Obama's Imperial Presidency

Sal wrote:Oops ...

Tyranny Sal . . . pure and simple!

Assuming all executive orders were crated equal might make this interesting or relevant.


No... that wouldn't help either.

The back story is that when Obama was elected in 08 the power players of the GOP met and made a pact . . . . destroy and obstruct . . . . say no to anything and everything. Additionally, an orchestrated effort to degrade and demean him personally and destroy the relevancy of his administration . . . the internet was rife with email after email attacking him for his race, his wife, his objectives and what followed was some positive results in their objective . . it was death by a thousand cuts to use a phrase. Now, five years laters and following his re-election he fumbled his signature accomplishment with the pathetic roll out of the ACA . . . their efforts with that domestic screw up are getting results . . . don't listen to him . . . he gives a great speech but blah, blah, blah . . . it has been a GOP effort that has finally getting the desired result and that is to look upon Obama as irrelevant and out of touch so . . . . . mission accomplished! Now the mantra is he is trying to be King and some refer to him as the liberals messiah . . . all dismissive and desperate attempts to further erode his ability to get anything accomplished legislatively to get the nation back to work and to restore a degree of optimism. The GOP won't have it . . . not going to happen. The results of this inability to govern prevents the nation from going forward at a time when it poised to take off. Tax reform? We all know it needs to be done to generate additional revenue. Infrastructure investment? Hell no . . not going to happen . . . no way. Basic functions of helping our fellow citizens by extending unemployment benefits? Are you kidding me . . . not going to happen . . . screw those people, their families and their future but they will continue to lambaste the malaise of the economy! In summary, Obama understands and is under no illusion that he couldn't get the GOP to agree the sky is blue so he asks himself, what are my options here? Use of the power of the executive branch when and where he can to initiate actions and bypass Congress. Novel approach? Hardly . . . as has been previously posted he ranks waaaaaaay down the line in the number of Presidential directives bypassing Congress but still the haters are gonna hate and are screaming tyranny at every opportunity. Whatever satisfaction is derived from their orchestrated efforts it is the nation and its people who suffer.
I'm done . . . . (for now)!

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4696202

WASHINGTON -- Progressives are leaning on House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to follow the lead of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and declare opposition to President Barack Obama's trade agenda.

Reid cameout against so-called fast track trade authority Wednesday, all but ensuring Obama'sbig plans to cut major trade deals inEuropeand Asia are on ice for at least a year.

But progressivesarestill concerned some Democrats in the Housemight go along withSpeaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and move something that puts pressure on Reid and theSenate. So one group, Democracy for America, is launching a petition Thursday to get Pelosi to echo Reid in hopes of keeping her party inline.

Liberals-- and many conservatives-- aremost concerned by theproposed Trans-PacificPartnership, which theWhiteHouseispursuing in secret negotiationsamong 12 Pacificnations. They believe the agreement would undermine labor and environmental protectionsat home, and if it's fast-tracked, Congresswould have little power to object to specific parts of it.

"While Reid'sfirm stance diminishes the chancesthat the President will be given fast track authority by the Senate, it doesn't kill those chances completely," DFA head Jim Dean says in an email that will accompany the petition. "If Fast Track wereto passthe House, Reid would beunder overwhelming pressure from moderateDemocrats -- especially those up for re-election this year -- to cave in and allow thebill to pass withmostly Republican votes.

"Progressives need to keep Reid out of that dangerous position. And wecan't do that without the vocal support of HouseMinority Leader Nancy Pelosi," Dean says. "Reid did his part. Now it'stime for Rep. Pelosi to do hers. Tell Nancy Pelosi to put her foot down --publicly oppose Fast Track and the TPP today."

Pelosi'soffice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

pkr: Your post above is encouraging in that Speaker Boehner is at least sending signals that he would be open to so initiatives.  My own comments would also lead one to believe that everything Obama does is hunky dory with me . . . so not true.  I, too, feel the fast track authority which opens even more job killing opportunities to 3rd world nations should be blocked.  It was Clinton who opened the door with NAFTA and conceded to the admission of China into the WTO so the Democrats are in pooh pooh up to their chins so to speak when we assess who the hell caused this unfair playing field . . . it sure as heck was not Obama nor Bush, it was inherited and that huge sucking sound we hear is a continuation of jobs being sucked out of our country to people who earn .25 a hour . . .
Thanks for that post . . .

Obama also promised to kill nafta and renegotiate treaties to at minimum a fair deal for us. Considering the results... I'm against him having a fast track too. I know the talkingpoint is obstruction... but there are often sound objections.

