ADVERTISEMENT

I'd like everyone's

NPT

NPT

Moderator
Moderator
Aug 28, 2001
15,902
6,012
113
opinion on what this guy says about a president and their increasing power. Before anyone jumps in to defend Obama let me say that this is NOT about Obama. This all started long ago before Obama was even elected to the senate. I guess I just don't understand why congress would just roll over and play dead and let a president take their power away from them.
 
In fairness to you, N . . .

In what I understand to be the mainstream legal assessment of Obama's reported intentions, few think it'd be illegal, and equally few think it's the way policy ought to be made. The question, I think, is how a President should respond to the unprecedented obstructionism of a Congressional party that can win, but not govern.
 
Wherein I save this thread from self-destruction.

There are a lot of moving parts to this issue. I'm not sure I can make a really tightly wound post on this, so I'll just highlight a few points:

1. As we've discussed on this forum before, I don't think there is any doubt that the so-called Imperial Presidency has been gradually becoming more and more imperial for decades. In fact, one could probably argue that the process started with the Civil War. At any rate, the past few presidents have probably been, successively, the most powerful in history.

2. I don't see how Congress has the political capital to do anything about it. Americans don't trust the president that much right now, but the only body in government they trust even less is Congress. Congress has shown us nothing to think that they have the ability to govern any better than the President - and that's not an Obama thing, either. I mean generally speaking.

3. I think this is ultimately one of the negative side effects of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is bad no matter which party does it, although this decade it is clearly the Republicans who made the most use of it, thanks to their domination of state legislatures during the 2010-2011 sessions. But, regardless of party, what has happened is that most of the House is safe from electoral challenges, and are thus, in reality, no longer accountable to voters. They are only accountable to campaign donors.

4. I'm generally opposed to having more power in fewer hands, but there may be a benefit to having an all-powerful president, if that president is exceptionally intelligent and competent. Considering some of the idiots we put in Congress, I don't think it's a stretch that, for the foreseeable future, the president, regardless again of party, will be more competent than most of them. My problems with Bush had little to do with competency - despite the criticisms that were rampant - and much to do with policy disagreements. I also suspect that most conservatives have problems with Obama, not because of competency - despite the criticisms that are rampant - but instead because of policy disagreements.

goat

Edit: removed reference to a post that no longer exists.

This post was edited on 11/16 4:40 PM by TheOriginalHappyGoat
 
That is the question . . .

and with the veto Obama can keep congressional oversteps in check. The fact that overriding a veto requires a super majority 2/3 vote in both houses of congress means that unless congress has standing to sue to keep a presidential power grab in check, there's really not much to constrain a president from exercising power, even extraordinary power.

This isn't an issue with just Obama - and it is an issue with Obama - because we've been talking about this issue since at least W's time in office.

The problem with the constitution is that there is no effective check and balance on congress' refusal to do anything, even when action is patently necessary.
 
I agree with (1) through (3), but . . .

I disagree with (4), because in both principle and practice, the reliance on "good guys" is a saps' game. As the Framers understood, even the "good guys" will inevitably fail us. We must instead rely upon the laws that balance power against power, and interest against interest.

We are today cursed with a crazy Congress, which would do all of us harm if it could. But we must suffer this because it is in the nature of the dysfunctional presidential system that our Founders bequeathed to us. Such dysfunction would be impossible in a parliamentary system, but we are who we are.
 
I agree with the second half of that.

I understand your point re: (4), but I disagree, which we can get into with a historical discussion, if you care to. I don't personally think it's that important, because I trust both of us understand both arguments, and few people on here likely care.

As to your second paragraph, I agree with that. I think one of the worst things the founders did was settle on a presidential system, because I think history has shown that the parliamentary system is objectively superior.

goat
 
Sorry. I'm cooking dinner.

Let me know if you want to learn more about my healthy cooking.
 
What is the metric for "doing absolutely nothing"

Just cuz a POTUS requests action should congress respond? That is not how the FF's thought how things should work. The GOP house passed a ton of legislation and it went nowhere in the senate. It worked the other way too.

Speaking of doing nothing, Harry Reid has rat holed more legislation than any previous ML. Moreover, he has filled the tree at an unprecedented rate. We know why he did much of this and thankfully that tactic blew up in his face a couple of weeks ago.

This post was edited on 11/16 6:31 PM by CO. Hoosier
 
You know....

This is pushing the boundaries of "on-topic," but...

I think the incompetence of Congress might be structural, and it might be because the Senate no longer fills the role it was meant to. And this goes beyond the 17th Amendment (concerning which, I do generally agree with you). In theory, the Senate was supposed to be a more democratic House of Lords. But in the modern parliamentary system, the benefit of the Lords is two-fold:

1.) Relatively little actual political power, compared to the Commons.

