SEAN HANNITY: We do have co-equal branches of government, separation of powers. You teach this regularly. You agree with the president politically. For you to say we are at a tipping point constitutionally -- now, I agree with you. What does that mean considering our constitution is our rule of law and they are ignoring it?I'm a lawprof too, and I too regularly teach this separation of powers business. And Turley is downplaying the argument for exclusive presidential power over some military and foreign affairs matters. Unlike Turley, I wouldn't say I "agree with the president politically," but I did vote for him in 2008, and when I did, part of my reason was that criticisms of President Bush were distorted by partisanship and that if a Democrat were President and responsible for the military, a more balanced assessment of presidential power would emerge.
JONATHAN TURLEY: Well, unfortunately our system is changing, and it's changing without a debate. Or even a discussion about what we're going to do in the future when we have a three branch system, a tripartite system but one branch is so dominant. What's emerging is an imperial presidency, an uber presidency as I've called it, where the president can act unilaterally. This is only the latest example of that. What's troubling is that we have a system that has been stable precisely because these are limited and shared powers. This president has indicated that he's just not willing to comply with some of those aspects. He told Congress he would go it alone and in our system you're not allowed to go it alone.... Well, I think that the biggest problem we have is that the system itself, if we have a dominant branch, simply begins to shut down in terms of the safeguards. People don't seem to understand that the separation of powers is not about the power of these branches, it's there to protect individual liberty, it's there to protect us from the concentration of power. That's what is occurring here. You know, I've said it before, Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be. You know, he's been allowed to act unilaterally in a way that we've fought for decades...
And here's the memo (PDF) from NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden explaining the administration's legal position, which reads the statute — Section 1035(b) of the FY 2014 NDAA — not to require 30-day notice to Congress when the Secretary of Defense has determined that notice "could endanger" a captive soldier’s life. You might find that statutory interpretation strained, but without it, the administration would resort to a constitutional argument and say that the notice requirement encroaches on the President's constitutional function of "protecting the lives of Americans abroad and protecting U.S. soldiers." The memo points to the President's signing statement:
“Section 1035 does not... eliminate all of the unwarranted limitations on foreign transfers and, in certain circumstances, would violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers.”I would say the signing statement disavows any belief in the statutory interpretation propounded by the memo, but the signing statement expresses the constitutional problem that drives statutory interpretation. (And by the way, just last Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that very strongly supports narrowing a statute to avoid getting to a question whether Congress has exceeded its constitutional powers.)
Posts
57 comments:
That has to be the worst reason for voting for a president that I've ever heard.
if the president believes the law is an encroachment on the powers of the Executive branch, why not make that constitutional argument? Otherwise, they aren't serious, it's just a power grab.
I must admit, I cannot understand your reasoning for voting for Obama in 2008. It makes no sense to me. So much so that I wonder if that was really the reasoning back then, or if you are just papering over it now, not wanting to admit you were hoodwinked.
One of the things I learned in poli-sci 100 was that all three branches of the federal government had grown in power dramatically since the turn of the 20th century, and they had grown in power at the expense of the states and the individual.
The federal government is the least democratic level of American government.
"He told Congress he would go it alone and in our system you're not allowed to go it alone…."
The only thing stopping any president is seeing the system as it wants to see itself. Once that's gone, the jig is up.
Congrats, Republicans, heckofajob,...
Worth noting that the controversial War Powers Act requires notice to Congress only after committing troops.
It was rather short-sighted for Congress to ask for 30 days advance notice here without making provision for a shorter period in exigent circumstances.
Also, Congress could have conditioned the authority to release or transfer Gitmo detainees on the provision of the advance notice, but it didn't write the statute that way.
Here's a poser: If the deal was illegal, is Qatar required to keep its end of the deal?
The tipping point was in the 1930s when the administrative state got rolling and the federal government expanded. Once the federal government took control over areas reserved to the states it was only time before the executive took over authority reserved to Congress.