PkrBum wrote:Obama also promised to kill nafta and renegotiate treaties to at minimum a fair deal for us. Considering the results... I'm against him having a fast track too. I know the talkingpoint is obstruction... but there are often sound objections.

We agree dude . . . fast track this new latest treaty seems would deal our fragile economy a serious and long lasting negative consequences . . . as far as 'killing NAFTA' has proven to be a minefield of special interests on both sides of the aisle . . . same shit different day . . . depends on whose ox is gored! Thanks for not calling Obama a LIAR because he said one thing but can't deliver!
LOL

Would naive make you feel better? If there were just one example of an empty promise he would be the best president ever.

PkrBum wrote:Would naive make you feel better? If there were just one example of an empty promise he would be the best president ever.

Naive . . . . maybe . . . better choice than liar. Sounds tacky and petty . .

Ok... but I didn't call him a liar. I simply pointed out the promise and we all know the result.

The problem we have here is that liberals will look at the number of orders by president and refuse to look at the significance of those orders.

It's like comparing 5 orders of jelly beans to a Kobe steak.

If he had to make it an executive order every time he wanted to bypass Congress and make a change to Obamacare, which he should have to do because it's the law, he'd be right up there with F.D. Roosevelt.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taADLPtyDb0

 

Sal wrote:Yep, some authorize torture and some get poor people a little more scratch. 


C'mon y'all. 


It's either unconstitutional tyranny or it's not. 


Quit moving the goal posts. 

actually it depends on what they are trying to do with it. Executive orders have to comply with the constitution and a clause in the constitution must back whatever it is up.

One thing we can point to recently that Obama did with executive orders was to continuously change provisions in the ACA without congressional approval. He himself made that law and took it upon himself to act as sort of a dictator to change things. This was and is not have the backing of the constitution and he could be removed from office for it if they choose to do so.

BTW, Bill Clinton and Carter both used more executive orders than bush2. Although I really don't care about bush or bill or jimmy, I cant think of any executive orders they made that were as significant to obamas past ones or the ones he wishes to make.

This is a good read.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2014/01/30/how-president-obama-could-be-swept-away-with-his-executive-orders-that-defy-congress-and-the-courts/

Just remember, your fav party wont always be in power and if we continue to allow them to keep topping each other while using the "they did it" excuse, rest assured, we the people will be the losers.

Dot wrote:The problem we have here is that liberals will look at the number of orders by president and refuse to look at the significance of those orders.

It's like comparing 5 orders of jelly beans to a Kobe steak.  

True, but Progressives don't know the difference.

And it's more than just the executive orders... and their significance... which are overreach. It's deciding not to enforce certain laws with which he and holder disagree... it's the ideologic regulations he allows agencies to run wild with. This summer the epa is going to really come down on the power plants... we ain't seen nothing yet.

Imperial or monarchy is about right. He knows the constitution... and he doesn't give a flying fuck. He's authoritarian.

Imperial or monarchy is about right. He knows the constitution... and he doesn't give a flying fuck. He's authoritarian.




So you think the executive branch has too much power......do you want that power to reside in the legislative branch or judicial?

2seaoat wrote:Imperial or monarchy is about right. He knows the constitution... and he doesn't give a flying fuck. He's authoritarian.




So you think the executive branch has too much power......do you want that power to reside in the legislative branch or judicial?

I think there is a constitutional remedy. A simple measure of authority. You won't like it unless it ignores liberty.

2seaoat wrote:Imperial or monarchy is about right. He knows the constitution... and he doesn't give a flying fuck. He's authoritarian.




So you think the executive branch has too much power......do you want that power to reside in the legislative branch or judicial?

How about utilizing the checks and balances that are supposed to be used and no one branch has total control.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfg0_FbIqqw

  

Mr. Oats posited the correct issue, where do you want the power to reside? The idiots in Congress with a 11% approval rating? I mean really . . . . .

knothead wrote:Mr. Oats posited the correct issue, where do you want the power to reside? The idiots in Congress with a 11% approval rating?  I mean really . . . . .

No he didn't and your support of his position belies the truth. The original intent of the founding fathers was to keep any one man or branch of government from having to to much power. Hence the checks and balances to keep all in check.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3z-BbX2Qs8

 

2seaoat wrote:Imperial or monarchy is about right. He knows the constitution... and he doesn't give a flying fuck. He's authoritarian.




So you think the executive branch has too much power......do you want that power to reside in the legislative branch or judicial?

As you know, they are supposed to BALANCE each other. President Barack Hussein Obama strongly believes that our Constitution is in error and goes out of his way to demonstrate his disdain for the document.