The use and abuse of executive orders

[AndyZ]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/us/politics/shift-on-executive-powers-let-obama-bypass-congress.html

I'm curious how liberals feel about this move.  Do we want the president to be able to bypass Congress and the checks and balances, or not?

Please remember that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  If you're okay with it when one party does it, you lose credibility if you complain when the other does.

[RubySlippers]

The president is the CEO of the nation and does oversee the domestic, security and miltary agencies he has the authority of office to order things unless in violation of the law. If he says to this agency rework student loan debt but not excuse the debt he can do that, he can order the immigration agency to give preferences as long as the end result is the discretion of the head of that agency which he did do then its more a request of his office (true by the president but still a request) and so forth.

Congress in return can oversee this by law but if they create an agency, fund it and leave the agency at the discretion of the president to oversee which is the normal state of affairs he is granted this power.

In fact such power is vital if say a US Embassy was at risk he must be able under his order to move military forces in to defend that embassy and remove if decided US nationals, going to Congress might not be an option.

Now its not an absolute power and it never was but for day to day work of the government the president is like a governor with the need to oversee the government and if he decides to act the pressure then is on the opposition to show that use of power is unjustified. An action rarely undertaken since the courts so far as I can tell side with the executive branch on its authority over agencies of the government.

An example in Florida our governor hated the High Speed Rail project and the legislature supported it even by his party so he simply said he would order all state agencies to not go ahead in any way to create the HSR but left it open to "any other option not involving state agencies". He could do that he just told the state agencies to do nothing in this matter for or against it. The president seems to be no different there are implied and necessary authority and since he is the head of the government that can be fairly broadly applied.

[Trieste]

Please remember that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  If you're okay with it when one party does it, you lose credibility if you complain when the other does.

I disagree.

Party-wise, I'm an independent. I don't place blind faith in either party, and there are some GOPers I would vote for in a heartbeat. There are some Dems that I would protest at the polls until my last breath. However, the parties are differentiated by trends, and right now the trend is for the GOP to specifically obstruct things like universal health care and, specifically, women's access to proper reproductive choices. Currently, Obama (not necessarily the Dems, but O) is on a roll with tax plans that I support, steps to ensure that the populace of this country gets proper medical care, and several other steps. Meanwhile, the GOP-controlled "checks and balances" have made clear that their focus is on sabotaging anything Obama does whether they see it as good or bad.

So yes, I support Obama's push around Congress, and I support it specifically because Congress has failed to be the check and/or balance they are supposed to be. Congress has failed its constituents, and I support the fact that our President is using his executive powers to do something about it.

I don't think I lose credibility when I point out that Obama is pushing for things like jobs bills and better EPA regulations, while his predecessor used the same sort of power for essentially illegal search and seizure. Just because the means are the same does not mean the ends are - and I believe it was always the ends that people had problems with, with Bush.

[vtboy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/us/politics/shift-on-executive-powers-let-obama-bypass-congress.html

I'm curious how liberals feel about this move.  Do we want the president to be able to bypass Congress and the checks and balances, or not?

The president's power to issue executive orders is not really a "bypassing" of Congress, but an aspect of the checks and balances built into the system. It has long been recognized that the executive branch plays an interpretive role with respect to legislation. To the extent executive action exceeds a reasonable reading of the power granted by an act, redress is available through the courts (though Dick Cheney, that Darth Vader of our own galaxy, and architect of the Unitary Executive doctrine, would likely disagree). A statute can always be amended or repealed if Congress is displeased by executive action taken within its ambit.

[Serephino]

While maybe not the best move, I'm with Trieste on this one.  The GOP has made it very clear their agenda is to get Obama out of office.  They don't want anything positive being done because they want to sit and point and blame come election time.  They've been obsessed with birth control and abortion, not the economy.  They've been happy to try and 'fix' that by gutting Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare.  After all, poor people are poor because they're lazy.  It couldn't possibly have anything to do with lack of jobs, student, debt, gas prices, or the rising cost of education.  Nope, we haven't made the rich rich enough to get a good trickle yet. 

