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

Mason66 said:

I love it when I see this argument.

Yes he was elected President to do HIS JOB as president. Now he wants to do Congress' job.

Do you remember all of the members of Congress were elected to do THIER JOB?

Should Congress start doing the Presidents' job? How about Congressmen making decision for the Supreme Court? Would you be OK with that?

Should they switch? Is there room for that in the constitution?

Click to expand...

You say that like he is breaking any law. The fact is he does these things, people throw fits, cry constitutional fouls and sometimes take it to court. We all know how this ends.

NIMBY said:

Oh look, the Hitler card player is back on dp .

Click to expand...

Officially Godwinized.

Kreton said:

You say that like he is breaking any law. The fact is he does these things, people throw fits, cry constitutional fouls and sometimes take it to court. We all know how this ends.

Click to expand...

I think there is a big gap here on what people think the President should do and what his actual job is. Seems that some here think or want a President that, as long as he doesn't get caught or found to be violating the Constitution, they are alright with whatever he does. They don't care if he tramples on anyone's liberties. Fine.

My thinking is that I want a President that has virtue and is trustworthy enough to say to himself that even if he couldn't get a law through Congress, it is not in his power to try to bypass Congress and do it in a manner that is probably unconstitutional. I want him to uphold his oath to defend the Constitution, and I don't think that has happened for many years.

Anthony60 said:

Where did I say anything about some signing statement? That's your little constraint you are trying to use to restrict the argument. Apparently, in your small world, Obama can do any unconstitutional thing he wants, as long as it wasn't with a signing statement! LOL! That is some compelling point you got there!

Wow, what brilliance!

Click to expand...

He asked you about signing statements and which were wrong. You said "What about the dream act?"

No signing statement was issued because no law was signed.

rocket88 said:

He asked you about signing statements and which were wrong. You said "What about the dream act?"

No signing statement was issued because no law was signed.

Click to expand...

He chose to go off and try to limit the discussion to signing statements, and I did not.

BmanMcfly said:

Not sure how this relates to the point you quoted. ... can you clarify?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

People running their big mouths about impeaching the President of the USA accomplishes nothing.

If they have enough evidence, they should impeach him.

Otherwise, they should stop talking about it.

Anthony60 said:

I think there is a big gap here on what people think the President should do and what his actual job is. Seems that some here think or want a President that, as long as he doesn't get caught or found to be violating the Constitution, they are alright with whatever he does. They don't care if he tramples on anyone's liberties. Fine.

My thinking is that I want a President that has virtue and is trustworthy enough to say to himself that even if he couldn't get a law through Congress, it is not in his power to try to bypass Congress and do it in a manner that is probably unconstitutional. I want him to uphold his oath to defend the Constitution, and I don't think that has happened for many years.

Click to expand...

In my experiences it doesn't matter what a president does or doesn't do in the minds of most. Most people look at the party and the either love or hate anything that person does. Repulicans do it to Obama all the time. Democrats did it to Bush. Its a retarded cycle. The bi partisan politics has more to do with this than the actual act. You/conservatives not liking something doesn't make it unconstitutional. If you don't like Obama, get someone else elected so then you can turn a blind eye when they do the same ****.

TheNextEra said:

And it applies to every other sitting president at the time as well. Useless rhetoric is still useless rhetoric.

Click to expand...

Sorry no, that is just lame

Rocketman said:

Sorry no, that is just lame

Click to expand...

No, your comment that somehow Obama is the same as Hitler is lame. You want to Godwin a thread, go elswhere.

j-mac said:

Liberal Obama supporters always ask the question about what would like Obama to do? Well, when he comes out like this, threatening to just go around congress, and make law himself void of the legislative process, then it is no longer the country I recognize...I guess Podesta is already making his presence felt.

It is no wonder we think Obama is dangerous, because HE IS!

We have a process in this country to do these things Obama wants to do, and it certainly is not unilaterally. We don't have a King, we don't have a dictator, what we have in Obama may actually be worse.

Click to expand...

*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:



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!!!!!

BmanMcfly said:

Oh ya, who up there has the balls to start impeachment proceedings?

We'll, it's the precedents set by bush (conservatives don't bad mouth their former guy ), that's allowed Obama to get away with as much as he is because the stupid hypocrites that we're opposing bush are now apologizing for Obama for doing worse than was done when they were fighting those same things.