The bigger the executive branch, the less accountable it is. This is the result of those who favor big government. Sorry Turley but you can't put the shit back into the horse now.
Althouse has thought of quite a few reasons why she voted for Obama in the years since.
darrenoia: That has to be the worst reason for voting for a president that I've ever heard.
And it's backwards. If you want the media to hold the President accountable and "keep him honest," it has to be a Republican. They'll let (they'll [b]help[/b]) a Democrat president get away with anything.
"Althouse has thought of quite a few reasons why she voted for Obama in the years since."
Show me a reason I've stated after the election that I did not state before the election. I know it's a tall order considering all the posts, but you have made an accusation.
I will tell you: It is false.
Professor, while under our system, the President is Commander and Chief of the armed forces, doesn't the Constitution delegate to Congress the responsibility for establishing the rules and regulations governing the armed forces? That was a rhetorical question. The answer is yes. And, in exercising his authority as Commander and Chief, the President is required to work within the rules and regulations established by Congress.
Exercising its constitutional grant of authority, Congress has established the military justice system -- which sets out the rules for dealing with prisoners. In this case, Congress chose to prohibit the release of any prisoners from Gitmo without 30 days notice. Congress did NOT grant the President the authority to waive the 30 day notice requirement if he felt it necessary. Congress has frequently granted the President such flexibility, so we have to assume that Congress's failure to grant the President some discretion was intentional. This is particularly true given the history of this particular requirement. Congress added the notice requirement in response to the President's earlier attempt to make this exact same trade.
In light of that context, the Administration cannot make a good faith claim that it was acting within its statutory authority when it failed to notify Congress. No matter how good its reasons for such a failure, the President lacked ANY discretion in the matter.
Which leaves us with the constitutional question. Here, given that the President did something prohibited by Congress and given that the prohibition was created using a specific grant of constitutional authority, I don't know how one could argue in good faith that Congress's regulation impermissibly encroached on the President's authority as Commander and Chief. I'd like to hear the argument, but I just don't see it.
Of course, the entire question is moot. Our system cannot deal with someone as President who cares nothing about remaining within the bounds set by the law. The Democrats are fund raising on the notion that the Republicans plan on impeaching Obama. Unless the Democrats are willing to impeach Obama (as Republicans were Nixon), there is no practical way to curtail Obama's grab of power. Obama knows it and is acting accordingly.
@Althouse
...I did vote for him in 2008, and when I did, part of my reason was that criticisms of President Bush were distorted by partisanship and that if a Democrat were President and responsible for the military, a more balanced assessment of presidential power would emerge.
I'd be interested to hear you expound on what you think of that reasoning now.
If you think this reason is a bad reason, I invite you to think about what it would have been like if a President McCain had proceeded with the military decision making -- about Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, etc.
Liberals would be crying outrage over everything, insisting that it is all illegal and the President should be tried for war crimes and so forth. It would be endless.
With a Democratic President, Democrats have had to accept some realities and we have had some useful adjustments.
You may not want to acknowledge this benefit, but it is something.
Crack said...
The only thing stopping any president is seeing the system as it wants to see itself. Once that's gone, the jig is up.
Congrats, Republicans, heckofajob,...
Althouse said...
Liberals would be crying outrage over everything, insisting that it is all illegal and the President should be tried for war crimes and so forth. It would be endless.
Except they aren't. With few exception they aren't crying over Guantanamo, rendition, NSA spying, James Risen going to prison, IRS suppressing libertarians and conservatives, etc. Case in point Crack, who responds to everything with the same tu quoque fallacy he's been pushing for years.
@Ann, I keep wondering when a Democrat President will receive the critical focus in the general culture that was put onto the Bush Presidency.
So Althouse voted for Obama so that the imperial presidency could be entrenched with bipartisan support? Maybe a McCain presidency and impeachment would have done us all some good.
Just kidding. I actually think she has a point here, although I could never have pulled the lever for Obama.