Everything is falling apart.  These powers have always been his, and I think it says something that he hasn't used them up until now, though he probably should've stepped in a little sooner than this.  Bush abused his powers to start wars that we couldn't afford.  Maybe he was going for another WWII boost, but the whole outsourcing thing made it not help at all.   

[Callie Del Noire]

While I feel that the last president did some dangerous things.. most of them were more circumspect in action and implementation in the wake of 9/11. Wireless taps, 'enhanced interrogations, outing NOC Agents of our own country.

That being said, President Obama has done some very very dangerous things with direct implications towards destroying the delicate balance of power and the Constitution. He's encouraged, and signed into law, dangerous bills and laws with long ranging and dangerously wording. The elimination of due process, even in very specific circumstances makes me very very concerned.

The idea of the president using Executive Orders with the same sort of outlook worries me. I can see the 'constitutional' scholar in the White House doing a LOT of things that worry me. 

[Serephino]

Some bad things have passed, but all he did was sign them, so don't go giving him all the credit.  I hate it when people do that.  Congress wrote and passed it.  Maybe it was some kind of deal.  I'm not saying that makes it all okay, but that's unfortunately how government works.  We don't know.  Our rights have been being slowly stripped away steadily since 9/11.  The GOP is really good at keeping people in fear, though I really wish they'd get over it.

[TheGlyphstone]

Some bad things have passed, but all he did was sign them, so don't go giving him all the credit.  I hate it when people do that.  Congress wrote and passed it.  Maybe it was some kind of deal.  I'm not saying that makes it all okay, but that's unfortunately how government works.  We don't know.  Our rights have been being slowly stripped away steadily since 9/11.  The GOP is really good at keeping people in fear, though I really wish they'd get over it.

He could have vetoed them though. Perhaps Congress would have overridden the veto, but the President's personal objection to the bill would have been noted. Since he signed them, that means he agrees with them, or otherwise isn't willing to break ranks with his own party (as the supposed head of said party). GOP rules the House right now, but the Democrats have the Senate, and it takes both halves agreeing before something even makes to the President's desk. While the GOP is good at keeping people in fear, it's the Democrats who are gleefully letting the GOP stoke that fear, then using it to increase their own power. Remember, politicians are the third-oldest profession.

[Callie Del Noire]

Some bad things have passed, but all he did was sign them, so don't go giving him all the credit.  I hate it when people do that.  Congress wrote and passed it.  Maybe it was some kind of deal.  I'm not saying that makes it all okay, but that's unfortunately how government works.  We don't know.  Our rights have been being slowly stripped away steadily since 9/11.  The GOP is really good at keeping people in fear, though I really wish they'd get over it.

You know.. I'd agree.. except the White House ASKED and got the NDAA imprisionment clause changed and ENHANCED. He asked them to CHANGE it to it's current form.. because it didn't go far enough.

[Malthas]

Not American but watching the news and all it's clear that Obama has had to force some issues through because there has been no way to get things done otherwise.   The Republicans are willing to burn down the whole nation to rule the ashes if it means them winning.     Whatever makes Obama look bad and sets him back they try and do even if it means going against what's good for the US.    It's been so blatant I'm amazed that so little is made of it.    It's easy to see how the GOP are the masters of firing things up in that aspect while the Dems are sorely lacking.   

If Obama and the Democrats had a failing it's that they didn't have the balls to do what needed to be done and let the other party walk all over them dictating things.    Even when changed or watered down the Republicans still refused to sign on since it was never good enough. 

If a Republican president had been in office when Osama got killed that's all they would be screaming about non stop, but since Obama is?   Ha, they give credit to everything but him.

[vtboy]

If a Republican president had been in office when Osama got killed that's all they would be screaming about non stop, but since Obama is?   Ha, they give credit to everything but him.

Since substantial numbers in the GOP insist that Obama is a Muslim and, at the least, a terrorist sympathizer, I am sure Osama's death is seen by many as a ploy to deceive the naive into believing the president is a stalwart, patriotic defender of the nation. I am equally confident that vigorous scouring of the internet will unearth theories that Osama's death was staged, like the 1969 moon landing, or even that Osama conspired with Obama in his own death, willingly martyring himself in his cause to disarm us. Once the American people have let their guard down in the comforting delusion that Al Qaeda has been decapitated and the ever-vigilant Obama is manning the ramparts, the sleeper cells will awake from their slumber. Oh boy.

