Obama - "with or without Congress"

clairefontaine

In last night's State of the Union address, Obama vows to move forward "with or without Congress." I found this to be an alarming statement, entirely against every grain of philosophy and history of the US.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/28/politics/2014-state-of-the-union/

HEre I have put a CNN link so the Obamabots around here are happy.

"It was vintage Obama, blending hopeful calls for a unified approach with declarations of presidential independence through executive orders."

Yikes.

And what is the trickle down effects of this, leading by example? Will governors and judiciary also take things into their own hands as they see fit? Because that is the example Obama is setting.

Brian?

What exactly is your worry here?

Congress has done a very fine job of blocking Obama for the last 4 years, that will only change with an election. It may not change with the mid-term elections though so it'll be back to repeated stand offs and posturing.

Obama can't and won't rule by decree. He can only so what his constitutional powers allow. You know what they are, don't you?

Manach

Would not be a supporter of the man, but from a news report statistic, he used less such orders that either of his predecessors' at this stage of the presidency so this is slightly hyped up against him.
If however this is enough to be a successful re-boot of his term with the cloud of a stagnant economy and the perceived issues with Obamacase, remains to be seen.

Amerika

What one president does by pen through Executive Order can be undone by the next president with pen through Executive Order.
　
I don’t think the electorate takes kingly to a non-presidential attitude of "I’m not going to play with them (Congress) and I’m taking my ball (pen) with me... nah nah nah!"

So many of his priorities set out in the SOTU are out of touch with what the American people really want from their president. It’s seems obvious Barack Obama has run out of ideas and is desperately grasping for some level of relevancy. And as Jay Leno put it... is now dealing with a "lame Duck Dynasty."

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

What one president does by pen through Executive Order can be undone by the next president with pen through Executive Order.
　
I don’t think the electorate takes kingly to a non-presidential attitude of "I’m not going to play with them (Congress) and I’m taking my ball (pen) with me... nah nah nah!"

Is it your contention that Obama is the cause of the gridlock in Washington and not the House?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Is it your contention that Obama is the cause of the gridlock in Washington and not the House?

Well it snowed there last night but I think traffic is running just fine now.

As to not getting things done, for sake of argument, he is 1/3 the problem that is affecting Congress inability to getting things done, and 1/3 being the House, and the other 1/3 being the Senate. And if you ask how can Obama affect Congress, well he sets the political agenda which the Democrats in the House and the Senate follow in duck step for the most part. And when he promises anything that comes out of Congress he doesn't like will fall prey to his veto pen (and with the Senate split near 50/50, there is no chance of getting a 2/3 majority needed to override a veto), he is part of the problem.

Dude111

clairefontaine wrote:

In last night's State of the Union address, Obama vows to move forward "with or without Congress."

Yes its always been that way with him!!

He has everyone brainwashed and they thought CONGRESS WAS THE BAD ONE when its really been HIM all along and now he has come out and admitted it! (And not really any reaction from the sheep he has in his control)

EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS A LIE!!!!!!!

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Well it snowed there last night but I think traffic is running just fine now.

As to not getting things done, for sake of argument, he is 1/3 the problem that is affecting Congress inability to getting things done, and 1/3 being the House, and the other 1/3 being the Senate. And if you ask how can Obama affect Congress, well he sets the political agenda which the Democrats in the House and the Senate follow in duck step for the most part. And when he promises anything that comes out of Congress he doesn't like will fall prey to his veto pen (and with the Senate split near 50/50, there is no chance of getting a 2/3 majority needed to override a veto), he is part of the problem.

He is indeed part of the problem, that's fair. Your previous post intimated he is the problem.

sin_city

Did he say he was going to raise the minimum wage?


When has that ever been a good idea?

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Did he say he was going to raise the minimum wage?


When has that ever been a good idea?

The only minimum wage he can raise is that of federal workers.

sin_city

I don't think that is the case however I think he is giving a raise to federal workers in this instance.

I think the US is just maxing out the credit card now.

They know the game is up and will not even attempt to cut back in any way.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

The only minimum wage he can raise is that of federal workers.

