 million. Congress already did their 2014 appropriations based on last years information. So either the contractor takes the 3 million, and uses less workers, or eats it.

 

[Blue_State]

His increase in minimum wage for federal contracts should be interesting since Congress didn't appropriate additional funds to pay contracts with the new baseline.

I don't think he really thought that one through.

From what I understand this is more of a talking point then an impactful measure. The increase in minimum wage effects a very small group.

 

[nota bene]

With a Supreme Court case looming relating to one such example of him bypassing Congressional authority and attepmting to use unilateral authority, I can see a SOTU focused on his unilateral powers to be a potential Political pitfall. If that case at the SCOTUS goes against him, then a SOTU thumping his chest about his ability to circumvent the checks and balances viewed as essential to our form of government in order to take extensive unilateral action will surely provide ample kindling to those who'd like to make the issue into a bonfire

It will be a conflagration of his own making. If the President stops trying to chip away at the Constitution, there won't be any kindling.

 

[ludin]

As was pointed out it only affects new contracts not existing ones. which means it will help next to no one as most government contract workers make more than 10 dollars an hour anyway. it is nothing more than a thumping of the chest move that has little to no impact on anything.

why doesn't he got onto his own party for not paying their interns? that is the real question. all these chest thumpers on minimum wage but refuse to pay the people that work for them since they are well lucky to be my intern.

what is worse for obama is that hey plans on probably facing a hostile congress all the way around.

 

[j-mac]

As was pointed out it only affects new contracts not existing ones. which means it will help next to no one as most government contract workers make more than 10 dollars an hour anyway. it is nothing more than a thumping of the chest move that has little to no impact on anything.

why doesn't he got onto his own party for not paying their interns? that is the real question. all these chest thumpers on minimum wage but refuse to pay the people that work for them since they are well lucky to be my intern.

what is worse for obama is that hey plans on probably facing a hostile congress all the way around.

"On Tuesday morning, at a breakfast discussing the State of the Union address later in the evening, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) told reporters that President Obama is on dangerous ground on his use of executive orders. Essentially, Boehner issued a veiled threat stating that if the President thinks he can enact more change by circumventing Congress and utilizing executive orders, then Obama could be facing a backlash from Congressional Republicans. While he did not overtly state it, it seemed pretty clear he was talking about impeachment.

“We’re just not going to sit here and let the President trample all over us. This idea that he’s just going to go it alone, I have to remind him we do have a constitution. And the Congress writes the laws, and the President’s job is to execute the laws faithfully. And if he tries to ignore this he’s going to run into a brick wall.”

John Boehner Threatens President Obama With Impeachment Over Use Of Executive Orders

Ofcourse we will see. So far Boehner has been little more than a place holder.

 

[Montecresto]

With a Supreme Court case looming relating to one such example of him bypassing Congressional authority and attepmting to use unilateral authority, I can see a SOTU focused on his unilateral powers to be a potential Political pitfall. If that case at the SCOTUS goes against him, then a SOTU thumping his chest about his ability to circumvent the checks and balances viewed as essential to our form of government in order to take extensive unilateral action will surely provide ample kindling to those who'd like to make the issue into a bonfire

And if SCOTUS does rule in his favor, we have perhaps an even larger problem. Not only will he be running with his permission slip, watch out for the next and then the next presidency. I'm amazed that people don't connect the dots and draw the easy and natural conclusion that we are watching the creation of an imperial presidential office that WILL NOT BODE WELL FOR AMERICANS going forward. But hope that we Americans ever would apply the breaks, hell no! Americans are FAR TOO partisan for that. Those who are yelling the loudest now, will be suddenly silent or apologetic when next their man is in the White House doing his unilateral movements despite congress. And those who now are scurrying about to prop up their president and make every excuse imaginable to condone their guy doing it, will be once again the yellers and the screamers. So, we are destined to the loss of our once unrivaled political system, because TEAM is more important than America.

