Obama's Executive Order Restraint Debunked

[magisme]

Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/16/obama-presidential-memoranda-executive-orders/20191805/

....

Of course now the argument will go back to how, technically, he has the legal authority to do this so what's the problem. And if the Republicans didn't block all his initiatives and....

[Damn_Smooth]

Looks like Carter started it and it's only going to get worse with whoever is next.

[wasted]

Does he have a twitter account?

[Rustycage]

Or if Congress wasn't so erratic and worthless during this time maybe there wouldn't have to be such a authoritative approach.

The only time they were ever given the nod was during the 9/11 fallout, when in hindsight, people aren't very happy with the way they helped give away our rights for the sake of freedumb.

This constant need to point at any one man as the problem while using talking points that ignore the biggest obstacle to any sort of progress is just as counterproductive. Their name is the most perfect label of anyone ever. Congress.

[magisme]

The fact that Congress sucks, which is well documented and widely discussed so it's not like anyone is brushing then under the rug, does not justify, IMO, such thoroughly undemocratic actions from the President.

[Dan H.]

I dont think Congresses inability to get legislature passed is an excuse for Obama's action, but I'm also not particularly surprised, concerned, or upset by his use of executive power.

He's trying to get shit done to please the people who voted for him, and I'd rather he'd do it with executive power than sit around twiddling his thumbs.

It's not like America is going to slip into a dystopian dictatorship anytime soon, and the alarmists that worry about this sort of thing just baffle me.

It's like people think the whole 200 year foundation of American politics is going to dissolve into totalitarian chaos just because a black guy is President.

[magisme]

We've lost all sight of that was once good about our political ideals. All hail the technocrats.

Edited December 19, 2014 by magisme

[Dan H.]

I think we've just changed. It's 2014, we don't need to run our government like its 1776 ya know?

[magisme]

When was the Constitution ratified again? Everything's fine. No worries here. At least tell me you're not American.

You can try to simplify the argument all you want, but a country that was founded on distrust of encroaching government powers might not want to dismiss at the flick of a hand those who raise concerns when government action has become more and more secretive and authoritarian just as it's abilities, technological and other, to encroach on our lives are going parabolic. This shit from Obama is just a speck in the tapestry that reveals just how much we've lost the plot.

[Rustycage]

The fact that Congress sucks, which is well documented and widely discussed so it's not like anyone is brushing then under the rug, does not justify, IMO, such thoroughly undemocratic actions from the President.

Simply operating under the premise that EO's are bad and all of that surface level rhetoric completely ignores the actions of the most influential president (one of the best imo) of the 20th century. Through which, the American middle class benefited greatly. Through which the people were protected best.

What exactly do you disagree with to label it "undemocratic?" You already know it's legal. You already know the discussion of Congress's obstructionism. We already know that Congress is sold to either speak for the rich or else do nothing. Which actions do you have a problem with?

When Congress is doing nothing, the elected federal representative(none of that, "POTUS is only in charge of the military" stuff. The people want and expect more.) is not expected to just be an elected eunuch cuckold. That's what Congress wanted and vowed to make of him. It may be convenient to omit that but that is a large factor that can't be just brushed away.

To think you're even witnessing a Democracy at all recently is perplexing. This is now a Plutocracy/Oligarchy. If we want to talk about "undemocratic," nothing is off of the table under that umbrella. No action is without a reaction. Ignoring the whole picture is intellectually dishonest and biased. Which surfaced first, the chicken or the egg?

[Dan H.]

When was the Constitution ratified again? Everything's fine. No worries here. At least tell me you're not American.

You can try to simplify the argument all you want, but a country that was founded on distrust of encroaching government powers might not want to dismiss at the flick of a hand those who raise concerns when government action has become more and more secretive and authoritarian just as it's abilities, technological and other, to encroach on our lives are going parabolic. This shit from Obama is just a speck in the tapestry that reveals just how much we've lost the plot.

There's no need to nit pick. 1776 is the year generally associated with the founding of the United States. I was using that year rather than the year the Constiution was ratified because I was referring to the philosophies that gave birth to American government, which existed in 1776 and are more commonly associated with the Revolutionary War and the inception of the country in general. That seems quite reasonable to mean, and being condescending is really unnecessary.

