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.
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.
Well clearly as u said pot and large clips being illegal are both idiotic laws, but looking at our 'representitives' I'll digress.
I personally think it's perfectly OK for the President to bypass them if he has to. Congress is so worthless most of them probably need to be taking out to a play field and shot with 30 clip mags... but who knows. Everytime I say they can't get any dumber, guess who gets elected to Congress?
Well clearly as u said pot and large clips being illegal are both idiotic laws, but looking at our 'representitives' I'll digress.
I personally think it's perfectly OK for the President to bypass them if he has to. Congress is so worthless most of them probably need to be taking out to a play field and shot with 30 clip mags... but who knows. Everytime I say they can't get any dumber, guess who gets elected to Congress?
No such thing as "clip mags" but nonetheless, thank you for being forthright. We have one liberal vote in favor of the POTUS bypassing Congress.
Guys, why so cynical? I'm a lefty -- far, far lefty too. I'm very libertarian on social issues (gay marriage? of course! polygamous marriages? um, ok .. drugs? well, I guess adults should be free to use whatever the want), but I'm quite socialist on economic issues (tax income 100 percent over a certain dollar amount? of course, that's just common sense... Gorbachev said it best, there is nothing an individual can do to earn or deserve that much more wealth than his fellow humans).
That said, I'm an American first and as an American I believe power should be balanced to keep tyranny at bay. That was one of the most brilliant insights our founding fathers had when they were designing our system of government. It bothered me when Bush pursued a policy of "imperial presidency" and it bothers me (and saddens me) that Obama has done more of the same. Bush wasn't the first to do this, of course -- the first president to concentrate more power into the office than was intended was George Washington and every president since has followed suit.
What about the opposite side of this question? Conservatives, do you think it is right for a Congress to declare that it's main job is to obstruct the duly elected president so that s/he is limited to one term?
I'm not trying to deflect here - just to point out that these actions have occurred in a relationship where one party declared *from the outset* that the other party need not even show up.
The reason why Rs have not been able to make much traction on this issue is because it is clear to the majority of moderates/independents where this started, and why it continues. Don't like the president making recess appointments? Don't leave his nominations in limbo indefinitely. Don't like the president doing what is in his power to do through executive orders? Sit down and negotiate - you know, give on something in order to get something else.
It's almost as if Congressional Rs *want* to look bad. Obama is strictly middle-of-the-road, and a plurality of American voters can see that, because they are not wearing ideological blinders.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,543 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6029
Im not going to vote in the poll simply because bypass is the wrong word.
The Constitution affords the President the ability to do much of which you are calling a "bypass". So yes, i agree with it and would be ok with them doing it.
P.S. being ok with something constitutionally is not the same as me believing that specific thing was right.
for example, if President Perry/Paul/Christie lowers the minimum wage for federal workers back to the stated one in the law, they have every constitutional right to do so as President, but that doesnt mean I agree its right.
I feel people on this forum seem to use their definition of "right" as a synonym for Constitutionality, so i just want to point out that i dont.
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.
