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 07-11-2014, 10:45 AM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,166,388 times
Reputation: 4828

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
You do know that the ABA is a big time contributor to to the dem party.
What the hell are you talking about? The ABA does not contribute to any sort of political campaigns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-11-2014, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Sonoran Desert
29,352 posts, read 39,768,611 times
Reputation: 18791
I don't like it and that is why I am pleased that Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any president in the recent past.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2014, 12:27 PM
 
36,914 posts, read 16,100,406 times
Reputation: 8392
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
What the hell are you talking about? The ABA does not contribute to any sort of political campaigns.
My apologies, you are correct. I got the ABA and trial lawyers mixed up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2014, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Texas
35,260 posts, read 19,292,205 times
Reputation: 20877
Lightbulb hypothetical question for liberals: what if a republican president bypassed congress as Pres. Obama has?

I dunno.

Would this hypothetical pub prez have a hyperpartisan congress that blocks his every move?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2014, 12:52 PM
 
553 posts, read 274,138 times
Reputation: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
This week in Washington the first marijuana stores opened up, even though it remains illegal under federal law. The Obama administration cut a deal with Washington's governor to turn a blind eye (in spite of still having a drug czar who is adamantly anti-legalization).

Ignore the question of whether marijuana should or should not be legal. Is it ok for the president to bypass the US Congress on laws that have been previously enacted? If the president wants to be change a law, shouldn't he go to Congress, make his case, and get the change enacted and signed?

Suppose that during the period when the "assault weapon" ban was in effect, George W. Bush had cut a deal with WA, which happens to be a very pro-gun-rights state, to allow the manufacture of magazines holding over 10 rounds. That was illegal under the federal "assault weapon" ban. If Obama can ignore federal law on pot, why not Bush on magazines?

Let me anticipate the objection that is sure to be made by the loony left. They will say that no one ever died from pot, so it's an apples/oranges comparison. First of all, deadliness is neither here nor there when it comes to rule of law. If a thing is illegal, it's illegal, whether or not you can die from it. Secondly, the 10 round limit was always dumb since a mag change can be done in under a second with a little practice.
During the era of Obama, if any president things some part of a law should be repealed, all he has to do is just tell his many administravie agencies to refuse to enforce it. If his HHS secretary likes something, she can just make it the law for insurance companies or employers to give it away. Conversely, if she things something is bad, like birth control pills, she make it law that no insurnace provider can give it away for free, or maybe just ban it from being covered by insurance period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2014, 02:03 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
5,924 posts, read 2,834,561 times
Reputation: 2184
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
I suspect liberals would make excuses for Obama bypassing Congress as seen above... if a Republican does it... well, they have some objections... please stop the idiocy, nobody is falling for it... I like how they compare to Bush... this isn't a comparison, not even close...
I'm not making excuses for Obama, and I would love if republicans and democrats would have meaningful conversations about subjects like this one. But the majority of posts republicans make are either illogical attacks on Obama, manipulation, or spin to protect republicans.

Look how the OP called liberals "loony" turning this thread into an instant fight, and look how you use spin and manipulation, to discredit my post and protect republicans.

And I do have problems with Obama bypassing congress. Only problem is this thread implied only democrats bypass congress (when republicans bypass congress much more.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2014, 07:56 PM
 
20,136 posts, read 11,162,288 times
Reputation: 20158
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?
You mean like Nixon removing US currency from gold backing by executive order and mandating a national wage and price freeze by executive order?

You mean like Reagan nullifying Posse Comitatus by Executive Order and permitting the Air Force to fly U-2 missions over the US for the FBI and DEA?

Presidents can, have, and do such things, and always have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2014, 08:12 PM
 
2,687 posts, read 1,845,494 times
Reputation: 1466
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
This week in Washington the first marijuana stores opened up, even though it remains illegal under federal law. The Obama administration cut a deal with Washington's governor to turn a blind eye (in spite of still having a drug czar who is adamantly anti-legalization).

Ignore the question of whether marijuana should or should not be legal. Is it ok for the president to bypass the US Congress on laws that have been previously enacted? If the president wants to be change a law, shouldn't he go to Congress, make his case, and get the change enacted and signed?

I think the Presidents have always had some leeway in how they enforce the laws. If the President honestly feels a law cannot be enforced effectively, he can concentrate his finite resources elsewhere. This made sense in the cases of Washington and Colorado. Federal enforcement of drug laws absolutely depends upon cooperation with local law enforcement and the administration was just asking for trouble if they tried to drop the hammer on those two states. Undoubtedly, the federal government would have won in court, essentially nullifying those states' votes to legalize, but unless the federal government was willing to pour more federal resources into beefing up federal enforcement in those two states, it was a lost cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Suppose that during the period when the "assault weapon" ban was in effect, George W. Bush had cut a deal with WA, which happens to be a very pro-gun-rights state, to allow the manufacture of magazines holding over 10 rounds. That was illegal under the federal "assault weapon" ban. If Obama can ignore federal law on pot, why not Bush on magazines?

Let me anticipate the objection that is sure to be made by the loony left. They will say that no one ever died from pot, so it's an apples/oranges comparison. First of all, deadliness is neither here nor there when it comes to rule of law. If a thing is illegal, it's illegal, whether or not you can die from it. Secondly, the 10 round limit was always dumb since a mag change can be done in under a second with a little practice.

I would go back to my previous answer. It would be much easier to enforce the law against manufacturing magazines than selling marijuana. I think prohibition would be a good example of what I'm talking about. It was fairly easy for the government to shut down large-scale alcohol production facilities during prohibition (large breweries and distilleries), but obviously, they had a harder time stopping everyone from making "bathtub gin" in their own homes and on their own farms. The legalized marijuana supply model doesn't necessarily call for large-scale marijuana growing operation (though of course, they're possible), rather they rely on a larger network of smaller operations (bathtub gin makers). Although magazines could no doubt be supplied under a similar system, they would more likely be built in a stationary, fairly large industrial facility that the government could easily find even if local law enforcement wasn't interested in cooperation. The bottom line is that enforcing the marijuana laws in Washington and Colorado run smack into David Ricardo's Law of Diminishing Returns while enforcing the magazine law would remain fairly easy. But in either case, I doubt much would come of it, as the President has fairly wide latitude when it comes to how he chooses to enforce federal law and all his opponents could really do in either case is complain about it unless there was real, widespread outrage across both parties that would invite the threat of impeachment.

But I think it was interesting question you posed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2014, 10:39 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,006 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
2006 would be 8 years ago, so i wouldnt call that "short"

There is a lot of hypocrisy.
There are a lot of posters here on CD who never followed politics before Obama; they have no idea of precedence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Well, it's either that such folks have a "short" memory or they're just plain too ignorant to know of it to begin with.
Take your pick.

Ken
^^The latter I think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2014, 12:58 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 14,273,755 times
Reputation: 7950
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1945 View Post
All POTUSs have used Executive Order - some more than others:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/.../5b0811a01.png

The marijuana deal made by the admin was not an executive order. It was just an decision (put in writing by the DOJ IIRC) not to enforce federal law in WA and CO.

The GOP-controlled house even passed a "Respect state marijuana laws act." This was led by libertarian-oriented Dana Rohrbacher (R, CA) and Justin Amash (R, MI). It was about 'medical' mj but could have been used as the basis for a legal solution to the problem instead of the illegal (IMO) bypassing of Congress that the Obama admin opted for.

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : US House Votes to Respect States
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