Too bad nobody in the country has any principles any longer. There's a reason the country is falling under the weight of its own corruption.

Click to expand...

You're right in one respect...folks who weren't up in arms over GWB using Signing Statements to skirt the law are now up in arms over the mere mention of President Obama using the Power of the Executive Branch to issue Executive Orders when Congress fails to act in the nation's best interest. It's mind boggling - hypocrisy at its worse - 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) who gives clear warning to Congress to "act in the best interest of the nation to bring about job growth and economic stimulation via the private secton or else" suddenly these same people get all up in a tizzy over the President of the United States using his Executive Power within the process of governance and the spirit and intent of the law. To illustrate what I mean and just how real and perhaps even necessary the Presidents Executive intervention may be, I've pulled these two post from this thread - one from a Conservative poster, the other from a Liberal poster. Both make the very point the President was trying to convey to the American people which pollsters already acknowledge - the Congress is marred in ideological gridlock. On the one hand, you have both parties fighting against each other. On the other hand, you have in-fighting within a particular party. And yet, folks here who are clear ideologues refused to accept what is reality - that such gridlock, partisanship and purposeful mission to hamstring a sitting President makes Congress very ineffective.

Sidenote: I really wish folks would read, learn and understand "process" of government, recognize leadership when they see it despite what the talking heads and political pundits would have you believe and just start thinking for themselves.

Zyphlin said:

No, he didn't except in your world of make believe, assumption, and apparently the mutant power to read the future. In the real world, he stated he'd use an Executive Order. COULD he use an executive order to attempt to make laws and act unconstitutionally? Yes. Could he also use an executive order in a perfectly constitutional way that doesn't create a new law? Yes. Its really quite easy to see how it's interpreted that way because it'd be ACTUALLY READING WHAT HE SAID instead of reading it and then making assumptions and guesses as to what he actually meant or what he actually is going to do in the future. Shocking, I know.

No, I demonstrated the exact same thing you did in your original post. Did I "quote" you, as you're so apt to point out over and over again worthlessly? No, I simply "explained what [you] were saying."

Click to expand...

iliveonramen said:

I kind of get from listening to him that he is willing to use executive orders to get things done because Congress can't. Are you saying Congress isn't having issues passing some of the most basic things?

And so did Reagan...not sure your point?

Click to expand...

Glen Contrarian said:

*Sigh*
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!!!!!

Click to expand...

Sigh indeed.

It's wrong to just assume what Obama is going to do is unconstitutional, because Executive Order's aren't inherently unconstitutional.

Similarly...

It's wrong to assume that everyone is upset with Obama simply because he's doing the same thing as "the white guys did before him", because every Executive Order is not inherently exactly the same thing.

I can shoot a firearm. Someone else can shoot a firearm. We're both shooting firearms. However, if I'm firing at a target and the other person is firing at an innocent person, there's legitimate reasons why someone may be upset at him but not me even though he's doing the same thing "I did" in terms of shooting a firearm.

Obama is doing executive orders, which is something other Presidents have done...that's true. However, the SPECIFIC things he's doing in executive orders can be, and in some cases are, different than what other Presidents have done and thus a reasonable argument can be made for someone being upset with him but not upset at another president....especially ones from 40+ years ago where the individual may not have even been alive.

Objective Voice said:

You're right in one respect...folks who weren't up in arms over GWB using Signing Statements to skirt the law are now up in arms over the mere mention of President Obama using the Power of the Executive Branch to issue Executive Orders when Congress fails to act in the nation's best interest. It's mind boggling - hypocrisy at its worse - 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) who gives clear warning to Congress to "act in the best interest of the nation to bring about job growth and economic stimulation via the private secton or else" suddenly these same people get all up in a tizzy over the President of the United States using his Executive Power within the process of governance and the spirit and intent of the law. To illustrate what I mean and just how real and perhaps even necessary the Presidents Executive intervention may be, I've pulled these two post from this thread - one from a Conservative poster, the other from a Liberal poster. Both make the very point the President was trying to convey to the American people which pollsters already acknowledge - the Congress is marred in ideological gridlock. On the one hand, you have both parties fighting against each other. On the other hand, you have in-fighting within a particular party. And yet, folks here who are clear ideologues refused to accept what is reality - that such gridlock, partisanship and purposeful mission to hamstring a sitting President makes Congress very ineffective.

