U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Are you ok with the POTUS bypassing Congress on legislation?
liberal, I'm ok with a Prez bypassing Congress 6 17.14%
liberal, I'm not okay with a Prez bypassing Congress 5 14.29%
Conservative, I'm okay with a Prez bypassing Congress 1 2.86%
Conservative, I'm not okay with a Prez bypassing Congress. 23 65.71%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-10-2014, 09:33 PM
 
Location: Prescott Valley,az summer/east valley Az winter
2,042 posts, read 3,626,969 times
Reputation: 7884

Advertisements

Actually Obama hasn't subverted any laws, but I'm of the belief that congress hasn't done their job and the leadership of the house of representatives should be taken and lined up and shot~ next in charge same, until congress started to respond to this country's crisis~ starting with this immigration mess, followed by the senate approving or voting down all of the president's nominees in a timely manner. Time allowed without an up or down vote~ about one week. That should be enforced whomever is president as a common curtesy. So a lot of people get voted against~ big deal, at least the vote is there.

As far as enforcing laws against states laws, Lets hear from all those people that claim that states rights come first and claim that's what the constitution claims is correct until pot is the subject at hand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2014, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 14,264,314 times
Reputation: 7950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grsz11 View Post
What law did Obama change?

He did not change the law; therein lies the problem. If he had gone to the trouble of changing the law, all would be well under our system of checks and balances. Instead he decided to ignore existing law.

What if other presidents decided to do that with issues that might not float your boat?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2014, 09:40 PM
 
12,050 posts, read 11,144,011 times
Reputation: 10009
Obama isn't exactly blazing a new trail here. Does this quote mean anything to you? "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2014, 09:41 PM
 
Location: Old Hippie Heaven
18,172 posts, read 8,195,557 times
Reputation: 10600
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
He did not change the law; therein lies the problem. If he had gone to the trouble of changing the law, all would be well under our system of checks and balances. Instead he decided to ignore existing law.
Here's your problem - if Congress refuses to work on the President's agenda, what else is there for him to do but try to get at least some of the stuff done that he was elected to do, by the means that are allowed him - executive orders and recess appointments. There are checks and balances in this process, and Obama has been overruled on some of his actions. Pushing the envelope is a fair tactic.

You know I can remember John Birchers in a constant lathered state because JFK was going to declare martial law any minute now. Seems to be a common criticism of anyone to the left of the hard right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2014, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 14,264,314 times
Reputation: 7950
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckdoc View Post
Actually Obama hasn't subverted any laws, but I'm of the belief that congress hasn't done their job and the leadership of the house of representatives should be taken and lined up and shot~ next in charge same, until congress started to respond to this country's crisis~ starting with this immigration mess, followed by the senate approving or voting down all of the president's nominees in a timely manner. Time allowed without an up or down vote~ about one week. That should be enforced whomever is president as a common curtesy. So a lot of people get voted against~ big deal, at least the vote is there.

OK, thank you for that honest response. Take them out and shoot them a la Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao. Thanks for expressing the prototypical left wing mentality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2014, 09:53 PM
 
Location: Missouri
3,751 posts, read 3,095,602 times
Reputation: 1617
I think there is a correlation between the extent of expanding executive power and the weakness of the legislative body. A divided Congress is its own worst enemy when trying to counter an executive power grab, and this Congress is as bad as it has been in a long time. Even worse than the 2000-2006 Republican dominated Congress and that is saying something.

However, during this time of an ineffective Congress, the administration has been relatively weak or more apprehensive to bypass Congress compared to its predecessors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2014, 09:53 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 14,208,858 times
Reputation: 4563
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
Here's your problem - if Congress refuses to work on the President's agenda, what else is there for him to do but try to get at least some of the stuff done that he was elected to do, by the means that are allowed him - executive orders and recess appointments. There are checks and balances in this process, and Obama has been overruled on some of his actions. Pushing the envelope is a fair tactic.
He and the Democratic Senate refuse to work on the GOP House's agenda. Last time I checked, they were elected too.

Your view is that you feel your side - unlike the other side - has the right to get its way no matter how anyone else feels.

As far as a plurality believing he's middle of the road, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. A plurality certainly don't approve of the job he's doing; a solid majority disapprove. Moreover, the fact that he hasn't always governed as a hardcore liberal doesn't mean he doesn't want to - and there's plenty of evidence he's philosophically quite liberal. I'd add that I personally see him as primarily liberal, but I also see some of the things he's done as "conservative" - and those represent pretty much the worst of conservatism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2014, 09:53 PM
 
Location: Prescott Valley,az summer/east valley Az winter
2,042 posts, read 3,626,969 times
Reputation: 7884
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
OK, thank you for that honest response. Take them out and shoot them a la Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao. Thanks for expressing the prototypical left wing mentality.
Actually have been a pretty staunch republican for years and a retired military~ and what do you recommend happen when a few people subvert the constitution and take powers that they are not supposed to have, then sue because someone attempts too do the job they were voted for. Blaming the president for following the laws that they passed as in this immigration debacle is a case in point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2014, 09:55 PM
 
3,557 posts, read 3,457,761 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
He did not change the law; therein lies the problem. If he had gone to the trouble of changing the law, all would be well under our system of checks and balances. Instead he decided to ignore existing law.

What if other presidents decided to do that with issues that might not float your boat?
So now you have a problem with the president deferring to state laws. Admit it, you have no problem with the action in theory, but every problem with who did it and for what purpose. Reverse your original question and ask yourself the same thing: if it was letting state laws rule on guns, would you be so hysterically angry?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2014, 09:56 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 14,208,858 times
Reputation: 4563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grsz11 View Post
So now you have a problem with the president deferring to state laws. Admit it, you have no problem with the action in theory, but every problem with who did it and for what purpose. Reverse your original question and ask yourself the same thing: if it was letting state laws rule on guns, would you be so hysterically angry?
Ah, but the US Constitution prohibits the government from banning guns. The US Constitution governs state, as well as federal, laws.

It does not prohibit laws keeping you from smoking pot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top