Anyways, I just think that people are dramatizing this way too much. The American political system has to evolve to stay afloat. I don't care much about Obama either way, he's an okay president. But I think it's silly to suggest that his use of executive power is any way leading America down a a slippery slope towards some sinister future.

It just is strange to me how people cling to the Constitution like its the Bible. If I'm not mistaken(and I may very well be) I was under the impression that the document was designed to be fluid and open to change and interpretation.

Really it's just an aging guideline for an effective way to run a government in the late 18th, early 19th century. I'm just suggesting that this executive action shenanigans really isn't as big of a deal as some people are making it out to be. Sure it's worthy of a raised eyebrow and a discussion about how such executive power should be monitored and balanced, but by no means is it any sort of downfall of American ideology. America is about change and innovation to me, and I don't think its necessary to hide behind outdated inapplicable texts simply because that's where we started.

Edit: I shouldn't say inapplicable, because I do think The Constitution provides a very good template for the way America should be governed, but I don't think that straying from the template immediately opens the door for totalitarianism as a serious possibility

Edited December 19, 2014 by LiveFromNormal

[magisme]

The middle class has benefited greatly under Obama?

The Constitution was a "guideline for an effective way to run a government"?

We're not talking about the same things. We don't agree on the basic premises.

[downzy]

The fact that Congress sucks, which is well documented and widely discussed so it's not like anyone is brushing then under the rug, does not justify, IMO, such thoroughly undemocratic actions from the President.

Undemocratic? Then what was that 2012 election all about?

And you're leaving out a little bit of context here (which the article includes). In you combine executive orders and memorandums Obama really isn't much different than most Presidents (save for the fact that he, without exaggeration, works with the most intractable Congress ever.

[Rustycage]

You can try to simplify the argument all you want

Just in case you don't know. This uproar and the repeating of it is exactly that. It is completely dumbed-down, simplified and disregarding of all of the undemocratic actions by the entire government just so we can witness another Obama witch-hunt.

Let's not sit here and type that we think Congress disapproves because of "Democracy." No one really gives a shit about the democracy anymore. If they did, they'd quit grudge fucking the American people every chance they get.

[magisme]

Again, I have no regard for Congress and couldn't give a shit what they're up in arms about. They're just as bad.

The fact that Congress sucks, which is well documented and widely discussed so it's not like anyone is brushing then under the rug, does not justify, IMO, such thoroughly undemocratic actions from the President.

Undemocratic? Then what was that 2012 election all about?

And you're leaving out a little bit of context here (which the article includes). In you combine executive orders and memorandums Obama really isn't much different than most Presidents (save for the fact that he, without exaggeration, works with the most intractable Congress ever.

I didn't post that because it's redundant. He has the most since Carter and he still has 2 years left.

[downzy]

The middle class has benefited greatly under Obama?

The Constitution was a "guideline for an effective way to run a government"?

We're not talking about the same things. We don't agree on the basic premises.

Well, that's highly debatable. The Constitution was written under the sunset of monarchy rule. It was a reaction to it, but not necessarily a tome written with the best form of governance relative democratic institutions.

If the the Congressional form of governance is so wonderful and supreme, why does the U.S. generally institute a parliamentary form of government whenever they topple dictators and institute a new form of governance? Why did U.S. Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg make the argument that Egypt would be better off not using the U.S. Constitution as a model for their new form of governance?

Again, I have no regard for Congress and couldn't give a shit what they're up in arms about. They're just as bad.

The fact that Congress sucks, which is well documented and widely discussed so it's not like anyone is brushing then under the rug, does not justify, IMO, such thoroughly undemocratic actions from the President.

Undemocratic? Then what was that 2012 election all about?

And you're leaving out a little bit of context here (which the article includes). In you combine executive orders and memorandums Obama really isn't much different than most Presidents (save for the fact that he, without exaggeration, works with the most intractable Congress ever.

I didn't post that because it's redundant. He has the most since Carter and he still has 2 years left.

It's not redundant. It's correct to point out that the White House's argument that Obama's use of the executive action is the lowest in generations is wrong. Yet, when combining executive orders and memorandums he runs a bit above the average. However, as the point has been made, the previous Presidents worked with a far more conciliatory Congress. But you don't seem to care much for that argument.