Sidenote: I really wish folks would read, learn and understand "process" of government, recognize leadership when they see it despite what the talking heads and political pundits would have you believe and just start thinking for themselves.

Click to expand...

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.

President Obama through 5 years: 166 executive orders
President Bush through 5 years: 197 executive orders

Looks like Bush went around Congress too.

Objective Voice said:

I've pulled these two post from this thread - one from a Conservative poster, the other from a Liberal poster. Both make the very point the President was trying to convey to the American people which pollsters already acknowledge - the Congress is marred in ideological gridlock. On the one hand, you have both parties fighting against each other. On the other hand, you have in-fighting within a particular party. And yet, folks here who are clear ideologues refused to accept what is reality - that such gridlock, partisanship and purposeful mission to hamstring a sitting President makes Congress very ineffective.

Sidenote: I really wish folks would read, learn and understand "process" of government, recognize leadership when they see it despite what the talking heads and political pundits would have you believe and just start thinking for themselves.

Click to expand...

Also, please don't put words in my mouth. I've suggested no such thing. It is not CONGRESS solely engaging in gridlock, but rather the gridlock as it currently exists is a symptom of both parties and both the legislative and executive branches of the government. What more, while my post acknowledged that what the President stated is not INHERENTLY unconstitutional or the creation of a law, in no way shape or form was I suggesting that he was in the right or legitimate in his reasoning as to what his stated plan of action was. I hold the President as accountable for his actions and for the legislative situation we're in as I do congress, as he is not a helpless passenger in this whole ordeal.

TheNextEra said:

No, your comment that somehow Obama is the same as Hitler is lame. You want to Godwin a thread, go elswhere.

Click to expand...

It is not lame at all, when will liberals learn not all people agree with them?

Zyphlin said:

Sigh indeed.

It's wrong to just assume what Obama is going to do is unconstitutional, because Executive Order's aren't inherently unconstitutional.

Similarly...

It's wrong to assume that everyone is upset with Obama simply because he's doing the same thing as "the white guys did before him", because every Executive Order is not inherently exactly the same thing.

I can shoot a firearm. Someone else can shoot a firearm. We're both shooting firearms. However, if I'm firing at a target and the other person is firing at an innocent person, there's legitimate reasons why someone may be upset at him but not me even though he's doing the same thing "I did" in terms of shooting a firearm.

Obama is doing executive orders, which is something other Presidents have done...that's true. However, the SPECIFIC things he's doing in executive orders can be, and in some cases are, different than what other Presidents have done and thus a reasonable argument can be made for someone being upset with him but not upset at another president....especially ones from 40+ years ago where the individual may not have even been alive.

Click to expand...

Like, specifically what?

Zyphlin said:

Also, please don't put words in my mouth. I've suggested no such thing. It is not CONGRESS solely engaging in gridlock, but rather the gridlock as it currently exists is a symptom of both parties and both the legislative and executive branches of the government. What more, while my post acknowledged that what the President stated is not INHERENTLY unconstitutional or the creation of a law, in no way shape or form was I suggesting that he was in the right or legitimate in his reasoning as to what his stated plan of action was. I hold the President as accountable for his actions and for the legislative situation we're in as I do congress, as he is not a helpless passenger in this whole ordeal.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's everyone's fault that the Republicans have been filibustering at much more than a record pace...and when it comes to blocking nominees:



And in the debt ceiling battle, when Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner negotiated the sequester with Obama and came out of the negotiation bragging that "I got 98% of what we wanted" - whereupon he was immediately castigated for negotiating at all with Obama - well, THAT was all Democratic obstructionism too, hm?

The instances go on and on - to say it's the fault of both parties, of saying "well, they're just as bad as we are", is nothing more than a false equivalence.

iacardsfan said:

President Obama through 5 years: 166 executive orders
President Bush through 5 years: 197 executive orders

Looks like Bush went around Congress too.

Click to expand...

Ah, so it's the number of executive orders that matters to you, not the content.

Anthony60 said:

Ah, so it's the number of executive orders that matters to you, not the content.

Click to expand...

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.