[TheGlyphstone]

Since substantial numbers in the GOP insist that Obama is a Muslim and, at the least, a terrorist sympathizer, I am sure Osama's death is seen by many as a ploy to deceive the naive into believing the president is a stalwart, patriotic defender of the nation. I am equally confident that vigorous scouring of the internet will unearth theories that Osama's death was staged, like the 1969 moon landing, or even that Osama conspired with Obama in his own death, willingly martyring himself in his cause to disarm us. Once the American people have let their guard down in the comforting delusion that Al Qaeda has been decapitated and the ever-vigilant Obama is manning the ramparts, the sleeper cells will awake from their slumber. Oh boy.

There are also people, somewhere, who believe Obama is actually an alien infiltrator sent from Zebtulon Seven to pacify Earth's only great nation before the arrival of our new pancreas-devouring overlords. Probably. ;D They're not an accurate portrayal of the average American citizen (GOP or otherwise) either.

A totally unscientific Google search finding one set of relevant data (from 2 years ago) from a supposedly nonpartisan fact tank: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1701/poll-obama-muslim-christian-church-out-of-politics-political-leaders-religious
I'd like to see more recent data to see how the trend continued, but it doesn't appear to be an exclusively GOP issue in being ignorant of Obama's religious affiliation, even after that whole snafu with his church preacher back during the election.

[Etah dna Evol]

Republicans in congress are stalling Obama no doubt, Republicans in congress also believe unreasonable things about him. Nothing like Bush. I mean, the liberals in Congress bent over backwards for Bush and would never call him a stupid country bumpkin and war criminal. This is all just GOP territory.

[Trieste]

Etah, while well-applied sarcasm is tolerated and even encouraged in this board, your post isn't really conducive to furthering the discussion of the topic. Further posts that do little other than inflame will be deleted from the politics board. There is a rules sticky at the top of the board if you wish to review it.

[Etah dna Evol]

I simply implied that Republicans are doing, what Democrats did before them. Stalling the President in Congress and encouraging silly rumors about them in the media isn't a new concept, nor does it belong to Republicans alone.

[vtboy]

There are also people, somewhere, who believe Obama is actually an alien infiltrator sent from Zebtulon Seven to pacify Earth's only great nation before the arrival of our new pancreas-devouring overlords. Probably. ;D They're not an accurate portrayal of the average American citizen (GOP or otherwise) either.

A totally unscientific Google search finding one set of relevant data (from 2 years ago) from a supposedly nonpartisan fact tank: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1701/poll-obama-muslim-christian-church-out-of-politics-political-leaders-religious
I'd like to see more recent data to see how the trend continued, but it doesn't appear to be an exclusively GOP issue in being ignorant of Obama's religious affiliation, even after that whole snafu with his church preacher back during the election.

Damn. And I'd only been worried about the Jihadists up 'til now.

[OldSchoolGamer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/us/politics/shift-on-executive-powers-let-obama-bypass-congress.html

I'm curious how liberals feel about this move.  Do we want the president to be able to bypass Congress and the checks and balances, or not?

Please remember that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  If you're okay with it when one party does it, you lose credibility if you complain when the other does.

Bear in mind the whole "conflict" between Obama and the GOP is largely orchestrated for public consumption.  Both Obama and Congress are merely front men for the people who actually own America and who make the important decisions: the wealthy elite.

[Etah dna Evol]

I don't think the differences in parties (small though they may be) are all part of a facade and the wealthy elite are all unified in purpose. There are definitely competing agendas among the wealthy.

[AndyZ]

I disagree.

Party-wise, I'm an independent. I don't place blind faith in either party, and there are some GOPers I would vote for in a heartbeat. There are some Dems that I would protest at the polls until my last breath. However, the parties are differentiated by trends, and right now the trend is for the GOP to specifically obstruct things like universal health care and, specifically, women's access to proper reproductive choices. Currently, Obama (not necessarily the Dems, but O) is on a roll with tax plans that I support, steps to ensure that the populace of this country gets proper medical care, and several other steps. Meanwhile, the GOP-controlled "checks and balances" have made clear that their focus is on sabotaging anything Obama does whether they see it as good or bad.

