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.
Rumor is that the president will bypass the legislative process for issues like climate change, immigration etc.. by using the powers available to him thru the executive branch. He does after all, appoint and direct the heads of the EPA, FDA, FCC, HHS, the Treasury Dept. and the DOJ, and all the Czars he has appointed. 0bama could direct the people he has appointed to these federal agencies to push his political agenda and create new mandates and regulations, and direct their actions as to which existing laws and regulations to enforce, and which to simply ignore.
As President Obama remakes his senior staff, he is also shaping a new approach for the second half of his term: to advance his agenda through executive actions he can take on his own, rather than pushing plans through an increasingly hostile Congress.
"It's fair to say that the next phase is going to be less about legislative action than it is about managing the change that we've brought"
So the best arena for Obama to execute his plans may be his own branch of government. That means more executive orders, more use of the bully pulpit, and more deployment of his ample regulatory powers and the wide-ranging rulemaking authority of his Cabinet members.
I know, it sounds ridiculous to hear a Democrat super majority in both houses of congress is now considered a "hostile Congress", but that is the excuse the LA Times is reporting.
I'm not saying the president will do these things, or that he won't, I just want people to take a step back and look at how much power, over everything, that we have given the executive branch over the past few decades.
By assigning powers to the executive branch, the congress has given the president the power to act without their input. All the congress has reserved for itself is the option to withhold federal funding. but do we really think the congress will defund the executive branch?
I know the same argument was made when Bush signed the Patriot Act, many people from both sides of the isle were against giving the executive branch that much power, because the potential for abuse was there.
However, the powers to the executive branch are increasing at a fast clip. The EPA has the power to create new regulations as they see fit, to regulate energy in every conceivable way thru the regulation of CO2. The Health care bill and the financial reform bill that were recently signed into law, were pretty much blank in crucial areas, and left the creations of dozens of new federal agencies, regulations and mandates completely up to the discretion of the HHS or Treasury Secretary.
Maybe not this president, but the next one, or the one after that may decide that they have the right to use these powers which our congress has left to their disposal.
i think what we need to do is rescind many of these powers and put the congress back in control of creating our laws and regulations.
The EPA got new powers right around the same time as Copenhagen.
Since Copenhagen failed, the EPA can step in and make those rules now.
Who needs legislators when an unelected EPA administrator can create regulations all on their own? EPA regulations on CO2 have the huge potential to drastically change commerce and the private sector economy, for the worse. Maybe that is why congress wants to stay out of it, so they can't catch the blame.
First, the President didn't just recently get the power to appoint federal officials, judges etc. It's always been part of his/her constitutional responsibilities. Some of those positions are made "with the advice and consent" of the Senate. Because the democrats do not have a super majority in the Senate (60 votes required to end debate in a filibuster) many of those routine nominations were held up in the Senate by the Republicans during the last two years. For a 10 week period when Ted Kennedy was ill, the Dems did have 60 votes, and that's when they were able to put in basic management personnel for federal agencies. By using the filibuster, the Republicans in the Senate were holding the managment of the government hostage, and that's why the article calls them "hostile."
At no point does the constitution require presidents to issue a statement on a bill they are signing--only an explanation of those they are vetoing. Regardless, some presidents have issued statements that clarify "their" interpretation of the law upon signing. Signing statements were used only rarely until the Reagan years, and grew in number over time. George W. Bush clearly abused this method of restricting the rights of Congress. Through July 11, 2006, George W. Bush had objected to 807 provisions in 5 1/2 years as president. This number dwarfs that of any other president in U.S. history, and is greater than all previous forty-one presidents combined, who totaled slightly less than 600. Both the frequency and tone of Bush's statements have been the cause of much controversy.
On July 24, 2006, the American Bar Association (ABA) issued the report of a Blue-Ribbon Task Force on Bush's signing statements that concluded:
"Presidential signing statements that assert President Bush’s authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers... To address these concerns, the task force urges Congress to adopt legislation enabling its members to seek court review of signing statements that assert the President’s right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress, and urges the President to veto bills he feels are not constitutional."[3]
It is not an abuse of power for the President of the United States to veto a bill. It is part of the system of checks and balances established in the Constitution. Signing the bill, but changing the language to say what the President wants it to say vs. what Congress wants, is a big problem...
One more note on federal agencies and congress. Congress passes the laws. Federal agencies develop rules and regulations BASED ON THOSE LAWS. If you don't like the rules and regulations, then go back to Congress and have them change the law they're based on.
One more note on federal agencies and congress. Congress passes the laws. Federal agencies develop rules and regulations BASED ON THOSE LAWS. If you don't like the rules and regulations, then go back to Congress and have them change the law they're based on.
So how did the EPA get those new powers without Congress doing a thing ?
"Unwilling to wait for Congress to act, the Obama administration announced on Wednesday that it was moving forward on new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from hundreds of power plants and large industrial facilities."
Yeah, but somehow I can't picture Darth Biden sacrificing himself to save us from the tyrant.
He'll be Count Dookoo or however the name was spelled. Once Palpatine finds a new apprentice he'll order him to wack Count Biden.
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.
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.
