I can't see even one of those "accomplishments" as being good for the U.S.
Not one.I wish I could,but I can't.
Every single one of those actions has had negative consequences.
On what basis do you claim this?
Same thing I wanted them to do when the Republicans were in the minority:
Take a long walk off a short pier... in January.
The pardon power. It's essentially limitless in scope. A president can legally pardon even himself.
But the threat of impeachment is intended to curb precisely such abuse. It's a political remedy, not a legal one.
I linked to this article a few days ago in I forget which thread. That's where I'm getting my information.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392345/amnesty-and-impeachment-andrew-c-mccarthy
All great ideas* with zero chance of being picked up by the Pubbies.
*With the addendum that not all Executive Orders are fascistic. I can support Executive Orders that are symbolic or issue guidance where the law is honestly hazy, just not Executive Orders that overturn clearly written laws. Even that has to be taken with a grain of salt though. If a President considers a law such as DOMA to be un-Constitutional, doesn't he or she have the responsibility to oppose it? And if we accept that for laws we dislike, aren't we bound to accept it against laws others dislike?
My personal solution would be to require that all Executive Orders be reviewed by SCOTUS before taking effect.
So 3000 jobs and cheaper gas isn't enough?
Yes, the president can pardon everyone if he wants to, but he can't actually change the laws that made whatever they did illegal to begin with. The executive branch has a lot of leeway in how it goes about doing it's job, but there are limits. The interesting thing will be to see if there are any dems who value the welfare of the country and checks and balances over the potential of millions of new happily government-dependent dem voters.
Yes, the president can pardon everyone if he wants to, but he can't actually change the laws that made whatever they did illegal to begin with. The executive branch has a lot of leeway in how it goes about doing it's job, but there are limits. The interesting thing will be to see if there are any dems who value the welfare of the country and checks and balances over the potential of millions of new happily government-dependent dem voters.
What a load of delusional horseshit. I doubt you'd have applied the same reasoning over the Reagan amnesty. Or are they all Republicans?
Repubs have no intention of actually doing anything about immigration, because their uber wealthy donors love illegal labor precisely because it's illegal, because such workers have no rights. They will, instead, propose absurdities forcing Senatorial Dems to filibuster or Obama to veto, thus shifting the blame for what they want onto somebody else.
- Strictly prohibit abortion. The only exception is when the life of the mother is as stake. Anyone who provides an abortion is to treated as a murderer and put to death.
-snip-
In the eyes of the law, a presidential pardon means the crime essentially never happened.
-snip-
Yes, I suppose it does. But a pardon does not grant such a person a right to be here in the US, nor can it be used to grant them permission to work etc.
Fern
I could be wrong, but I think all the regulatory agencies are under the control of the Exec branch (i.e., Obama), so no, the Repubs cannot do this.
Fern
I like all of those, which tells me there's a zero chance of it happening.
("Loopholes" are damn far and few between, what most consider as loopholes are specifically intended by Congress and therefore, by definition, are not loopholes. Nevertheless, a rewrite of the tax code is long overdue.)
Fern
-snip-
The amount of money the government spends/loses between corporations not paying taxes and not negotiating for medications is absolutely staggering.
I'm not saying it's going to happen though.
Yes, that is correct.Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that this is simply a pipeline to get oil from Canada to a more central port or connecting to existing pipelines to refineries.
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/pipeline-primer/
Abortion is a terrible thing, but sentencing a raped woman to nurture the rapist's child for the next nine months is arguably worse. For the rest, except for the nonsense about abolishing the Fed it seems to me those are all things more likely to be done by the Democrats than the Republicans. You may be batting for the wrong team, dude, because except for the abortion bit that sounds a lot like the Occupy crowd's demands.
- Strictly prohibit abortion. The only exception is when the life of the mother is as stake. Anyone who provides an abortion is to treated as a murderer and put to death.
- Repeal GATT, NAFTA and all other free trade agreements.
- Get us out of the UN.
- Raise taxes on fortune 500 companies.
- Free college education for all.
- Free healthcare for all.
- Legalize weed.
- Abolish the federal reserve.
- Bring wall street criminals to justice.
That has always been central to Obama's reputation. During the 2008 election cycle I did my due diligence and his one supposed accomplishment was passage of a bill extending health insurance for poor children - a bill written and sponsored by Republicans, in a Republican-dominated state legislature, expanding another Republican bill, which easily passed. He was 100% a hollow suit, and while my belief of his accomplishments as President are pretty close to yours, it's certainly a sea change from his "presence" in the state legislature.Yep, exactly. Pretty embarrassing when you (the people making that list) have to resort to trying to spin bad things as "accomplishments" or taking credit for things you didn't have much to do with as "accomplishments" because there really haven't been any actual accomplishments.
Well said, and faced with that I'll change my mind and agree with you. No Executive Orders. And no signing statements; I'd love to see a line item veto, but one should not be back-doored in.To the first handful of US Presidents it was simply understood that only Congress had the exclusive right to enact laws, as noted in Article 1 Section 1 All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Among the original Executive Orders there is nothing legislative, only proclamations, dispositions and suggestions. Washingtons first Executive Order was to recommend that Thanksgiving take place on November 26th.
Starting with Lincoln, Executive Order power was treasonously employed in times of crisis to circumvent Congressional authority (e.g. suspending habeas corpus, gold confiscation). Article 2, Section 3 only states that the President has the authority under national emergencies to call Congress into session, not to enact legislation. Admittedly the two Roosevelts took this treasonous authority to never-before-seen heights.
In 1999, President Clinton issued Executive Orders declaring a national emergency in Yugoslavia, eventually to declare war against them without any Congressional authority. By GW Bushs time, he continued turning these Executive Order against the American population, seizing control not granted by the Constitution: all communications media, all power and fuels, all food and farm resources, all modes of transportation etc. This fine tradition has escalated under the current Administration.
Eventually Adolf Hitler used his executive orders privileged to turn Germany into a Nazi dictatorship. In particular, the Patriot Act would have made Hitler and Stalin extremely jealous. Yet somehow the American public continues in ignorance regarding the three branches of US govt, sadly too divided and distracted to notice the framework of a dictatorship.
With President Biden waiting in the wings with the same politics but half the brains? Chance not, dude.In the eyes of the law, a presidential pardon means the crime essentially never happened.
If Landrieu is defeated by Cassidy this December, the republicans will have, I think, 54 seats. That means they'd need to get 6 democrat votes to present a true impeachment threat, assuming every single republican is on board. That's slim, but not impossible.
With President Biden waiting in the wings with the same politics but half the brains? Chance not, dude.
Hmm, good point.And do you think he'd do the same thing with his predecessor removed from office?
3000 jobs is being generous (it's actually around 60 permanent) and cheaper gas because of the keystone pipeline isn't going to happen.
So no, it's not worth risking our land, displacing people, for a foreign country or for a foreign company so they can make money faster.
Damn Nook linking is virtually impossible. Anyway, there's an article on MSN Money that basically says that Keystone only works if crude is at least $95 a barrel. Go ahead Repubs pass your stupid bill and watch nothing happen. And they complain about picking winners and losers.
Fire all the czars and defund or get rid of Homeland security and other departments that think they can dictate laws. The FAA defends airlines, The FCC defends telephone and cable operator monopolies. The Home Land Security spies on people and has its own secret police force. Department of Agricultures does about nothing but make welfare for farmers and gives deadbeats food stamps. Every department on earth has its own brand of welfare. Just cut all their budgets to almost nothing and tell all the states they can keep that money.