 

[Montecresto]

"On Tuesday morning, at a breakfast discussing the State of the Union address later in the evening, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) told reporters that President Obama is on dangerous ground on his use of executive orders. Essentially, Boehner issued a veiled threat stating that if the President thinks he can enact more change by circumventing Congress and utilizing executive orders, then Obama could be facing a backlash from Congressional Republicans. While he did not overtly state it, it seemed pretty clear he was talking about impeachment.

“We’re just not going to sit here and let the President trample all over us. This idea that he’s just going to go it alone, I have to remind him we do have a constitution. And the Congress writes the laws, and the President’s job is to execute the laws faithfully. And if he tries to ignore this he’s going to run into a brick wall.”

John Boehner Threatens President Obama With Impeachment Over Use Of Executive Orders

Ofcourse we will see. So far Boehner has been little more than a place holder.

We could only hope. But there's a lot of room between, expect congressional backlash, and IMPEACHMENT!

 

[j-mac]

We could only hope. But there's a lot of room between, expect congressional backlash, and IMPEACHMENT!

Well, we have to see how far King Obama takes his threats....I think people are getting fed up with being dictated to.

 

[Montecresto]

Well, we have to see how far King Obama takes his threats....I think people are getting fed up with being dictated to.

No, just republicans are. In a couple years it will be your guy doing it and you'll be all smiles, and the dumb ass democrats will be raising hell. It works great for the oligarchy that you mindless parti-bots perpetuate their agenda for them.

 

[DVSentinel]

Obama to Assert Unilateral Agenda - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night will seek to shift the public's souring view of his leadership, a challenge the White House sees as critical to shaping the nation's policy direction over the next three years.

Mr. Obama will emphasize his intention to use unilateral presidential authority—bypassing Congress when necessary—to an extent not seen in his previous State of the Union speeches, White House officials said.

He also is expected to announce that some of the nation's largest employers, including Xerox Corp. XRX -4.42% , AT&T Inc., T -1.12% Lockheed Martin Corp. LMT -1.81% and Procter & Gamble Co. PG +1.20% , have signed a White House pledge agreeing not to discriminate against the long-term unemployed when making hiring decisions, according to a draft of the policy and interviews with several people familiar with the matter.



Let me guess...something about inequality?

That idiot is insistent on pushing us towards revolt, isn't he.

I guess on the plus side, if the GOP gains the Senate after November, then he is giving them plenty to act on to remove him by this time next year.

 

[ludin]

"On Tuesday morning, at a breakfast discussing the State of the Union address later in the evening, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) told reporters that President Obama is on dangerous ground on his use of executive orders. Essentially, Boehner issued a veiled threat stating that if the President thinks he can enact more change by circumventing Congress and utilizing executive orders, then Obama could be facing a backlash from Congressional Republicans. While he did not overtly state it, it seemed pretty clear he was talking about impeachment.

“We’re just not going to sit here and let the President trample all over us. This idea that he’s just going to go it alone, I have to remind him we do have a constitution. And the Congress writes the laws, and the President’s job is to execute the laws faithfully. And if he tries to ignore this he’s going to run into a brick wall.”

John Boehner Threatens President Obama With Impeachment Over Use Of Executive Orders

Ofcourse we will see. So far Boehner has been little more than a place holder.

Boehner is about as usless as nancy pelosi as speaker of the house. he is nothing more than a tool. i wish when electing these guys we could get a true leader in the position.

 

[Zyphlin]

Also, a few things on this since the standard talking point is the AMOUNT of executive orders. While some hard liners are the types that think EO's should not exist and are entirely unconstitutional, I believe most accept there is a certain amount of leeway there for the POTUS.

However, SIMPLY looking at quantity is basically cherry picking a metric and isn't an honest response to the critism coming out, as it's somewhat losing the forest through the trees.

