The D's are just as guilty about refusing to play nice. Reid is just as much a stamp your feet child as Boehner. Although critical of Obama's lack of effective leadership Congress on both sides of the aisle are also horrid. This is why a strong President is so important.
The options you suggest are not supported by the Constitution.
What "police actions" are you thinking of?
Fern
Serously?
Korean war that was'nt declared a war by congress.
Viet Nam war that wasn't declared a war by congress.
Iraq war I - Desert storm not dclared a war by congress.
Iraq war II/Afganistan not dcleared a war.
And somewhere between nam and Iraqi I we had ocuppied Lebenon got a bunch of marines killed.
Is that enuogh of a sample? Oh yea the mighty liberation of Grenada.
Forgive my typing I'm Nooking it.
Serously?
Korean war that was'nt declared a war by congress.
Viet Nam war that wasn't declared a war by congress.
Iraq war I - Desert storm not dclared a war by congress.
Iraq war II/Afganistan not dcleared a war.
And somewhere between nam and Iraqi I we had ocuppied Lebenon got a bunch of marines killed.
Is that enuogh of a sample? Oh yea the mighty liberation of Grenada.
Forgive my typing I'm Nooking it.
The D's are just as guilty about refusing to play nice. Reid is just as much a stamp your feet child as Boehner. Although critical of Obama's lack of effective leadership Congress on both sides of the aisle are also horrid. This is why a strong President is so important.
The options you suggest are not supported by the Constitution.
Not "just as guilty" considering the Republicans have doubled ALL PREVIOUS RECORDS when it comes to fillibusters. More false equivalence from the desperate apologists.
When one Party refuses, there are no options left.
Yes there are. He can follow the law and constitution.
One might make an argument that Obama is within his rights under the Constitution, but you did not. You said he had no choice but to violate it because things aren't moving as you like. Then you say that the courts would decide. Decide what? Why should he listen to them if, with your apparent approval, he does as he pleases all in the cause so to speak. Now if this is indeed your opinion that Obama can hold himself above the Constitution, that's your opinion to which you are entitled, however you have entirely eviscerated the basis for the rule of law in this country by extraordinary subversion and therefore have no right to say others cannot do so as well. You've tossed the establishment clause or any other law, amendment or ruling ever made out the window. I told the Republicans that they would reap what they've sown yet you would go further still. When, not if, those you object to return you will reap the whirlwind. Be it on your head.
Well, if filibusters agitate you, you should look up how many bills Reid has 'sat on' so they never get a vote.
Just one guy, Reid, can unilaterally decide to not ever bring up a bill passed by the House or introduced by fellow Senators.
Here's a list of Reid's 'filibusters' as of August 2010: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/83057-290-bills
While it's an old article it gives one a good idea of how prolific Reid is in terms of 'filibusters'. Quite likely the list is much longer now.
Fern
We'll see.
You're OK with this option? An executive trumping the legislative and judicial branches?
I did not say that.
So what are you saying then? If I'm misunderstanding you please correct me.
Spot on. I'd add that it isn't just the Executive branch either, it's also SCOTUS and Congress whose power is growing unchecked. The latter is obscured at the moment since Congress is split and thus unable to exercise its new-found power, but all the federal government is growing in power. It's the new feudalism. There are some few bright spots though, such as government at most levels giving up its power to exercise a veto over one's choice of spouse. It doesn't help most of us, but government at any level giving up any power is a positive thing.1. He's correct. Executive power has been accelerating for some time and it's gotten worse after 9/11. Leeway granted to the Executive is hardly ever given back. Extra power that Reagan got was inherited by Bush and then Clinton. Extra power that Clinton got was inherited by Bush. Extra power that Bush got was inherited by Obama.
2. A dysfunctional congress accelerates the process. An opposition Congress will pass things at odds with the President, but generally can get the day-to-day business of running the country done. A dysfunctional one, like we have now and had at the end of Bush's administration begs for more Executive power. On the one hand, it's a practical way of getting things done when Congress isn't delivering. Second, if Congress is dysfunctional it cannot be an effective check against the Executive.
3. Congressional testimony tends to be self-serving in the interest of the party in charge of the chamber. It is not surprising that the professor who testified had the same opinions as the Republicans in the House. Otherwise he would not have been asked to testify.
tl;dr Executive power has grown for years, not just under Obama. Pointing it out in a House committee is restating the obvious for political reasons.
North America long ago split into two groups, those who felt the boot of Government on their necks was oppressive and those who found it comforting. Being firmly in the land and camp of those who found the boot of Government on their necks to be comforting, I can see how you would feel that Government exists to Govern and thus that any impediment to Government's power is to be smashed. However, those of us in American (and Mexico) threw off our colonial overlords and specifically set up systems to prevent this kind of behavior. True, many of us today are returning to the Dark Ages' practice of presenting ourselves to our new overlord, penny in hand and noose (this time figuratively) around neck, asking protection and sustenance in exchange for our freedom, but many of us still value our freedom. If Government (at any level) can ignore law at need, then none of us can be free creatures and all that remains is to determine the length of our chains.Obama taking these actions is not necessarily violating the Constitution. Especially if you count precedent.
As far as addressing issue, some must be addressed. If the traditional body of Government refuses to address them, it is far better that the President does than doesn't. At the end of the day Government exists to Govern. When it fails to do so the Nation suffers.
North America long ago split into two groups, those who felt the boot of Government on their necks was oppressive and those who found it comforting. Being firmly in the land and camp of those who found the boot of Government on their necks to be comforting, I can see how you would feel that Government exists to Govern and thus that any impediment to Government's power is to be smashed. However, those of us in American (and Mexico) threw off our colonial overlords and specifically set up systems to prevent this kind of behavior. True, many of us today are returning to the Dark Ages' practice of presenting ourselves to our new overlord, penny in hand and noose (this time figuratively) around neck, asking protection and sustenance in exchange for our freedom, but many of us still value our freedom. If Government (at any level) can ignore law at need, then none of us can be free creatures and all that remains is to determine the length of our chains.
I wonder if this is what the courts won't decide that I started a thread about.
When there are things that need to be done and those who are supposed to do it refuse, someone needs to step up to the plate.
North America long ago split into two groups, those who felt the boot of Government on their necks was oppressive and those who found it comforting. Being firmly in the land and camp of those who found the boot of Government on their necks to be comforting, I can see how you would feel that Government exists to Govern and thus that any impediment to Government's power is to be smashed. However, those of us in American (and Mexico) threw off our colonial overlords and specifically set up systems to prevent this kind of behavior. True, many of us today are returning to the Dark Ages' practice of presenting ourselves to our new overlord, penny in hand and noose (this time figuratively) around neck, asking protection and sustenance in exchange for our freedom, but many of us still value our freedom. If Government (at any level) can ignore law at need, then none of us can be free creatures and all that remains is to determine the length of our chains.
So you do believe that, if necessary in your mind, the US should, at least at times, have a king or emperor of some sort?