2.) Exceptionally long institutional memory and personal experience*.

Our Senate has neither of those. The Senate has a ton of power, and the only significant experience comes thanks to the same problem that plagues the House - the fact that certain senators are virtually guaranteed reelection until they decide to retire.

The lower house of a legislature should be composed of representatives of the people acting as lawmakers. The upper house should be composed of statesmen acting as advisers and checks against the passions of the populace (Madison, at least, understood this). Our Senate is simply not that anymore.

EDIT: nota bene: By no means did I intend in this post to suggest that the House is somehow less incompetent than the Senate. They are quite incompetent, and I firmly blame gerrymandering for that, as I've stated earlier in this thread.

goat

* #2 is obviously in the process of changing.



This post was edited on 11/16 5:43 PM by TheOriginalHappyGoat
 
I have been concerned about this for a long time

And the problem goes back decades. The causes are hard to pin down. Here are a few of the factors.

1. The increasing delegation of authority by congress to the executive.
2. Congressional failure to pass budgets.
3. Failure of all parties to stick to a budget.
4. The manner of choosing a president.

A comment about #4. We think of the electoral college as a relic. All states give all votes to the winner of the popular vote. Some states are willing to commit their votes to the winner of the national vote. The way modern day campaigns are run, this leads to the people believing the president should have more power and influence than the office should. That is the only office we all vote for so we tend to believe POTUS has super powers. We need to increase the independence of the EC, not diminish it.

Two comments about the Obama presidency. First I think he thinks he has at least more moral authority over public policy than congress. Thus he gives congress "to do" lists. He is wrong. Second, he is misusing prosecutorial discretion. Imagine if a president didn't like the estate tax and instead of changing the law, he instructed the DOJ to not prosecute those who didn't file returns.
 
Feh

Like all Republicans, you've only expressed any concern about executive overreach since January 20, 2009. Previously you guys all defended the unitary executive theory under which, as Richard Nixon put it, "If the President does it, that means that it is not against the law." This is the theory under which you and pretty much every other Republican defended Bush 43's claim that he could do literally anything he wanted, so long as in his sole secret and unreview discretion, he'd decided he was wearing his commander-in-chief hat.

There are legitimate prudential issues here, but why should anyone take you guys seriously?
 
Can't answer your qustion.

Whether you or anybody else takes me seriously is not in my control.

btw, Turley is not talking about CIC authority which is quite a different animal. Bu I think you know that.
 
We can fix problems with the presidential system

By unhinging at least part of the EC from the popular vote.
 
Not really.

Ultimately the key difference between the two systems, and the point where the parliamentary system is superior, is, as Bagehot recognized almost 150 years ago (although he was certainly biased), the fact that the head of a parliamentary government is accountable to the (duly elected) legislature, and thus cannot take too much power for himself, as he can be removed, essentially, at any time. And, because he can often be removed without any fear that the majority party lose control of the government, the decision need not be made strictly along party lines, as is bound to happen with an impeachment trial.

Changing the EC doesn't do anything to address that very basic difference. In fact, it can't be addressed. By their very natures, the presidential and parliamentary systems differ in this regard.

goat

EDIT: Just for completeness, note that Bagehot considered this difference as a sign of the superiority with regards to the legislature, as well, not just the executive.

This post was edited on 11/16 6:58 PM by TheOriginalHappyGoat
 
LOL

So if Obama secretly decided he was going to do exactly what he reportedly will do, and in secret he based it on a secret legal opinion from someone like John Yoo, who testified that the President is authorized to crush childrens' testicles, then that would be okay so long as Obama put his C-I-C hat on first.

As you remarkably still don't comprehend, the Bush 43 issue wasn't merely the limit of the President's C-I-C authority (Bush went 0-for everything on this point at the Supreme Court, just as I predicted), but whether the President can secretly make up his own authority. You were completely fine with that. How, as a matter of principal, can it be within the President's C-I-C authority to secretly suspend explicit laws regarding torture and surveillance, but not within his authority to publicly exercise his statutory discretion over who to deport?
 
Of course you are right

If one wants to make our system like a parliamentary system. I don't that is the be all end all. But we are in need of going back to the system the FF's actually intended.
 
I don't think it's the end all be all...

...but I do think the failings of our system are inherent in a presidential system, and I think that as our nation has become less of a federation and more of a unitary state, those failings are becoming more apparent.