If you have a basketball player putting up 25 shots a game and gets criticized for shooting so much, simply pointing to a previously player that shot 30 times a game doesn't singularly give it an excuse. Why? What was the old players shooting percentage compared to the new player. What TYPES of shots being taken, high percentage ones near the basket or threes? What was the makeup of the team around either, potentially necessitating a larger roll in shooting, etc.

Same thing here, SIMPLY looking at the number of EO's alone is a poor reading of the frustration. The reach and extent of the particular EO's comes into play, ie what they actually do. The level of political interest in a paritcular topic matters to a degree (is it an EO on a contentious political issue hotly debated during the last election season, or is it some obscure bit of politicing that the public generally holds little real opinion on). Is it an action similar to, or a part of, something that was attempted to pass through the legislature and failed, and thus is more of an end around? And how have the various actions actually stood up in the court of law when challenged? Additionally, does the unilateral action extent even beyond the issuing of executive orders to other things, such as decreeing Congress to be "in session" when they decree they aren't.

There's a lot of potential aspects and avenues to the issue here beyond simply the AMOUNT that has happened. This is also not a singularly republican issue, as you have Democrats like Alaskan Senator Mark Begich and West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin both voicing unease and disagreement with the President's actions and proposed actions.

 

[Montecresto]

Also, a few things on this since the standard talking point is the AMOUNT of executive orders. While some hard liners are the types that think EO's should not exist and are entirely unconstitutional, I believe most accept there is a certain amount of leeway there for the POTUS.

However, SIMPLY looking at quantity is basically cherry picking a metric and isn't an honest response to the critism coming out, as it's somewhat losing the forest through the trees.

If you have a basketball player putting up 25 shots a game and gets criticized for shooting so much, simply pointing to a previously player that shot 30 times a game doesn't singularly give it an excuse. Why? What was the old players shooting percentage compared to the new player. What TYPES of shots being taken, high percentage ones near the basket or threes? What was the makeup of the team around either, potentially necessitating a larger roll in shooting, etc.

Same thing here, SIMPLY looking at the number of EO's alone is a poor reading of the frustration. The reach and extent of the particular EO's comes into play, ie what they actually do. The level of political interest in a paritcular topic matters to a degree (is it an EO on a contentious political issue hotly debated during the last election season, or is it some obscure bit of politicing that the public generally holds little real opinion on). Is it an action similar to, or a part of, something that was attempted to pass through the legislature and failed, and thus is more of an end around? And how have the various actions actually stood up in the court of law when challenged? Additionally, does the unilateral action extent even beyond the issuing of executive orders to other things, such as decreeing Congress to be "in session" when they decree they aren't.

There's a lot of potential aspects and avenues to the issue here beyond simply the AMOUNT that has happened. This is also not a singularly republican issue, as you have Democrats like Alaskan Senator Mark Begich and West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin both voicing unease and disagreement with the President's actions and proposed actions.

I don't know that there are people who think EO's are "unconstitutional" but extra constitutional. Using them to instruct people in detail how to execute anything that itself is within constitutional bounds, no problem, its if and when it's not, that becomes a problem.

 

[jmotivator]

Also, a few things on this since the standard talking point is the AMOUNT of executive orders. While some hard liners are the types that think EO's should not exist and are entirely unconstitutional, I believe most accept there is a certain amount of leeway there for the POTUS.

However, SIMPLY looking at quantity is basically cherry picking a metric and isn't an honest response to the critism coming out, as it's somewhat losing the forest through the trees.

If you have a basketball player putting up 25 shots a game and gets criticized for shooting so much, simply pointing to a previously player that shot 30 times a game doesn't singularly give it an excuse. Why? What was the old players shooting percentage compared to the new player. What TYPES of shots being taken, high percentage ones near the basket or threes? What was the makeup of the team around either, potentially necessitating a larger roll in shooting, etc.

