Posted on 11/18/2010 10:10:08 AM PST by My Favorite Headache
The liberal Center for American Progress doesn’t believe significant GOP gains in the House and Senate should stop the President from implementing more of his polices. The group released a report Tuesday suggesting ways Obama can bypass Congress to accomplish a progressive agenda, and it cites the president’s power as commander-in-chief to make its point.
“I think most of the conversation since the election has been about how President Obama adjusts to the new situation on Capitol Hill,” Center for American Progress head and former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta told the Daily Caller. “While that’s an important conversation, it simply ignores the president’s ability to use all levels of his power and authority to move the country forward.”
How does one “move the country forward”? In the center’s report, Podesta explains that Obama can use executive orders, rulemaking, and even the armed forces “to accomplish important change” and that such means “should not be underestimated.”
What exactly does Podesta think the president should use such powers to “accomplish”? Among others, the report suggests “job creation,“ ”quality affordable health care,“ ”sustainable security,“ and ”a clean energy future.”
The report cites specific goals such as mitigating the effects of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, supporting a Palestinian state, and reducing greenhouse gasses by 17 percent by 2020.
“The U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president significant authority to make and implement policy,” Podesta writes. ”Congressional gridlock does not mean the federal government stands still.”
Statement from John D. Podesta November 15, 2010
In the aftermath of this month’s midterm congressional elections, pundits and politicians across the ideological spectrum are focusing on how difficult it will be for President Barack Obama to advance his policy priorities through Congress. Predictions of stalemate abound. And some debate whether the administration should tack to the left or to the center and compromise with or confront the new House leadership.
As a former White House chief of staff, I believe those to be the wrong preoccupations. President Obama’s ability to govern the country as chief executive presents an opportunity to demonstrate strength, resolve, and a capacity to get things done on a host of pressing challenges of importance to the public and our economy. Progress, not positioning, is what the public wants and deserves.
The U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president significant authority to make and implement policy. These authorities can be used to ensure positive progress on many of the key issues facing the country through:
* Executive orders * Rulemaking * Agency management * Convening and creating public-private partnerships * Commanding the armed forces * Diplomacy
The ability of President Obama to accomplish important change through these powers should not be underestimated. President Bush, for example, faced a divided Congress throughout most of his term in office, yet few can doubt his ability to craft a unique and deeply conservative agenda using every aspect of the policymaking apparatus at his disposal. And, after his party lost control of Congress in 1994, President Clinton used executive authority and convening power to make significant progressive change. For instance, he protected more great spaces in the lower 48 states than any president since Theodore Roosevelt, established for the first time significant protections for Americans’ medical privacy, and urged the creation of the Welfare-to-Work Partnership that enlisted the help of 20,000 businesses in moving more than 1 million welfare recipients into the workforce.
The upshot: Congressional gridlock does not mean the federal government stands still. This administration has a similar opportunity to use available executive authorities while also working with Congress where possible. At the Center for American Progress, we look forward to our nation continuing to make progress.
Read the full report (pdf)
Download the executive summary (pdf)
Download the report to e-readers and mobile devices from Scribd
To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:
Print: Megan Smith (health care, education, economic policy) 202.741.6346 or msmith@americanprogress.org
Print: Anna Soellner (foreign policy and security, energy) asoellner@americanprogress.org
Print: Raúl Arce-Contreras (ethnic media, immigration) 202.478.5318 or rarcecontreras@americanprogress.org
Radio: Laura Pereyra 202.741.6258 or lpereyra@americanprogress.org
TV: Andrea Purse 202.741.6250 or apurse@americanprogress.org
Web: Erin Lindsay 202.741.6397 or elindsay@americanprogress.org http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/11/executive_orders.html/#statement
“SQUAD! CAMP IT...UP!”
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Chris.
Ike also....
With this kind of talk, can a civil war be far off??????
“We all know where you’ve been, you military fairy.”
Is this the Go-Sign? I’m waiting for the Go-Sign. Is this it?
I can’t see our soldiers marching on their parents, wives, children, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents and the friends around town. No, plus even if some were ordered, and some beagn shooting, there are more vets and others, that would pummel any insurrection. Podesta is a lame ### and he and Soros can take a leap. Where’s Joe McCarthy? They’re OUT IN THE OPEN now, no more cold war.
Your post makes me now believe in reincarnation!
I did not believe in it the last two times I was here on Earth.
AS long as no military person was ordered to do an overtly illegal action the order would be “lawful” - if you accept the arguments set forth by the military legal “experts”.
So a military person guarding a store, for instance, would not be unlawful on its face - even if it was to hoard food supplies for thugs and keep civilians from being able to buy food. A soldier could follow particular “rules of engagement” for that assignment so that if a civilian rushed them to get into the blocked store, the soldier could fire on them. Maybe. I really don’t know, but this is the kind of scenario that I could see being played out, based on the kinds of arguments I hear made in the Lakin case.
I hear them saying that soldiers can’t try to evaluate the lawfulness of the big scheme, the overarching goal (such as “progress”). They can only go by whether their particular action is illegal on its face. Every bigger action or goal is the sum of many small actions - none of which has to be illegal on its face in order to implement the bigger, unlawful scheme. That is how people like Podesta can “nickel and dime” a noble corp into watching silently while he rapes the Constitution and the nation.
How are our guys being prepared to fight against such a scenario?
He looks like he needs to be wormed (like most liberals)!
I don’t believe that, either. But I can SURE visualize those guys with the blue helmets from the building in NY [The UN] being more than happy to ‘do the jobs Americans won’t do’.
Wow. Unbelievable. Two more years and out they go. That is unless the “powers of the President” can be used to cancel elections and/or ignore their results.
I posted the other day I was getting a sense this TSA thing could just be a distraction.
Nothing seems to be out of the realm of possibilities with thess commies in charge.
If he uses the military against Americans, he is a fool with a very short life expectancy.
The EO can also be undone by the Senate.
The joint chiefs are political hacks who will bend over and kiss islamabama’s ring anytime he orders them to do so.
I’m afraid that if he called out the troops and ordered martial law at least 42% of the people would say it’s okay. And would even volunteer to help.
I was shocked we got through the November elections this year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.