So yes, I support Obama's push around Congress, and I support it specifically because Congress has failed to be the check and/or balance they are supposed to be. Congress has failed its constituents, and I support the fact that our President is using his executive powers to do something about it.

I don't think I lose credibility when I point out that Obama is pushing for things like jobs bills and better EPA regulations, while his predecessor used the same sort of power for essentially illegal search and seizure. Just because the means are the same does not mean the ends are - and I believe it was always the ends that people had problems with, with Bush.

How do we decide when that changes from use to abuse, though?  Using executive orders in this way isn't part of the Constitution (from my understanding; if I'm wrong, someone please point out the spot) so there's no checks and balances for this.  If we elect John Q. Republican and he signs an executive order to give a waiver to Obamacare to all 50 states, would that be abuse?  Could he just as easily say that Congress wasn't going to get rid of it on their own?  How do you draw the line?

I actually like the checks and balances thing, although I'd love to see a way to make it easier to get rid of stupid things.  I personally think it should be much easier to remove stuff than to add stuff.

The president's power to issue executive orders is not really a "bypassing" of Congress, but an aspect of the checks and balances built into the system. It has long been recognized that the executive branch plays an interpretive role with respect to legislation. To the extent executive action exceeds a reasonable reading of the power granted by an act, redress is available through the courts (though Dick Cheney, that Darth Vader of our own galaxy, and architect of the Unitary Executive doctrine, would likely disagree). A statute can always be amended or repealed if Congress is displeased by executive action taken within its ambit.

Could I get a spot in the constitution on this?  I can't find it.

Not American but watching the news and all it's clear that Obama has had to force some issues through because there has been no way to get things done otherwise.   The Republicans are willing to burn down the whole nation to rule the ashes if it means them winning.     Whatever makes Obama look bad and sets him back they try and do even if it means going against what's good for the US.    It's been so blatant I'm amazed that so little is made of it.    It's easy to see how the GOP are the masters of firing things up in that aspect while the Dems are sorely lacking.   

If Obama and the Democrats had a failing it's that they didn't have the balls to do what needed to be done and let the other party walk all over them dictating things.    Even when changed or watered down the Republicans still refused to sign on since it was never good enough. 

If a Republican president had been in office when Osama got killed that's all they would be screaming about non stop, but since Obama is?   Ha, they give credit to everything but him.

Since you're not American, it's worth explaining that different news sources are owned by various political news groups.  You're always going to get either a strong left slant or a strong right slant.

See, Obama had two straight years of a majority in both houses of Congress.  During the first year, he had a supermajority in the Senate, where it was completely impossible for the Republicans to block anything whatsoever, because they had enough Democrats to do whatever the crap they wanted.

Have you ever seen an argument among two little children, where they point fingers, exaggerate and claim that they're entirely innocent while the other is entirely guilty?  If you want to see how American politics are going, you have to watch both a left-skewed and a right-skewed source, compare and contrast.

Since substantial numbers in the GOP insist that Obama is a Muslim and, at the least, a terrorist sympathizer, I am sure Osama's death is seen by many as a ploy to deceive the naive into believing the president is a stalwart, patriotic defender of the nation. I am equally confident that vigorous scouring of the internet will unearth theories that Osama's death was staged, like the 1969 moon landing, or even that Osama conspired with Obama in his own death, willingly martyring himself in his cause to disarm us. Once the American people have let their guard down in the comforting delusion that Al Qaeda has been decapitated and the ever-vigilant Obama is manning the ramparts, the sleeper cells will awake from their slumber. Oh boy.

I can kinda understand the confusion of Obama's religion.  Most people think he's Christian, then get confused when he talks about collective salvation, because Christianity doesn't believe in collective salvation.  So if he's not Christian, what is he?

Then again, I don't 100% believe everything that Catholicism teaches, so perhaps he's just closer to Christian than anything else.

Bear in mind the whole "conflict" between Obama and the GOP is largely orchestrated for public consumption.  Both Obama and Congress are merely front men for the people who actually own America and who make the important decisions: the wealthy elite.

