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.
The Baltimore Sun has a column today by two law school profs recommending that the President should use the regulatory power already present in the executive branch to achieve something notable in his second term:
Quote:
The president can't afford to shut himself off from Congress, of course — nor should he...But it's hard to imagine anything of consequence coming from Capitol Hill that isn't the product of brutal fighting and bitter compromise. By contrast, if he directs his regulatory agencies to move with dispatch, the president can make huge advances on health, safety and environmental issues, along the way crafting a lasting legacy on these issues that will stand beside many of his first-term accomplishments.
They have a point, of course - little or nothing can be expected from a gridlocked and dysfunctional legislature, certainly for the next two years, probably for the next four, and quite possibly for the indefinite future. Obama, like every other occupant of the office, will certainly want to - and in the face of our present state of constitutional moribundity, should - make the most of the executive prerogative. "Health, safety and environmental issues" are by no means the only areas where the executive is effectively independent of the legislative power and can largely ignore Congress.
It's an excellent thing if you happen to work in the West Wing - sure, it ties up the chief's time in pointless window-dressing meetings and other gestures designed to maintain the illusion that anyone in office cares what Congress might do. But in reality, the more Congress demonstrates its incapability, the more easily the executive can do as it pleases.
Yes, i think Belgium didnt have a govt for a couple of years and no one noticed.
Belgium doesn't need a government - it has a king. Not that he has any real political power, but as that episode proved, he has sufficient symbolic power to hold the country together, while an apolitical caretaker government keeps the engine of state ticking over. And since at least the presidency of Reagen, the American presidency has looked ever more monarchical and fulfilled much the same function.
Belgium doesn't need a government - it has a king. Not that he has any real political power, but as that episode proved, he has sufficient symbolic power to hold the country together, while an apolitical caretaker government keeps the engine of state ticking over. And since at least the presidency of Reagen, the American presidency has looked ever more monarchical and fulfilled much the same function.
Err the President is the head of the executive branch. In short he is head of the branch that makes sure laws are executed there is nothing new there.
Always be afraid when somebody suggest 1 man should have more power to "fix a otherwise unfixable problem".
Isn't that the truth! The OP should go live in a country that is ruled by a dictator and see if that changes his tune. You could catch the next plane out.
Isn't that the truth! The OP should go live in a country that is ruled by a dictator and see if that changes his tune. You could catch the next plane out.
It worked quite well in N Korea for decades.
If they aren't progressive, who is?
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.