A. "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms"; "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"; "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (President Thomas Jefferson)
B. "The very atmosphere of firearms any where and every where restrains evil interference---they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."; "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty teeth" (Geo. Washington)
The Crack Emcee said...
Congrats, Republicans, heckofajob,...
Is it just me, or has Crack gone extra-specially batshit crazy lately? Obama is guilty of extra-constitutional arrogation of power, and it's the Republicans' fault? Get help, Crack, before the SWAT team breaks down your door.
With a Democratic President, Democrats have had to accept some realities and we have had some useful adjustments.
Honestly, I'm not seeing it. The only reality they accepted is that impeachment is nearly impossible.
That bodes pretty poorly for the future.
Your hope that they would have to act like adults (to paraphrase) has failed.
then why the hell did Obama apologize to DIFI about not notifying Congressional leaders before the terrorists-deserter swap?
And, looking at the video of his handover, he certainly didn't look like he was at death's door by any rational measure.
Ann Althouse said...
part of my reason was that criticisms of President Bush were distorted by partisanship and that if a Democrat were President and responsible for the military, a more balanced assessment of presidential power would emerge.
See, I understand that, becuase I had the same thought when I was sure Mrs. Clinton would win the Dem nomination, you know, that now the irresponsible talk, ridiculous accusations, etc. would necessarily have to end once people from the other side of the aisle were in charge. I assumed once a Dem read the daily intelligence briefings we'd start to hear less about the Government lying to keep us in line, raising the terror watch levels to influence public opinions, and so on.
It wouldn't make me actually vote for her, of course, but I entertained the though. The question really is looking back, now, how well did that pay off? Oddly the current President still makes the kinds of noises (on closing Gitmo, our need to stop being militarily aggressive, etc) that were made from the left under Pres. Bush, only he does not do much to act on it. What I mean is that he gets a pass (ordering drone strikes, using Speical Forces) but I don't think the left has actually moderated their views--they're just being hypocritical. If that's right then as soon as a Republican is back in the office you'll hear the same things again and all your vote would have bought you is a (left-media imposed) reprieve from vocal criticism against a Democrat. Which is really just Fen's Law in action.
Anyway I undertand the Professor's point but I wonder if she thinks it's worked out the way she though/hoped.
Obama is past the elections that he needed to act normal to win, but now he does announces, "impeach me or hide and watch while I destroy the Constitution, the Health Care system, the Military, the Electrical Generation capacity, IRS impartiality and American Immigration laws."
If we don't like a King doing that, then we can ask Eric Holder to enforce the law , or ask Susan Rice what really happened, or ask the EPA Czar why CO2 is now a designated a pollutant...oh never mind. The white people are racists accusation protects all of that horrible conduct from being questioned.
Classic Crack....a Black, Democratic president has turned out to be a total disaster.....and it is the Republicans fault!
With a Democratic President, Democrats have had to accept some realities and we have had some useful adjustments.
What in the wide wide world of sports makes you believe that this will last more than 30 seconds after the next Republican president is elected?
As soon as a Republocan president is elected, Code Pink will re-emerge, the poor will magically re-appear on our streets, the budget will matter again, and the media will resume screaming about the imperial presidency.
Part of what's kept things from spinning out of control before, is past presidents seem to have had greater respect for the law and our institutions.
Ann Althouse said...
With a Democratic President, Democrats have had to accept some realities and we have had some useful adjustments.
Have they, though? Or is it just that the media isn't covering things that would be embarassing to the left? For two recent examples, look a the discussions of Pres. Obama's signing statement re:the law requiring Congressional notification prior to releasing a Gitmo detainee (HR3304) and the outing of the Kabul CIA sation chief. On the first the press and academy went wide with denunciations of Pres. Bush, discussed the (scary!) theory of a unitary executive ad nauseum, and related this back to their assertion that the President was harming the rule of law. On the second the cause was taken up by the media, Plame was made into a hero, got a Vanity Fair cover, a movie, etc.
