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?