Reply With QuoteSo you don't care if it actually changes anything - you just want to see some grandstanding for the fun of it.Originally Posted by steven
IMO it all started when Ronald Reagen grabbed the Guard from the states, each president thereafter has been pushing the envelope further and further. It has got to the point where Obama just decides weather he will enforce or ignore laws or not.
This isn't it or shouldn't be a partisan issue. It should be a democracy issue.
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
So you don't care if it actually changes anything - you just want to see some grandstanding for the fun of it.
Nice try, but you are wasting your time trying to argue using accurate facts. Once some people spit something out it becomes truth to them simply because they spit it out.
No I want to not see it it happen in the future. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
I don't disagree. I simply needed to point out that this isn't the first presidency to do this.
However, I take issue with the fact that the house and the senate cannot get ANYTHING done which is forcing actions like these.
This website makes money off of a depraved and idiotic conspiracy theory.
good lord you partisin hacks are all the same, you dont even read or listen to what the other guys is saying you just keep spitting out your cheerleading.
There really is nothing substantive to you at all, you just root root root for your team and take shots at the other team. Well, put the Pom Poms down, I didn't vote for Bush either Copernicus.
No not the first I agree as well, but its been pretty bad and it has gotten worse since Reagen really uncorked the bottle IMHO.
It needs to stop, we are so far away from what the founding fathers envisioned its almost like we are a different country.
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
But you didn't accuse Bush of being a king, or support a misguided and legally untenable lawsuit to make him do what you want, right?
Yes. Under the Founding Fathers, we had slavery, Indians were "savages", and they passed the Alien & Sedition Act.It needs to stop, we are so far away from what the founding fathers envisioned its almost like we are a different country.
This website makes money off of a depraved and idiotic conspiracy theory.
I said;
If you cant grasp what that means, then I cant help you. I wont engage in another one of your "what is is " discussions.IMO it all started when Ronald Reagen grabbed the Guard from the states, each president thereafter has been pushing the envelope further and further.
Seriously your like a puff of smoke, there is nothing to you at all except, "Hurrah Obama!", and "Boo Bush!" You don't seem capable of taking a conversation past that point.
Your no better then the conservatives that where still talking about Clinton's penis 6 yrs after he was out of office.
Jeff, this a long read and I honestly haven't read the book yet but I just might get it.
comment I wholeheartedly agree with:Madison’s Nightmare:
Executive Power and the Threat to American Democracy (University of Chicago Press, 2009) analyzes the theory and practice of “presidentialism” as they unfolded from 1981 to 2009. The book argues that American presidents during this period waged an escalating war on checks and balances. They (and their lawyers) advanced ambitious and unsubstantiated claims of vast unilateral executive authority. They claimed to be largely immune to oversight by Congress and the courts. In a sense, their practices might be seen as merely extending a trend towards increased executive power, which has existed since the Depression, World War II, and the founding of the modern national security state. On the other hand, recent claims to presidential authority – including the genuinely audacious theory of “the unitary executive” – have so clearly accelerated the modern trend as to represent a genuinely distinct and dangerous phenomenon.
In our current political atmosphere, the issues this subject brings most readily to mind tend to be questions of war making and national security. One thinks also of the Bush Administration’s proliferation of constitutional signing statements and extraordinary pursuit of government secrecy. But the most novel assertion of presidential authority, and one for which Republicans and Democrats have shown equal enthusiasm, has to do with control over the federal policy making bureaucracy.
Under our Constitution, the federal executive branch has no inherent authority to issue general rules on the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the drugs we take, the cars we drive, the conditions under which we work and play, our susceptibility to discrimination in schools, in public accommodations, and in the workplace, our entitlements to health care, disability insurance, and income security in our old age – or on any of the other aspects of our individual or collective welfare that are currently subject to administrative regulation. The reason the executive branch regulates in these areas is that Congress, exercising the constitutional powers of the legislative branch, has decided to create administrative agencies and to empower those agencies to issue binding rules as Congress’s instruments for accomplishing the legislature’s constitutionally authorized objectives.
Up until at least 1980, if a federal administrative lawyer were asked to describe the relationship between the President and the administrative bureaucracy, the lawyer would probably say something like this: The President has powerful influence. He appoints the heads of all agencies (albeit with Senate advice and consent). Under laws enacted by Congress, the President can also fire most agency heads at will – and he can discharge any of them for good cause, such as law breaking. An agency’s failure to attend respectfully to the President’s concerns may elicit punishment in the preparation of the agency’s future budget. And, of course, the President is the President. By virtue of his office and his personal influence, what he says always carries great weight.
But that lawyer would have added a crucial final point: The President cannot actually order administrative agencies to issue the precise rules and regulations he wants. Agencies can issue rules and regulations that bind the public only insofar as they have legislative authority from Congress to do so. That authority may leave the agency with substantial room for exercising its own judgment in how to develop the very best regulation. In exercising discretion, no sensible agency will be oblivious to the President’s policy agenda. But the decision of how best to exercise agency judgment remains with the head of the agency, not the President. That means the President may fire an agency head if he is disappointed too often, but he cannot insist beforehand that the agency head follow the President’s policy preferences.