Contrast that with the reactions today. Have Democrats (and the media) actually accepted some realities and made useful (ideological) adjustments? We'll know when the next Republican is elected President. Hey, that's a good reason to vote (R) Professor!
With a Democratic President, Democrats have had to accept some realities and we have had some useful adjustments.
But as you saw during the last election, nothing that's changed so much that the lesson will carry forth to the next Republican president.
Mitt Romney was not treated the same way Barack Obama was. The next Republican will not be treated the same way Barack Obama is. We merely have a reprieve, and those with the loudest megaphones hold the presidency hostage to people thinking like this.
McCain as President of the United States is indeed a frightening thought, but the choice between him and Obama was no longer a choice by election day.
A vote for McCain would just have been another much needed protest vote.
Ann Althouse: "With a Democratic President, Democrats have had to accept some realities and we have had some useful adjustments."
There have been several comments made in addressing Althouse on this point and those comments appear to be in agreement that the democrats have certainly not accepted any realities and we have not had any useful adjustments.
Ann, do you agree with that assessment?
If not, could you point to some useful adjustments that you think have been made (by the dems) and/or some acceptance of reality by the dems?
I'm trying to gauge whether or not you think any examples of those things have occurred.
Here's what Justice Stevens wrote for the majority in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006):
The Constitution makes the President the “Commander in Chief” of the Armed Forces, Art. II, §2, cl. 1, but vests in Congress the powers to “declare War … and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,” Art. I, §8, cl. 11, to “raise and support Armies,” id., cl. 12, to “define and punish … Offences against the Law of Nations,” id., cl. 10, and “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,” id., cl. 14. The interplay between these powers was described by Chief Justice Chase in the seminal case of Ex parte Milligan:
“The power to make the necessary laws is in Congress; the power to execute in the President. Both powers imply many subordinate and auxiliary powers. Each includes all authorities essential to its due exercise. But neither can the President, in war more than in peace, intrude upon the proper authority of Congress, nor Congress upon the proper authority of the President… . Congress cannot direct the conduct of campaigns, nor can the President, or any commander under him, without the sanction of Congress, institute tribunals for the trial and punishment of offences, either of soldiers or civilians, unless in cases of a controlling necessity, which justifies what it compels, or at least insures acts of indemnity from the justice of the legislature.” 4 Wall., at 139–140.
Here's Justice Sutherland, writing for the unanimous Court in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936):
Not only... is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, "The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations." Annals, 6th Cong., col. 613. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, at a very early day in our history (February 15, 1816), reported to the Senate, among other things, as follows:
The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution. The committee consider this responsibility the surest pledge for the faithful discharge of his duty. They think the interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations calculated to diminish that responsibility, and thereby to impair the best security for the national safety. The nature of transactions with foreign nations, moreover, requires caution and unity of design, and their success frequently depends on secrecy and dispatch.
... [The President], not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign countries, and especially is this true in time of war. He has his confidential sources of information. He has his agents in the form of diplomatic, consular and other officials. Secrecy in respect of information gathered by them may be highly necessary, and the premature disclosure of it productive of harmful results. Indeed, so clearly is this true that the first President refused to accede to a request to lay before the House of Representatives the instructions, correspondence and documents relating to the negotiation of the Jay Treaty -- a refusal the wisdom of which was recognized by the House itself, and has never since been doubted. In his reply to the request, President Washington said:
The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their success must often depend on secrecy, and even when brought to a conclusion, a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions which may have been proposed or contemplated would be extremely impolitic, for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotiations or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and mischief, in relation to other powers. The necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason for vesting the power of making treaties in the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, the principle on which that body was formed confining it to a small number of members. To admit, then, a right in the House of Representatives to demand and to have as a matter of course all the papers respecting a negotiation with a foreign power would be to establish a dangerous precedent.
With a Democratic President, Democrats have had to accept some realities and we have had some useful adjustments.
Only for the duration, of course. I'll admit that even this temporary respite has been a relief.
