Skip to comments.Shift on Executive Power Lets Obama Bypass Rivals
Posted on 04/23/2012 7:07:55 AM PDT by crosshairs
WASHINGTON One Saturday last fall, President Obama interrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue not on the agenda. He declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism. We had been attempting to highlight the inability of Congress to do anything, recalled William M. Daley, who was the White House chief of staff at the time.
The president expressed frustration, saying we have got to scour everything and push the envelope in finding things we can do on our own. For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his domestic policy goals.
But increasingly in recent months, the administration has been seeking ways to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts We Cant Wait, a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies on creating jobs for veterans, preventing drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more. Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: If Congress refuses to act, Ive said that Ill continue to do everything in my power to act without them. Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obamas increasingly assertive use of executive action could foreshadow pitched battles
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
These are NYT readers. What do you expect?
I found the comments frustratingly scary.
Any EO can be undone by congressional vote. This means we are doomed.
They are, after all, NY Times readers making the comments. I usually bypass clicking on NY Times links.
These dwellers on the Left Hand side of the Bell Curve have been convinced, by academicians, that a degree in 17th Century Italian Art, while useless in the real world, is a badge of advanced political knowledge. But, don't ask them to change a tire...
When did a college education become a worthless scrap of leather, instead of a specialized advanced trade certification?
um, thats an elephant not a jackass.
So they can at some point abolish the Legislative branch.
It's one of the first things a dictator would do to consolidate power.
I can’t remember exactly who it was, but one of Obama’s radical groups told Obama to rule by executive fiat.
It was either Soros, Media Matters or ACORN. I think it was Soros and of course it is self serving because Obama’s radicals want taxpayer looting, legislation for their marxist agenda.
And time is running out for Obama. Look for lots more this year and many will not be constitutional but he knows there will be very little time to stop him legally. Hit them with so much they can’t take it all on.
Oh and I forgot the biggest part, Obama is running out of slush funds to buy votes.
Soros group wants Obama to rule by executive order Organization cites mid-terms, claims progressives registered victory
George Soros-funded Institute for Policy Studies, a Marxist-oriented think-tank in Washington, D.C.
It’s actually the Dunning-Krueger (or Kruger) effect. Fairly recently named, but noted a long time ago by many.
This is why it is vital that some conservative candidate for president be found who is willing to do the extraordinary thing: to work with congress to *reduce* the power of the presidency.
Ever since George Washington (with his Whiskey Rebellion power grab), the presidency has been one long path of taking more and more power, to the point where it is clearly turning into an “imperial presidency”.
The gradualism involved is agonizing, with each president craving “just a little” more power, for whatever pragmatic goals or ideals they have. Wars are a great excuse, but it all boils down to the *desire* of presidents to somehow get whatever is needed to get what they want. Often the public will agree with the president that the little power grab was needed. But once taken, the power is never given back.
So we really have to get a candidate willing to “set the clock back”, to restore some degree of order and obeying the law. Since Marbury v. Madison, the president has effectively been “above the law”, and not a one of them has ever been removed from office, no matter how grotesque their offenses have been, since congress refuses to do so.
Oddly enough, the biggest obstacle to reform are the other congressmen and senators who still have “the burning breast”, and someday want to become president themselves, and with it, ALL the power they imagine the president has.
So a conservative president willing to do this must also have powerful allies in congress willing to help.
What needs to be done? Again, Marbury v. Madison must be our guide. From that point, the president decided that he could refuse a “writ of mandamus” (a court order telling him to do his job and obey the law).
But this importantly just means that the president cannot be made to *do* something. It does not mean that others cannot *prevent* the president from doing something. And that is key.
The president is just one person, and all he can do is issue orders. But congress can restrict others from obeying those orders. And this is how the presidency can be reduced in power.
Here is a list of some of the worst presidential offenses.
1) Presidential Signing Statements, in which the president writes how he interprets the law, and what parts he intends to enforce and what parts he intends to ignore. Extremely unconstitutional.
2) The appointment of “czars” and recess appointments beyond the actual recess. Nobody except the White House Chief of Staff, Staff and Secret Service presidential protection detail should be in the “first tier” as direct subordinates to the president unless they have been approved by the senate. And this is not an inclusive list, so congress should have a “date certain” by which *all* presidential appointments *will* be made, or they will be made automatically by some process, with those appointees appearing for senate confirmation.
3) Executive Orders, Presidential Proclamations (used to take vast amounts of state land), and other seemingly “administrative” actions by the president must be approved by the appropriate congressional committees before they go into effect. (Every president since Truman has at some point recreated a paranoid delusion EO in which some disaster has befallen the US requiring them to take absolute power. This crap has to end.)
4) The ground rules to Executive Privilege, the War Powers Act, Posse Comitatus, and Security and Police powers by presidential order, must be clarified and be very strict.
5) Though it seems minor, a conservative president should restore the tradition of giving congress a *written* State of the Union (required by the constitution), instead of that month-long waste of resources that goes into the current dog and pony show. Instant savings of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Generally a good start, but it all must be codified into law.
valerie jarret, baraq’s puppet master, told the world that obama was ready to RULE on day one.
Problem there. Presidents don’t rule.
If they ruled, they would be called a ruler.
Interesting that NO ONE in the repub party picked up on that or even remembers.
Weimar Germany had an Article 17 in its constitution. It allowed the President to rule by decree if the Reichstag was deadlocked. As it was after the Nazis gained a huge number of seats in the 1930 elections., and they were fighting with the Communists to stall everything. For two years the Chancellor ruled by decree. So when Hitler took office, the German people were used to dictatorship. Hitler just took the power and ran with it. If Obama gets re-elected and the Republicans hold on to power. Obama may just go full bore with this. By 2017, it would take a very determined anti-progressive Republican President and large majorities in an anti-prohressive Congress to BEGIN weeding this garden.
I remember that and I think it was a freudian slip. Jarrett is so corrupt she would have no problem ruling for Obama just like she calls the shots for him now. Jarrett’s background is communism just like Obama.
I know you know this stuff. I just had to clarify my thoughts.
WHy are you using a Republican Party is Fascist poster?
This is a strange position for a constitutional expert to take.
I could say that the two parties are very similar in my mind and the symbols are irrelevant, but had I been moving more slowly I would have looked carefully and chosen the poster with a jackass on the flag.