One thing I've been thinking about which is contrary to this: the spineless nature of many corporations nowadays.  If you get enough people to protest something, a number of corporations will just bow down and stop doing whatever, or change things.  Like, if BP was just about being evil and forcing everyone to buy oil, why are they branching out to try to do all this green stuff, especially with how unprofitable it's being?

[Trieste]

How do we decide when that changes from use to abuse, though?  Using executive orders in this way isn't part of the Constitution (from my understanding; if I'm wrong, someone please point out the spot) so there's no checks and balances for this.  If we elect John Q. Republican and he signs an executive order to give a waiver to Obamacare to all 50 states, would that be abuse?  Could he just as easily say that Congress wasn't going to get rid of it on their own?  How do you draw the line?

I actually like the checks and balances thing, although I'd love to see a way to make it easier to get rid of stupid things.  I personally think it should be much easier to remove stuff than to add stuff.

I should be clear; the yardstick for abuse is not something I'm holding against the President, but against Congress. They literally have fought the President on ev.er.y.thing. Attempts at compromise have been rebuffed. The current Congress brought us to the brink of default, entirely unnecessarily. Various leaders in Congress have stated repeatedly that their goal is to make sure the President gets nothing done. That smacks to me of abuse on the part of Congress, and I don't think that making full use of the range of executive powers available to him is an abuse on Obama's part. I believe that polls have shown repeated disquiet across the country at the obstructionist stance that Congress has taken; I believe that part of what fuels the OWS movement so strongly is frustration that the current government is either not willing to get off its ass and do something, or those that are willing are being blocked (not just Obama, see the killed FCC amendment re: Facebook and social media passwords for an example) so you have people getting creative, people getting restless, and even the President isn't immune to that. I might even say, if I were feeling particularly frisky, that he has a responsibility to work around people that refuse to work with him and their other colleagues.

But I believe that obstruction and obfuscation have absolutely no place in government or politics. Period, end of story, do not pass Go do not collect $200.

[Rhapsody]

Since you're not American, it's worth explaining that different news sources are owned by various political news groups.  You're always going to get either a strong left slant or a strong right slant.

See, Obama had two straight years of a majority in both houses of Congress.  During the first year, he had a supermajority in the Senate, where it was completely impossible for the Republicans to block anything whatsoever, because they had enough Democrats to do whatever the crap they wanted.

Have you ever seen an argument among two little children, where they point fingers, exaggerate and claim that they're entirely innocent while the other is entirely guilty?  If you want to see how American politics are going, you have to watch both a left-skewed and a right-skewed source, compare and contrast.

Actually, I'm not American either, but I know enough to be able to separate out the cherry-picked items from the truth. Everything is skewed, but if you know what to look for, and get a source from each side, as well as one generally neutral (my choices are usually Fox News, MSNBC, and NPR or overseas), you can get a fair picture.

What amuses me is the blatant hypocrisy of the right. When the Tea Party started their movement, they were disgruntled Americans dissatisfied with their representation, and were executing their constitutional right to protest. (Also bear arms, but another theme for another day). Yet, the Occupy movement were derided as nutjob, lazy, shiftless morons who couldn't hold a job and wanted a government handout. That's why I like sites like Guess that Protest! Really puts things into perspective.

I can kinda understand the confusion of Obama's religion.  Most people think he's Christian, then get confused when he talks about collective salvation, because Christianity doesn't believe in collective salvation.  So if he's not Christian, what is he?

Then again, I don't 100% believe everything that Catholicism teaches, so perhaps he's just closer to Christian than anything else.

Not all Christians believe in it, but it's taught by some denominations and in some churches.

One thing I've been thinking about which is contrary to this: the spineless nature of many corporations nowadays.  If you get enough people to protest something, a number of corporations will just bow down and stop doing whatever, or change things.  Like, if BP was just about being evil and forcing everyone to buy oil, why are they branching out to try to do all this green stuff, especially with how unprofitable it's being?