Ann, you can appeal to SCOTUS's authority but what do YOU think of an Imperial government? You cozy with that?
Gahrie,
Classic Crack....a Black, Democratic president has turned out to be a total disaster.....and it is the Republicans fault!
It's the Republicans fault he won't work with you - you've proven, to be such a bunch of dicks, you're no longer a "loyal opposition" but,…just a bunch of dicks. You screw the pooch on general principle.
And you're not just dicks but stupid. And not just white supremacist stupid, but like the stupidest political group I've ever had the dishonor to be associated with. Think about it - look at us now:
Irony of ironies, the Republican Party is desperately in need of black voters.
Blacks are all hopped up about reparations - which has never won and Republicans think is a 100% loser.
So what do the Right-Wing idiots do?
They vocally came out against reparations - which could've won them the black vote without risking a dime or making any concessions.
That's STUPID.
Strategically, you need to give it up:
White supremacists just ain't got the ol' noodle for this job,...
With a Democratic President, Democrats have had to accept some realities and we have had some useful adjustments.
Except we haven't. Democrats still blame Republicans for any "realities" they happily accept from Obama, and there have been no positive adjustments that I've noticed. (If you disagree please list the just a few of the instances where a professional Democrat has admitted that any of Bush's policies actually made sense, and/or any adjustments that have been made as a consequence. I really haven't seen anything but erosion in personal freedoms and constitutional protections, all laid at the feet of a man who hasn't been President for five and a half years, but I could be wrong.)
And pardon me, but it's foolish to think professional Democrats and their fan base will be any less tribal when Evil Republicans regain dominance. The only thing that unites them these days is group hatred of Evil Conservatives. Hell, Libertarian is now on the menu for the real meat-eating Democrat.
I don't think McCain would have been a good President. I think Romney would have been a good President, but let's face it, he was one of the worst possible choices as a candidate; no appeal to hard-core conservatives of any stripe, scary to those easily frightened by the spectre of Corporate Greed, alien to religious bigots of all stripes (not least among them the atheists and squishy "I believe in a Suitably Non-Threatening Higher Power" types), and very, very white when so many people were still feeling proud for being not-racist and voting for the Black guy, and why don't we give him another chance?
No, it was a bad reason in 2008 and nothing that has happened since makes it look any better now. But hey, Obama is still Black. (Unless he really screws up - and I'm talking World Historical screwup - in which case he will be known as our first Half-White President.)
With a Democratic President, Democrats have had to accept some realities and we have had some useful adjustments.
I am of the opinion that we have not had much in the way of "useful adjustments," and meanwhile we've had to suffer through the disaster called "Obamacare", veterans have died waiting for a simple appointment, there are people dead today who might be alive had General Motors been allowed to collapse, and the list goes on. Do you feel any remorse?
I agree with MayBee and Hoodlum, Democrats don't believe in reality (case in point: Crack) so this respite will be brief.
Left Bank wrote: Here's a poser: If the deal was illegal, is Qatar required to keep its end of the deal?
Here's a counter-poser: Legal or not, the deal is not a formal treaty between the United States and Qatar. Whether Qatar holds up its end is completely a matter of their discretion. The deal is just that, a deal, and not a treaty with standing in international law. If the statements coming from Qatari officials are any clue we'll be lucky if there's a Talib left on that island come next Tuesday.
"Here's Justice Sutherland, writing for the unanimous Court in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936):"
But wasn't that, like, almost a hundred years ago?
Column A
An aggressive press
A passive press
Column B
A Republican president
A Democratic president
Pick one from Column A and one from Column B.
Chef's note: Not all items will be available on all nights.
Chef's note 2: An aggressive press is currently out of stock due to supply issues. We expect a new shipment in January 2017. Maybe. It will depend on the availability of the items in Column B.