Since 1980, however, a different theory has taken hold. Presidents have increasingly subjected all significant administrative rules to months of painstaking scrutiny by the Office of Management and Budget, effectively second-guessing much of the regulatory work product of the executive agencies. Our Republican Presidents – President Reagan to some degree and, most especially, both Presidents Bush – regarded the system as a logical outgrowth of the theory of the “unitary executive.” Under this theory, the conventional legal understanding just described is wrong. “Unitarians” believe the President is entitled to command all administrators in the exercise of their discretionary powers. Contemporary presidentialists believe, in other words, that authority explicitly granted by Congress to agency heads is power actually delegated to the President. This is not just a matter of what Congress wants. It is what the Constitution compels. Congress could not provide otherwise.
The Clinton Administration did not adhere to this constitutional theory, but it embraced its operational equivalent. It interpreted all of Congress’s regulatory statutes, except those directed at independent agencies, as approving the presidential direction of rulemaking activity. Congress may not have been constitutionally compelled to defer to the President so strongly, but it has. And so, for President Clinton, as for the Republicans, presidential commands to regulatory agencies were appropriate.
Americans, of course, might not suspect much difference in operation between the pre-1980 view and the view of the presidentialists. Won’t an administrator subject to at-will discharge always follow orders? But the answer is, no. An agency head fearful of disappointing the President, even at risk of being fired, is constrained also by other constituencies. She will worry about the congressional committees that oversee her agency. She will worry about industry or public interest groups that monitor and publicize her performance. She will worry about maintaining personal credibility within her agency, with future clients or employers and with the larger public. She will know that the President can fire her, but only at political cost to the President. Thus, the difference in these two views of the presidency can shape many a key decision.
The move towards centralization of policy control in OMB should worry Americans for three reasons. First, a tightly controlled bureaucracy is actually less responsive to public sentiment than a bureaucracy in which administrators enjoy some room for independent judgment. This seems counterintuitive because we elect presidents, but not bureaucrats. The problem, however, is that the President is unlikely to reflect the views of the median voter on each and every issue of significant public concern. Because the President chooses agency heads, they will all share his general policy outlook, but each agency head is somewhat more inclined than the President to respect the median voter’s view on the particular issues that his or her specific agency addresses.
Second, the system is potentially less accountable to the public. The more decision making is concentrated in the White House, the easier it becomes to use executive privilege as a shield against disclosure of the decision making process. To be fair, recent Presidents have taken some significant steps to make White House regulatory review more open and transparent than it was in the 1980s, but the potential for changing course towards more secrecy is always present.
Third, the system adds months of delay to the process of issuing new regulations. As I detail in Madison’s Nightmare, it has never been demonstrated that the reduction in regulatory costs produced by White House review has adequately compensated for the value of benefits foregone by delaying new health, safety and environmental regulations for periods often lasting six months or longer.
I wrote Madison’s Nightmare partly in the hope of explaining persuasively what’s wrong with the “unitary executive” as constitutional law and partly in the hope of demonstrating how aggressive presidentialism undermines good governance. Much of the book deals with the dramatic questions of torture, domestic surveillance, and executive secrecy that are so often in the news. I hope that the book also brings at least some greater attention to the centralization of presidential policy making control, which deserves far more public attention and debate than it has seen since its inception.
- See more at: http://hnn.us/article/88190#sthash.HmREUlVh.dpuf
The Executive Office was established to execute law, not make it nor judge it. Sadly, because the Executive Department of government has taken over the Legislative and undermined the Judicial, the checks and balances established in the Constitution have been eviscerated. This process began in the 1930's and continues unchecked today. The Office of the President, with its vastly expanded powers, now includes, for example, the ability to wage war, alter or ignore law, set "social policies", and violate rights at whim, none of which are granted in the Constitution and many of which are expressly forbidden. What would our Founders have thought at such an imperial presidency?
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
Really? Nothing at all to me except "Hurrah Obama" and "Boo Bush"? I mean, 10 years' worth of political blogging aside, that's a pretty broad and incorrect statement. You're just butthurt because you get caught in your own bias whilst whining petulantly about everyone else's - including mine.
You don't impress me by pointing out that Ronald Reagan - one of the worst political and economic criminals ever to be elected - was a horrible President. Skyrocketing debt, deficit spending, unemployment, inflation, tax hikes, Iran-Contra, Beirut bombings, Palestinian terror targeting Americans - all of it made the 1980s a terrible time to live, and we've still yet to shake the tremendous harm that he - but more important his underlying economic philosophy - did to this country.
Every single time a Republican says that tax cuts will solve our economic problems, Reagan smiles, the rich get richer, K-street gets another check, and the middle class is further eroded.