There is also something to be said that, as a full presidential system, we combine the head of state and head of government into a single office, as opposed to other republics (e.g. France) or monarchies (e.g. UK) which keep them separate. It's common for people to assume that the French president* or the British monarch are in practice irrelevant, but they really are not. Their relevance is rarely evident, because their powers are (except in times of constitutional crises) not used, but they are relevant nonetheless.

goat

* The French president might not be the best example, since he is undoubtedly the most powerful of all European presidents, but I'm leaving him in here as he is the most readily accessible. Insert any other ceremonial European head of state as you like.
 
But Rock

it's a two way street. Just because a president wants X done doesn't mean the house has to agree with him. I read too many articles stating that negotiating with Obama is like trying to hold jello. Of course vice versa is true also....just because thee house passes something doesn't mean the senate must pass it or the president sign it. I would love to change the structure of the government a little. I would love to force the senate to vote on everything the house passes and the house has to vote on everything the senate passes (after going back to the old filibuster rules).
 
I'm going to interject

For the sole purpose of highlighting how much I wish the Senate would require actually filibusters instead of allowing senators to simply state the intention to filibuster, or, even worse, anonymously put a hold on nominations from their own state.

goat
 
Obama's response should be to be pragmatic and seek common ground.

But the Ego-In-Chief, even after this election, still thinks everyone else is wrong, so... not gonna happen.
 
ROTFLMAO

Obama to this day continues Bush's "preventive war" doctrine by bombing Khorasan group and ISIS. Not to mention that two former Sec Def's have written how incompetent Obama has been as CIC. I think I'd rather have a CIC who is sincere and pushes the envelope than one who is clueless.





This post was edited on 11/17 11:01 AM by CO. Hoosier
 
Yer all ruin' it

NPT made a post about a legit issue, and while the link was about Obama, the issue itself was not. Stop making this about Obama. Let's talk about the issue that was brought up, which is both intellectually and practicably relevant.

goat
 
Oh yeah, BTW.

This is late to the party, but...

There is a reason I put "if he is exceptionally intelligent and competent" in italics. It was a big caveat to the point I was making in (4).

goat
 
C'mon goat, you know what feh means, right?

I made a legit response to NPT's TS. The Rockfish is so consumed with disrespecting me that he can't resist turning any point into an ad hominem about me and conservatives. Yeah I took the bait. I said a couple of weeks ago he should just go away and Doug, rightfully got pissed at me for that. But I, you, doug and many other posters here should be fed up with Rock's bullshit.






This post was edited on 11/17 7:01 PM by CO. Hoosier
 
Feh.

I think you baited him with:

Two comments about the Obama presidency. First I think he
thinks he has at least more moral authority over public policy than
congress. Thus he gives congress "to do" lists. He is wrong. Second,
he is misusing prosecutorial discretion. Imagine if a president didn't
like the estate tax and instead of changing the law, he instructed the
DOJ to not prosecute those who didn't file returns.

You're too smart to not know that those comments would draw liberal ire, or that Rock would be the guy to bite.

But that's irrelevant. My point is that NPT's OP is legit interesting and worthy of discussion. And you did make worthwhile points about it. Which I would have responded to, except I responded to you below and didn't want to act like I was dominating the thread. Which I am now doing. So. Yeah.

goat
 
Feh?

My comments about Obama are exactly in line with Turley's point in NPT's link.

Where do you get the idea that a discussion about the trend of more executive power shouldn't include discussion about particular examples? You are just being a reflexive knee jerk liberal now.
 
Nope.

You're right that specific examples are appropriate. The problem is that you've made a habit on this very board of attacking Obama for so many things - including those things that were standard practice for former presidents - that said attacks sound like just so much more partisan bullshit. I thought you were self-aware enough to recognize this fact and understand that your continued efforts along this line would serve as bait for our liberal posters.

goat
 
Please . . .

Nobody has done to prosecutorial discretion what Obama and Holder have done. That is new stuff. PD is based upon a recognition that all crimes committed by all people can't be prosecuted. Thus cases are selected based upon the circumstances of the cases. Obama takes the position that certain laws won't be enforced as intended; period.

I had no problem with Rockfish pointing out the GWB abuse of power examples. That's legit. But he had to do it in a way to tell me I was dishonest by imputing arguments to me I never made. Look at the thread below where Rock and I AGREED about the ACA subsidies. I made the point by a bland discussion of the law. Rock made the same point by saying conservatives are dishonest assholes. I'm tired of Rock's continual stream of ad hominems. He needs to go away. I'm going to call this out when I see it.



This post was edited on 11/17 10:24 AM by CO. Hoosier
 
You continue to spell "ad hominem" wrong.

That really bugs me, because I am an anal asshole.