Not quite correct. He plans to up the minimum wage for workers being paid under federal contracts. But he has no more extra money to pay them. So how will this work is the question if congress doesn't agree to piss away even more money for no other reason than Obama wants it?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Not quite correct. He plans to up the minimum wage for workers being paid under federal contracts. But he has no more extra money to pay them. So how will this work is the question if congress doesn't agree to piss away even more money for no other reason than Obama wants it?

So it's even fewer people than I thought?

Imagine the devastation.

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

I don't think that is the case however I think he is giving a raise to federal workers in this instance.

I think the US is just maxing out the credit card now.

They know the game is up and will not even attempt to cut back in any way.

Obama cannot raise the national minimum wage. That's up to Congress.

sin_city

Like when they declare war?

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Like when they declare war?

Exactly like when they declare war. Exactly.

Mjollnir

clairefontaine wrote: »

In last night's State of the Union address, Obama vows to move forward "with or without Congress." I found this to be an alarming statement, entirely against every grain of philosophy and history of the US.

LOL! Really? If you found it 'against every grain of philosophy and history of the US.', I'd suggest you better familiarize yourself with both philosophy and US history.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

Exactly like when they declare war. Exactly.

Ah OK, for Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq????

I didn't see Congress get involved???

Hmmmmm :rolleyes:

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Ah OK, for Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq????

I didn't see Congress get involved???

Hmmmmm :rolleyes:

Really? Would you like to research those a little and come back.

Brian?

To hell with do a little research for you:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_1991

http://cdn.spundge.com/stories/6872/embedded/

Well? Feel silly?

sin_city

No, they didnt declare war...they voted to give Bush authority to declare war.

Anyway....do your research on the full list and come back to me...Hope I've cleared up the ONE war/invasion you highlighted

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

No, they didnt declare war...they voted to give Bush authority to declare war.

Anyway....do your research on the full list and come back to me...Hope I've cleared up the ONE war/invasion you highlighted

I posted 2 links to 2 different Iraq wars. Both times the presidents had congressional approval.

I posted a third link to list every military conflict the US was involved in since WW2. Did you read it?

sin_city

Mate, you can do all the posting you like....Postman Pat wouldn't have a look in....

Fact is, Congress has not declared a war since WW2.

Jonny7

Just to clear up

Authorised by congress (wars in which the president has sought authorisation from congress)

Lebanon Crisis 1958
Vietnam War
Multinational force in Lebanon
Gulf War
Afghanistan 2001
Iraq War 2003

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

As usual the devil is in the details

"For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe v. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution."

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Mate, you can do all the posting you like....Postman Pat wouldn't have a look in....

Fact is, Congress has not declared a war since WW2.

That is technically correct I suppose. Can you remind me of your point again? But then the president didn't declare war either, because he can't without the approval of congress. Some presidents used executive powers under the War Act to use force, most asked Congress for permission.

So as I said, the presidents ability to declare war is exactly like his ability to raise the national minimum wage. Exactly. He can't so it without Congress approval.

Are you trying to use various presidents using force to show how they can act unilaterally without the approval of congress? If so you've done a very poor job.

K-9

clairefontaine wrote: »

HEre I have put a CNN link so the Obamabots around here are happy.

Dude111 wrote: »

(And not really any reaction from the sheep he has in his control)

EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS A LIE!!!!!!!

Cut out references like Obamabot and sheep please, this is a discussion boards and terms like that don't help the flow.

sin_city wrote: »

Mate, you can do all the posting you like....Postman Pat wouldn't have a look in....

Fact is, Congress has not declared a war since WW2.

Less of the Postman Pat type posts and more effort on providing links to these facts please.

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

Just to clear up

Authorised by congress (wars in which the president has sought authorisation from congress)

Lebanon Crisis 1958
Vietnam War
Multinational force in Lebanon
Gulf War
Afghanistan 2001
Iraq War 2003

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Did Congress or the President authorise the gulf of tonkin incident also?

sin_city

K-9 wrote: »

Less of the Postman Pat type posts and more effort on providing links to these facts please.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/h_multi_sections_and_teasers/WarDeclarationsbyCongress.htm

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Did Congress or the President authorise the gulf of tonkin incident also?

What is the relevance of that?

The POTUS doesn't need congressional approval for all military action. They do need it to declare war. No one is arguing that.