Glen Contrarian said:

Yeah, it's everyone's fault that the Republicans have been filibustering at much more than a record pace...and when it comes to blocking nominees:

View attachment 67160208

And in the debt ceiling battle, when Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner negotiated the sequester with Obama and came out of the negotiation bragging that "I got 98% of what we wanted" - whereupon he was immediately castigated for negotiating at all with Obama - well, THAT was all Democratic obstructionism too, hm?

The instances go on and on - to say it's the fault of both parties, of saying "well, they're just as bad as we are", is nothing more than a false equivalence.

Click to expand...

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.

Objective Voice said:

You're right in one respect...folks who weren't up in arms over GWB using Signing Statements to skirt the law are now up in arms over the mere mention of President Obama using the Power of the Executive Branch to issue Executive Orders when Congress fails to act in the nation's best interest. It's mind boggling - hypocrisy at its worse - 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) who gives clear warning to Congress to "act in the best interest of the nation to bring about job growth and economic stimulation via the private secton or else" suddenly these same people get all up in a tizzy over the President of the United States using his Executive Power within the process of governance and the spirit and intent of the law. To illustrate what I mean and just how real and perhaps even necessary the Presidents Executive intervention may be, I've pulled these two post from this thread - one from a Conservative poster, the other from a Liberal poster. Both make the very point the President was trying to convey to the American people which pollsters already acknowledge - the Congress is marred in ideological gridlock. On the one hand, you have both parties fighting against each other. On the other hand, you have in-fighting within a particular party. And yet, folks here who are clear ideologues refused to accept what is reality - that such gridlock, partisanship and purposeful mission to hamstring a sitting President makes Congress very ineffective.

Sidenote: I really wish folks would read, learn and understand "process" of government, recognize leadership when they see it despite what the talking heads and political pundits would have you believe and just start thinking for themselves.

Click to expand...

Understand, I'm not just targeting left or right. It's the same with both sides..

Everything Obama is doing was done before, by bush. I was speaking out against bush because on the principles that the country is meant to be about is being destroyed.

Everyone that was wanting bush gone is now apologizing, and all the bush people are now opposing Obama... And it's a lot less about race than is implied...it's that people only care about the party and the party is owned by corporate interests not human interest.

The reality is that Obama is acting as a tyrant, each time he changed HIS OWN MASTERPIECE of a law, without congress, he was acting illegally.

Now, bush did a lot of criminal stuff in his reign, BUT he did it all within the confines that resembled a legal process... Obama is doing the same types of things, but he's circumventing the process.

If he can change the laws at will, "with a pen and a phone call", what would prevent him from changing term limit laws? Property laws (like those impacting your home)? Will he, maybe or maybe not, will the next guy left or right that inherits this new power?

The thing is, if this doesn't stop the new powers will be abused.

Glen Contrarian said:

*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!!!!!

Click to expand...

This isn't even about executive orders... At least not exclusively. This is about the increasing trend of abuse of powers.

It especially is not about race, and I'd appreciate you quit trying to race bait the conversation, it's a despicable tactic that's not even logically sound.

BmanMcfly said:

This isn't even about executive orders... At least not exclusively. This is about the increasing trend of abuse of powers.

It especially is not about race, and I'd appreciate you quit trying to race bait the conversation, it's a despicable tactic that's not even logically sound.

Click to expand...

"abuse of powers"? If you want to read about abuse of power, with the sole exception of what's happened with the NSA (which trend started before his time), what Obama's done isn't even close to what most of his predecessors - Republican or Democrat - have done. The worst IMO was Woodrow Wilson - a Democrat who was farther to the right than most people in the John Birch Society today.

I suggest y'all read a bit of history before y'all start making broad-brush accusations based on not much more than what you've been fed by the right-wing echo chamber.

Glen Contrarian said:

"abuse of powers"? If you want to read about abuse of power, with the sole exception of what's happened with the NSA (which trend started before his time), what Obama's done isn't even close to what most of his predecessors - Republican or Democrat - have done. The worst IMO was Woodrow Wilson - a Democrat who was farther to the right than most people in the John Birch Society today.

I suggest y'all read a bit of history before y'all start making broad-brush accusations based on not much more than what you've been fed by the right-wing echo chamber.

Click to expand...

Ok great... And you spoke out against bush when he did it, right?

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