In reality, your complaints are legitimate. I don't want to minimize them, and I didn't mean to in my post. My only point was that you are smart enough to understand that your original response to OP would draw ire from Rock, et al. I know I'm being a bit of a dick by even pointing it out, but that's the kind of guy I am. Anal, elitist, rude, asshole. I do not hide from it.

goat
 
Yep I really

wanted to see what people thought and I specifically said it was NOT about Obama. Turley could have been talking about Bush only he would have probably said he didn't like Bush's policies and then a lot of conservatives would have jumped on him as a political hack. I thought it was a good video since Turley said he was an Obama supporter and supported the most of the changes Obama has made but he didn't like the way he changed them.
 
But goat

we shouldn't have to walk on egg shells to keep from being attacked as assholes, being racists, or being dishonest. You and I disagree on lots of stuff but I don't think you have ever called me a name.

This post was edited on 11/17 6:38 AM by NPT
 
I know

That word gets me tongue-tied.

What difference should it make if I know my comments will draw fire? I don't mind a good argument. But for Rock it's always goes to the same personal gutter level. I have never seen anything like it. We used to be pretty good friends. But I understand I don't need to open his posts and how I react is 100% on me.
 
Some very good work

in the link from Jay Cost regarding the nature of the electoral power of the President, The Senate and The House of Representatives on how each of them are electorally different.

Also, note his mention of the Voting Rights Act and how it requires concentrating minorities in minority/majority districts where geographically possible and what that does to the House. Gerrymandering? To some degree. Adherence to a Democrat enacted federal law? Yes to Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Link
 
It's an exclamation "conveying disapproval, displeasure, or disgust"

When there was a Republican in the White House you supported the unitary executive theory, under which the President can do literally anything he wants any time he decides he's acting as commander-in-chief. Now that Obama is in the White House you claim to have been concerned about Presidential overreach for "decades". No, I don't respect that. Why should I? Why is it "bullshit" to point out that you're engaged in special pleading?
 
Maybe I am being

a hypocrite but some of it depends on where the "overreach" is. You'll never hear me complaining about any president doing what they think is in the best interests of this country when it comes to keeping the country safe from terriorists, etc. There's just not time for a long drawn out debate on some issues. However, when they start making or suspending laws then I've always been against that and will continue to be in the future.
 
I've always

and will continue to be against the current status. The Rs will be complaining in the next sessions of congress about the Ds filibustering everything. However, there will be a lot of people on the left that will think it's okay(just like a lot on the right thinks it's okay now) since it's their side doing it.
 
I don't think so...

...most of that piece is well-written, and there is no doubt that racial considerations are a concern, but to simply blame the VRA and ignore partisan gerrymandering? Nonsense. As the Court has ruled, racial gerrymandering, in most cases, is a big no-no, while partisan gerrymandering is just fine, even if it also results in dividing districts by race. In other words, most gerrymandering is done for partisan purposes, and it's the movement of whites from the Democratic party to the Republican party that highlights the racial divides.

The author mentions Pennsylvania. Consider the case of Pittsburgh. The 14th includes the city itself, as well as a collection of black and blue-collar white suburbs that are reliably Democratic. By shoving all the Democrats in the region into one district, the other two districts in SW Pennsylvania both go Republican. The same is done in to Democrats in Scranton and even Philadelphia (although that is one case where race may play a factor). The end result is that Democrats, even in white districts, tend to win fewer districts by bigger margins, while Republicans win many more seats by smaller margins.

goat
 
The voting rights

act puts map makers in the untenable position of allocating minority voters into districts that are majority/minority or in which the minority population is diluted.

What you get when you seek to avoid violating the VRA is legislative districts like in northern Lake Co., Indiana and Indianapolis' central city which are minority districts at 70-90% Democrat but the other surrounding districts are 50-50 or majority Republican, But disperse the minority voters into all those districts to make them more balanced by party and you'll end up on the end of a case that the Attorney General of the US would GLADLY prosecute because you'll dilute the minority vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B

Court of Appeals to Trump: You're not immune from prosecution

Replies
40
Views
876
The Water Cooler
IU_Hickory
IU_Hickory
C

Are Senate Republicans heading for a repeat of 2022?

Replies
2
Views
179
The Water Cooler
snarlcakes
S
C

Competition. Wackiest MAGA group in a single state?

Replies
6
Views
324
The Water Cooler
Univee2
Univee2
B

Pence: I "cannot in good conscience" endorse Trump

Replies
263
Views
5K
The Water Cooler
Mas-sa-suta
Mas-sa-suta
T

Mayorkas impeachment questions

Replies
10
Views
261
The Water Cooler
Circlejoe
Circlejoe
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back