The United States v Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. may not be a useful guide here because the question of the meaning of "foreign powers" must be answered in the case of the Taliban for Bergdahl deal. Does the term foreign powers include powers not recognized as legitimate by the United States? How about foreign criminal gangs like the Sicilian Mafia or the Yakuza, should the President be negotiating with the Sicilian Mafia? Wouldn't that undermine the authority and prestige of a friendly, legitimate foreign power, namely the government of Italy? Would an act of Congress restricting the President's ability to treat with foreign criminal gangs be unconstitutional?
Tooley has this right, I believe. If Obama was concerned about the constitutionality of the 30-day proviso he should have vetoed the bill, or at least taken the matter to court. Constitutional or not, the bill was duly signed into law and must be obeyed by the Executive until such time that a court has ruled otherwise.
By signing a law he had intention to keep Obama sought to have his cake and eat it too. He didn't want to be seen as being soft on detained terrorists.
Section 8 of Article 1 (Legislative Power) of the Constitution: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.
So what part of "make rules concerning captures" does not apply to this situation where Congress can demand notification of release of Prisoners? I am curious how the president tries to get around that clause.
The Crack Emcee said...
They vocally came out against reparations - which could've won them the black vote without risking a dime or making any concessions.
That's STUPID.
So the Republicans could have told a big, fat lie to get votes (which is what the Democrats do) and didn't, so they are capital letters stupid. Crack, listen to yourself. You're losing it.
Green w/ envy.
Perhaps it is time we apologize to Richard Nixon.
Tyrone:
If you live in a world with no honor, no dgnity, no shame, no ethics, then Crack's position makes sense.
The tragedy of it is, Crack doesn't even know what he's missing.
With a Democratic President, Democrats have had to accept some realities and we have had some useful adjustments.
Name one reality they have had to accept. All they do is tell us that now, it's good, where it was bad before. That isn't acceptance, that's lying. Obama still says he's trying to close Guantanamo for goodness sake. I guess once you release all teh prisoners, not much reason to keep it open, eh? But there hasn't been the squawking about it. They haven't accepted it as much as ignored it.
I so much want to respond to Crack.
keep repeating to myself: "don't feed the troll, don't feed the troll, don't feed the troll..."
Perhaps that skin rash has metastasized and gone to what little brains dear Crackhead inherited from his gutter tramp mother and absentee father.
He does seem more unhinged than usual. How delightful.
President Obama was elected to be Commander-in-Chief. He was not elected Warlord, with supreme power in the realm of war. His powers as Commander-in-Chief are subject to constraint and control by Congress in all matters - and they have chosen to constrain them in this case. He could be impeached over this - and if he keeps stepping over the line, he should.
"With a Democratic President, Democrats have had to accept some realities and we have had some useful adjustments."
There's been neither adjustment nor acceptance. The Democrats and the MSM haven't opposed Pres. Obama in his extra-Constitutional acts because he's their guy and he mostly gives them what they want. If Pres. Cruz does the same things that Pres. Obama does now they'll go right back to screaming "war criminal" to the high heavens and do everything they can to discredit him.
Crack:
"It's the Republicans fault he won't work with you - you've proven, to be such a bunch of dicks, you're no longer a "loyal opposition" but,…just a bunch of dicks. You screw the pooch on general principle. "
But they are a loyal opposition. They are loyal to their constituents, who want them to oppose the President's policies. The GOP members of the House and Senate are doing the will of the people who voted for them - which is precisely their job. The fact that a (slim) majority of the electorate voted for the President
does not mean that a GOP House Rep who won 70% of the vote in his or her district should roll over for the President. Especially when it has been shown repeatedly that he'll lie to both the opposition and his own base in order to get what he wants.
People keep saying that the GOP won't make deals with the President. But "You can keep your doctor and your healthplan if you like it" shows that he'll lie to anyone and everyone to achieve his ends. How can you make a deal with someone who won't keep a deal?
Tyrone Slothrop,
"So the Republicans could have told a big, fat lie to get votes (which is what the Democrats do) and didn't, so they are capital letters stupid. Crack, listen to yourself. You're losing it."