Same thing here, SIMPLY looking at the number of EO's alone is a poor reading of the frustration. The reach and extent of the particular EO's comes into play, ie what they actually do. The level of political interest in a paritcular topic matters to a degree (is it an EO on a contentious political issue hotly debated during the last election season, or is it some obscure bit of politicing that the public generally holds little real opinion on). Is it an action similar to, or a part of, something that was attempted to pass through the legislature and failed, and thus is more of an end around? And how have the various actions actually stood up in the court of law when challenged? Additionally, does the unilateral action extent even beyond the issuing of executive orders to other things, such as decreeing Congress to be "in session" when they decree they aren't.

There's a lot of potential aspects and avenues to the issue here beyond simply the AMOUNT that has happened. This is also not a singularly republican issue, as you have Democrats like Alaskan Senator Mark Begich and West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin both voicing unease and disagreement with the President's actions and proposed actions.

Exactly! Well put. It is like saying it is legal to steal from a convenience store because hundreds of people shop there every week.

It isn't the act of executive order that is being disputed. The EO has to be pinned to some leeway given the president by congress in a law, or with regard to the administration of the executive branch. When you start talking, as Obama has, of using executive order in lieu of laws passed by congress he is expressly over stepping the EO authority.

 

[Fletch]

Though its early, to their credit, no democrats here have chimed in in support of the president implementing his will over the will of congress. But something tells me this is much ado about nothing and mere chest thumping by our would-be tyrant in chief. If anywhere in the past 5 years there was something Obama felt he could accomplish through executive order, he would have done so already. So in the end, this is likely an empty threat from an empty suit.

 

[Zyphlin]

Exactly! Well put. It is like saying it is legal to steal from a convenience store because hundreds of people shop there every week.

I don't really like the theft analogy because it interjects needless additional emotional cues into the debate, but if you're going to make one I don't believe what you pointed to was an accurate analogy.

A better analogy for why simply pointing at the amount of EO's as the problem would be suggesting you have two criminals who steal things, one's only stolen 5 things and the other has stolen 15. If you're given ONLY numbers, it looks like the guy who did 15 is clearly worse. But then what if you say the person stealing 15 things stole a candy bar 15 times from Walmart, and the other person stole a big ticket items worth $100 from small downtown retail shops. Suddenly it's not such an easy question as to which is worse because other factors play into it.

Similarly, the AMOUNT of EO's is only one aspect of the issue and can't singularly be pointed at as some kind of condemnation OR defense.

 

[Montecresto]

Though its early, to their credit, no democrats here have chimed in in support of the president implementing his will over the will of congress. But something tells me this is much ado about nothing and mere chest thumping by our would-be tyrant in chief. If anywhere in the past 5 years there was something Obama felt he could accomplish through executive order, he would have done so already. So in the end, this is likely an empty threat from an empty suit.

Oh, it's not the first thread that the topic has been discussed, the president has plenty of partisan support.

 

[jmotivator]

I don't really like the theft analogy because it interjects needless additional emotional cues into the debate, but if you're going to make one I don't believe what you pointed to was an accurate analogy.

A better analogy for why simply pointing at the amount of EO's as the problem would be suggesting you have two criminals who steal things, one's only stolen 5 things and the other has stolen 15. If you're given ONLY numbers, it looks like the guy who did 15 is clearly worse. But then what if you say the person stealing 15 things stole a candy bar 15 times from Walmart, and the other person stole a big ticket items worth $100 from small downtown retail shops. Suddenly it's not such an easy question as to which is worse because other factors play into it.

Similarly, the AMOUNT of EO's is only one aspect of the issue and can't singularly be pointed at as some kind of condemnation OR defense.

It is a perfectly fine analogy. Why we are talking about the EO at all is because there is a difference between legally well defined use of executive order and unconstitutional use of executive order.

Many people using the convenience store for legal purposes is not a defense of people who use it illegally.

You have created a new analogy which I didn't make. The original intent was to argue legal versus illegal use of a convenience, not varying levels of theft.