Here's a tip - if you want to argue substantive policy, then do it. If someone rebuts your point - especially with facts and citations - whining about "bias" and "hack" means you lose. Seriously, I've had more substantive arguments with my 7 year old over breakfast ingredients than you can muster as an adult addressing your own hypocrisies.
And by the way, the tug-of-war between Congressional and Executive powers long pre-dates Obama or Bush or Nixon or LBJ or JFK. Your "opinion" that it started with Reagan is uninformed. But when people say that ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S A DRAMATIC PROBLEM THAT NEEDS IMMEDIATE REPAIR BY FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT, then you're just an Obamaphobe. Own it.
This website makes money off of a depraved and idiotic conspiracy theory.
If I say:
and your response is "OMG BUSH DID IT TO!"IMO it all started when Ronald Reagen grabbed the Guard from the states, each president thereafter has been pushing the envelope further and further. It has got to the point where Obama just decides weather he will enforce or ignore laws or not
If you call that you "arguing substantive policy" , or even funnier, "rebutting my argument"............. Then your more tied up in your partisanship then even I thought.
Yelling "Bush did it!" does not qualify as a intelligent response unless your a hopeless partisan. Your doomed to be making dumbed down utterance like that forever.
Just like in the other thread where you thought claiming I got my info from Fox News somehow disqualifies the information I put out. It doesn't and I didn't.
The scary thing is people like you dont even see it, your like nogods throwing "zombie Jesus" pictures at me after I said a million times I am not a Christian. Zombie Jesus doesn't bother me, as a matter of fact I thought it was funny in a 10 yr old humor kind of way. You blurting out "Fox News" like that is somehow supposed to prove the right and wrong of things doesn't bother me.
Do you people have a scrip you have to follow or something? Really its the same schtick every time.
6 yrs later and you and all the other super liberals are still blaming Bush, just like the super conservatives wanted to Blame Clinton's penis.... 6 yrs later
Your like twins on the opposite side of a coin.
and here you have done it again, turned the thread away from the substantive discussion about executive powers into another one of your lawyer what is is discussions. Really if you have nothing else to say except, "its the guy who was in charge 6 yrs ago fault" just do a cut and paste it will save you the trouble of trying to figure out how to reword it over and over and over again. Its old, it got old two yrs ago and now its really old.
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
Pretty much says it all.
Your right to buy a military weapon without hindrance, delay or training cannot trump Daniel Barden’s right to see his eighth birthday. -- Jim Himes
You do know Reagen is dead dont you?
The 1980's where pretty good to me, sorry you didn't have fun, I had a blast.
Yet now you seem to be happy with " Skyrocketing debt, deficit spending, unemployment, inflation, the largest tax hikes in this countries history, Fast and Furious, more people on welfare then ever before, 1 million homeless children, "..... should I continue?
LOL so now its Ronald Reagan's fault........ sure you don't want to take a shot at Truman?
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
Wait a minute - you brought up Reagan. Now, I'm a dummy for bringing up Reagan? You want to ignore 30+ years' worth of middle class and wage stagnation, be my guest, but data and science exist whether you believe in them or not.
Also - because the nuance is obviously lost on you while you're busy looking up clipart to use instead of, you know, formulating a cogent argument - I don't think it was wrong, per se, for Bush or Obama or Clinton or Reagan or Bush, Sr. or LBJ or JFK or any other President to necessarily test the limits of executive power. I think part of a functioning constitutional democracy is exactly to test limits in this way.
My point was that you perceive this to be a problem NOW - not then - but NOW it is a problem for you. Look up the concept of "laches" one day, and you'll see why that's unpersuasive. If you were minimally consistent - if you had even the tiniest bit of intellectual consistency, you'd have been yelling just as strongly against all cases of alleged executive overreach that pre-existed President Obama.
You didn't, so you throw up a meme or something.
So, to reiterate. I didn't say anything was Bush's fault, nor did I say anything having to do with executive overreach was Reagan's fault. You're the one who blamed Reagan for being the first to overstep the powers of the Presidency because of something having to do with the "Guard", and no one knows what you're even talking about. So, you know, Gulf of Tonkin Resolution never happened and/or wasn't an example of the legislative vs. executive tug-of-war because "Reagan" and the "Guard" and because your understanding of the things you're talking about are as deep as a kiddie pool.
This website makes money off of a depraved and idiotic conspiracy theory.
And another thing, Steven.
You cut & pasted a bunch of stuff you tripped over while Googling "Barack N0bummer is a bad man+Kenya+soshulizm". I couldn't post my reply in the thread because I used too many hyperlinks - you know, ways to back up the facts I was proffering. So, I'll leave it here for you to peruse because you have just enough of an attention span to cut & paste the information, but you don't have the attention span to actually look it all up.
This website makes money off of a depraved and idiotic conspiracy theory.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