Understand that doing nothing is policy in and of itself. He has the Constitutional authority to use memorandums and executive orders. It is anything but "undemocratic."

[magisme]

Where have I said that the Constitution is perfect? And SCOTUS opining about what sort of government should be "instituted" in Egypt has its own set of problems morally/ethically/legally, so I'll leave that alone.

[Rustycage]

The middle class has benefited greatly under Obama?

The middle class benefited greatly from FDR, who had over 3700 EO's. But of course, the information is put out there that EO's are new and "errr mah gawd Obama is a dictator!"

The Constitution was a "guideline for an effective way to run a government"?

The constitution is a living document that should always be amended to evolve with the times. We don't have just 3 million people anymore as when the constitution was drafted. To live as if it is almost 250 years ago is pretty...uh...."simplified." Good luck supporting these congressmen who are on the hunt and simplifying this argument to get, what they consider, stupid people to follow along. This isn't about "Democracy" one bit.

We're not talking about the same things. We don't agree on the basic premises.

We aren't talking about the same things because so far you haven't outlined exactly what you have a problem with except for the simplified explanation that has been put out there in a completely biased way.

Constitutionalists always fall on their face when you start mentioning the amendments. If it were never subject to change, this country would be a much worse place than it is now. Never be surprised if you go nowhere when you shackle yourself to the old ball and chain.

1: What exactly are the things you oppose?

2: Do you think this country is achieving democracy at all currently? If not, why try to omit the whole picture?

[Apollo]

Without reading any posts in here, I'm going to guess that Rusty has thrown out a conspiracy theory of some sort against the government, and Downzy will have told us how much better Obama is than Bush and how much worse it would be if we had a republican president (and referenced a couple internet websites for proof)..........and they both will give Obama a lot of praise?

[downzy]

Where have I said that the Constitution is perfect? And SCOTUS opining about what sort of government should be "instituted" in Egypt has its own set of problems morally/ethically/legally, so I'll leave that alone.

Sorry, didn't see the question mark at the end of your sentence. Thought you were making that point, not questioning it.

[Dan H.]

Without reading any posts in here, I'm going to guess that Rusty has thrown out a conspiracy theory of some sort against the government, and Downzy will have told us how much better Obama is than Bush and how much worse it would be if we had a republican president (and referenced a couple internet websites for proof)..........and they both will give Obama a lot of praise?

No.

[downzy]

Without reading any posts in here, I'm going to guess that Rusty has thrown out a conspiracy theory of some sort against the government, and Downzy will have told us how much better Obama is than Bush and how much worse it would be if we had a republican president (and referenced a couple internet websites for proof)..........and they both will give Obama a lot of praise?

So you've decided to make up your mind without actually reading what people are saying. I guess we can make some assumptions about you too Apollo.

[magisme]

1: What exactly are the things you oppose?

2: Do you think this country is achieving democracy at all currently? If not, why try to omit the whole picture?

1. I oppose executive orders in any sense, from any president, and I think they should be illegal, regardless of whether a particular order can be argued "good" or "bad". I am opposed to the practice itself because I never want that kind of power in one person's hands. Look at what has happened with war once Congress essentially gave up its right o have a say there.

2. No, I do not. I'm not omitting anything. Briefly focusing on one particular thing does not mean you omit everything else.

[Rustycage]

Without reading any posts in here, I'm going to guess that Rusty has thrown out a conspiracy theory of some sort against the government, and Downzy will have told us how much better Obama is than Bush and how much worse it would be if we had a republican president (and referenced a couple internet websites for proof)..........and they both will give Obama a lot of praise?

I'm quoting this just to provide more proof that you don't know shit about me or my views. Preesh, man!

[Rustycage]

1. I oppose executive orders in any sense, from any president, and I think they should be illegal, regardless of whether a particular order can be argued "good" or "bad". I am opposed to the practice itself because I never want that kind of power in one person's hands. Look at what has happened with war once Congress essentially gave up its right o have a say there.

And ^THAT is simplified.

Most people have given up on the hope of Congressional power to act in the interest of Democracy. We can't support the constitutional way anymore and some don't support the way of executive orders. It's a failure.

Districts are rigged.

Representatives are bought off and in plain sight.

Why now should we all be running around with our hands in the air saying, "OH SHIT! Obama and executive orders!" ???