Dude111

K-9 wrote:

Cut out references like Obamabot and sheep please, this is a discussion boards and terms like that don't help the flow.

Im sorry buddy,i just dont like what they are doing to our country and the world!! (I think we all feel helpless to stop any of it)

K-9

Dude111 wrote: »

Im sorry buddy,i just dont like what they are doing to our country and the world!! (I think we all feel helpless to stop any of it)

That's fair enough, but if you don't expand on what you mean it doesn't give much for people to debate and discuss.

clairefontaine

It's legal pretzel dough. They don't call it war, they call it things like "military intervention" or "humanitarian efforts."

That he could even say "without or without Congress" certainly is the audacity of hope. The height of political hubris.

sin_city

Brian....perhaps you should read more about the Gulf of Tonkin incident

sawdoubters

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_25016907/obamas-best-bet-get-around-congress-not-doing

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Brian....perhaps you should read more about the Gulf of Tonkin incident

Perhaps I should. But it has nothing to do with the issue at hand:

What can the POTUS do without Congressional approval?

He can't raise the national minimum wage, this is where this discussion started. He can't declare war, which was an example you gave.

Conas

Brian? wrote: »

What is the relevance of that?

The POTUS doesn't need congressional approval for all military action. They do need it to declare war. No one is arguing that.

The President does have the right to engage the military in action through the War Powers Resolution doesn't he? I think that's only in cases of an emergency though.

But it doesn't matter even if he gets a declaration of war, he still has to go and get authorisation from the United Nations. According to the United Nations charter, the Iraq War was illegal.

Brian?

Conas wrote: »

The President does have the right to engage the military in action through the War Powers Resolution doesn't he? I think that's only in cases of an emergency though.

Yup, limited powers. The president cannot declare war though, this was the point.

But it doesn't matter even if he gets a declaration of war, he still has to go and get authorisation from the United Nations. According to the United Nations charter, the Iraq War was illegal.

You're correct, but this is irrelevant to debate at hand:

What can Obama do without Congressional approval!

Conas

Brian? wrote: »

Yup, limited powers. The president cannot declare war though, this was the point.



You're correct, but this is irrelevant to debate at hand:

What can Obama do without Congressional approval!

Work alone, and work on his own Initiatives. Why does anyone care about the sell-outs, and saboteurs in Congress? With their approval rating at 13%, that speaks for itself.

Amerika

In my opinion:

The president acting unilaterally has its consequences – and not good ones from the Democrat party outlook.

As ObamaCare rolls out, the president has shown he enforces the parts of the law he likes and ignores or doesn’t enforce the parts he doesn’t like. More and more Americans are viewing this, and other "pen and phone" tactics as a form of imperial presidency and could very well contribute to the Republicans taking over the Senate in 2014, with special emphasis on the states of Alaska, Louisiana, Iowa, and Montana. They will then control both the House and the Senate, making the president a lame duck with little more than his pen and phone for the last 2 years.

His actions will also hurt in reaching a deal on illegal immigration. The Republicans want border security first and the democrats want amnesty first. Yes, the Republicans will look bad no matter what because of the bias of the media, but would be well served to remind people that the comprehensive deal reached on illegal immigration back when Reagan was president didn’t work. The deal was to resolve the illegal immigration problem and stop the flow of future immigration. Well, we got amnesty first, but border security was ignored and illegal employer’s practices were mostly ignored. So here we are once again, dealing with a much larger problem because of the continual inflow of illegal immigrants and broken promises on the part of the Democrats. So, combine that with the fact that if we reach another deal with amnesty first, the Republicans could argue that given President Obama’s propensity to act unilaterally – following as he has only the parts of the laws he likes and ignore the parts he doesn’t, we will not resolve the dilemma and illegal immigration will only continue to be a problem in the future.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

I
His actions will also hurt in reaching a deal on illegal immigration. The Republicans want border security first and the democrats want amnesty first. Yes, the Republicans will look bad no matter what because of the bias of the media, but would be well served to remind people that the comprehensive deal reached on illegal immigration back when Reagan was president didn’t work.

Really? So among countless others examples, Republicans saying things like for every child of illegal immigrants “who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.” is somehow, magically 'media bias'?

LOL. Yeah, whatever, man.