Because they don't actually want to try and do all this green stuff, but their reputations and public images are inches away from being flushed down the crapper, so they have to try something to regain public favor. I wouldn't exactly call corporations "spineless" and say they "bow down and stop doing whatever", because what they're actually doing is placating the masses. With the economy in the crapper, gas prices soaring, oil companies posting record profits tends to do nothing but piss people off, and they need to do something to attract people back to them. Eventually, BP will abandon their green push. This behaviour is not new for them.

[AndyZ]

I should be clear; the yardstick for abuse is not something I'm holding against the President, but against Congress. They literally have fought the President on ev.er.y.thing. Attempts at compromise have been rebuffed. The current Congress brought us to the brink of default, entirely unnecessarily. Various leaders in Congress have stated repeatedly that their goal is to make sure the President gets nothing done. That smacks to me of abuse on the part of Congress, and I don't think that making full use of the range of executive powers available to him is an abuse on Obama's part. I believe that polls have shown repeated disquiet across the country at the obstructionist stance that Congress has taken; I believe that part of what fuels the OWS movement so strongly is frustration that the current government is either not willing to get off its ass and do something, or those that are willing are being blocked (not just Obama, see the killed FCC amendment re: Facebook and social media passwords for an example) so you have people getting creative, people getting restless, and even the President isn't immune to that. I might even say, if I were feeling particularly frisky, that he has a responsibility to work around people that refuse to work with him and their other colleagues.

But I believe that obstruction and obfuscation have absolutely no place in government or politics. Period, end of story, do not pass Go do not collect $200.

We'll see if you feel the same way when a Republican (not necessarily Romney, but I can guarantee somebody Republican will do this before we die of old age) becomes president.

Actually, I'm not American either, but I know enough to be able to separate out the cherry-picked items from the truth. Everything is skewed, but if you know what to look for, and get a source from each side, as well as one generally neutral (my choices are usually Fox News, MSNBC, and NPR or overseas), you can get a fair picture.

NPR is not neutral.  NPR skews left.

If you believe that a radio outlet would be neutral because it's hosted by the government, please look into Pravda.

What amuses me is the blatant hypocrisy of the right. When the Tea Party started their movement, they were disgruntled Americans dissatisfied with their representation, and were executing their constitutional right to protest. (Also bear arms, but another theme for another day). Yet, the Occupy movement were derided as nutjob, lazy, shiftless morons who couldn't hold a job and wanted a government handout. That's why I like sites like Guess that Protest! Really puts things into perspective.

Are you honestly saying that the right treats these two differently but that the left treats them identically?  The left is mostly fine with the Occupy movement, so I'd love for you to show me where the left is fine with the Tea Party.  You wouldn't believe some of the attacks over the years.

Not all Christians believe in it, but it's taught by some denominations and in some churches.

So they say that Jesus was lying when he spoke of judgment, with some being saved and others cast into Gehenna?  Or do they just tell their followers not to read those parts?

Because they don't actually want to try and do all this green stuff, but their reputations and public images are inches away from being flushed down the crapper, so they have to try something to regain public favor. I wouldn't exactly call corporations "spineless" and say they "bow down and stop doing whatever", because what they're actually doing is placating the masses. With the economy in the crapper, gas prices soaring, oil companies posting record profits tends to do nothing but piss people off, and they need to do something to attract people back to them. Eventually, BP will abandon their green push. This behaviour is not new for them.

Can I get some evidence on oil companies posting record profits?  Or are you saying that they're flagrantly burning through money and getting rid of any profits that they make in order to appease the masses?  If so, please explain why we should worry about "big oil" and such when they're so afraid of the masses as to burn through their profits on something like green energy?

If you can show record profits, I'll agree that it doesn't matter because they're raking in so much cash that they can blow a little on PR, but I've heard paltry sums like 8% and such, and that they get less than a dime per gallon (as opposed to 50+ cents in taxes to the government).  If you can get me evidence to the contrary, though, I'd love to see it.

[Oniya]

Collective salvation states that the overall salvation of a group can be influenced by the members of that group.  I suspect it's very watered down in modern times, with the most prevalent form being when the priest exhorts the congregation to 'pray for _____' where the recipient of the prayers can be anything from a parishioner who is ill to a group of purported sinners.  (Or the laypeople that assure me that they will 'pray for me' when they find out that I'm not their particular flavor of Christian.)