Please. This is the party of Lee Atwater. Who backed Romney for president. That jumped up to back Cliven Bundy. That claims Martin Luther King was a Republican like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.
Do NOT pretend you have a single moral, value, or principle, you've not already proven you're willing to sell out if it means whites keep political advantage. I said you lack STRATEGY. And I don't mind doing so:
You're not smart enough to do anything with it anyway,...
Gahrie,
"If you live in a world with no honor, no dgnity, no shame, no ethics, then Crack's position makes sense.
The tragedy of it is, Crack doesn't even know what he's missing."
So says a national spokesman for the ABC+ (The Associated Blog Commenters Who Only Know One Sentence In A Single Martin Luther King Speech) who, also, is lacking in irony.
With a Democratic President, Democrats have had to accept some realities and we have had some useful adjustments.
Translated: Hope & Change.
RonF,
"But they are a loyal opposition."
Not anymore. Now they're becoming a despised segment of society.
"They are loyal to their constituents, who want them to oppose the President's policies."
I am their constituent as well, and I say they and their supporters refuse to hear reason. Bush said leaders lead - that's not what's happening here. They're lost and heading further into the wilderness.
"The GOP members of the House and Senate are doing the will of the people who voted for them - which is precisely their job."
There's more to the job than that - they're public servants, sure, but they're also supposed to be statesmen. Backing the likes of Cliven Bundy, saying he doesn't acknowledge the government, or insisting on ruthlessly cutting government without acknowledging it's role in protecting blacks from predatory whites, puts the lie to their claims to national duty. They are hostile forces, re-arisen from the past, and nothing more.
"The fact that a (slim) majority of the electorate voted for the President does not mean that a GOP House Rep who won 70% of the vote in his or her district should roll over for the President."
For Obama to "roll over" the Americans he leads, to use that as the frame, says all it needs to about what's wrong with how the Right sees governing. I didn't vote for Obama - twice - but there's supposed to be this thing called respect. That says you actually entertain what the man is saying vs. indulging a nasty desire to paraphrase. That you acknowledge history - all of it - and not just the parts that make you feel good. Part of that is this fight, based as much on fear as on delusion.
"Especially when it has been shown repeatedly that he'll lie to both the opposition and his own base in order to get what he wants."
I like how everyone white screams at me to see them as people and then they proceed to make a statement that reminds me, for a lot of reasons, they can't see this president, or this black man, as human. I saw Bush as human. I know the difference. Y'all don't. You demonize like liberals.
"People keep saying that the GOP won't make deals with the President."
Dude, fuck Monty Hall, they're not even in the studio audience.
"But 'You can keep your doctor and your healthplan if you like it' shows that he'll lie to anyone and everyone to achieve his ends."
Hmmm. Something turned out not to be true (but might be, kinda, fixable?) vs. Americans living without insurance? Tough call, but I'll go with letting the president slide on that one. See, I've had no insurance, and a bad set of health-related mishaps that drained me financially, and no one to help me - on or offline - so now I'm living in poverty. Again. See what I mean? You look evil trying to allow that from happening to people.
"How can you make a deal with someone who won't keep a deal?"
A deal to hurt Americans who need help?
Now it's YOU who have to figure yourself out,….
"With a Democratic President, Democrats have had to accept some realities and we have had some useful adjustments."
Some people aren't nice - so we have to kill 'em - but we don't have to kill ALL of 'em.
Nobody's going to be satisfied with that but the sane.
How can such a talented "musician" and owner of a successful website be in poverty, Crack?
Don't worry, those reparations will come rolling in any day now, and you will be living on easy street.
Heh heh
It has been a fearure of legislative construction for nearly a century to turn over legislative powers via discretionary permissions and rule making powers to the executive and bureaucracy.
Congress does not like to do its own dirty work. All legislation basically describes a problem, decrees that the executive shall fix it and they bureaus shall determine the ways, appropriate the money and move on.
Obama is reconnitoring the limits of what is already allowed.
It is congress' fault.
Post a Comment