New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

FYI, presidents have VAST executive authority

Bugsy McGurk

President
Boehner, Fox News and the rest of the right wing echo chamber have brainwashed their droids into thinking that Obama needs the approval of Congress for every executive decision he has made.

"He is acting like a king!", screech the Pugs.

Not so. Presidents have vast constitutional, executive power when it comes to the implementation of statutes, regulations, and in many other contexts.

I just figured I'd tell Pugs about this, in case any are interested in reality.

;-)
 

trapdoor

Governor
Boehner, Fox News and the rest of the right wing echo chamber have brainwashed their droids into thinking that Obama needs the approval of Congress for every executive decision he has made.

"He is acting like a king!", screech the Pugs.

Not so. Presidents have vast constitutional, executive power when it comes to the implementation of statutes, regulations, and in many other contexts.

I just figured I'd tell Pugs about this, in case any are interested in reality.

;-)
Yes, they have authority to IMPLEMENT the law, not to change it. Thus if the law says, "We will start doing X on Sept. 15," the president can start doing X on Sept. 15. He can't simply say, "No, I want to start doing it on Oct 15." That isn't implementing the law, it is changing it -- it is legislating via decree. In short, it is acting like a king.
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
early on repubs were mumbling about the refugee crisis saying that Pres Obama could take action on his own. LOL - so they could turn around and bitch that he did or file another frivolous law suit.
 

trapdoor

Governor
early on repubs were mumbling about the refugee crisis saying that Pres Obama could take action on his own. LOL - so they could turn around and bitch that he did or file another frivolous law suit.
That's a different thing. There are already anti-immigration laws on the books, and the president has both the authority and the responsibility to enforce them.
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
Yes, they have authority to IMPLEMENT the law, not to change it. Thus if the law says, "We will start doing X on Sept. 15," the president can start doing X on Sept. 15. He can't simply say, "No, I want to start doing it on Oct 15." That isn't implementing the law, it is changing it -- it is legislating via decree. In short, it is acting like a king.
do you remember the changes Bush made to Medicare Part D when he implemented that law?
 

trapdoor

Governor
you've laid some convincing groundwork for when the next republican president also acts like congress doesn't matter.

but i'm sure you will feel differently at that point.
And you will be wrong. I was a harsh critic of Bush's "signing statements" (Obama has done them too) in which he explained what he thought the legislation really meant.

Presidents can propose laws to their parties -- they can't write them.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Yes, they have authority to IMPLEMENT the law, not to change it. Thus if the law says, "We will start doing X on Sept. 15," the president can start doing X on Sept. 15. He can't simply say, "No, I want to start doing it on Oct 15." That isn't implementing the law, it is changing it -- it is legislating via decree. In short, it is acting like a king.
Not so. Statutes typically grant considerable discretion to presidents in implementing laws. Rest assured that that will be the WH response to Boehner's insane suit attacking what the GOP demanded - a postponement of the employer mandate. The WH will also point to the GOP's widespread sabotage of the ACA.

More things you will never hear from the GOP Propaganda Machine.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
early on repubs were mumbling about the refugee crisis saying that Pres Obama could take action on his own. LOL - so they could turn around and bitch that he did or file another frivolous law suit.
GOP hacks are not exactly known for their consistency.

How much howling did we hear from Pugs when GOP presidents issued far more executive orders than Obama?

;-)
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
you've laid some convincing groundwork for when the next republican president also acts like congress doesn't matter.

but i'm sure you will feel differently at that point.

To reverse what Obama did the GOP could have passed a new law providing that the ACA employer mandate date could not be postponed. Of course, they wanted it postponed so they didn't do that. So now they're suing Obama for doing what they wanted done.

Insane.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Not so. Statutes typically grant considerable discretion to presidents in implementing laws. Rest assured that that will be the WH response to Boehner's insane suit attacking what the GOP demanded - a postponement of the employer mandate. The WH will also point to the GOP's widespread sabotage of the ACA.

More things you will never hear from the GOP Propaganda Machine.
Where is this discretion granted in the Constitution?
 

trapdoor

Governor
To reverse what Obama did the GOP could have passed a new law providing that the ACA employer mandate date could not be postponed. Of course, they wanted it postponed so they didn't do that. So now they're suing Obama for doing what they wanted done.

Insane.
The, ahem, House and Senate (not the GOP), had ALREADY PASSED A LAW that set deadlines in the ACA. Obama has chosen to ignore those deadlines. Passing a law that says, "You can't break the last law we passed" is an obviously futile endeavor.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
The, ahem, House and Senate (not the GOP), had ALREADY PASSED A LAW that set deadlines in the ACA. Obama has chosen to ignore those deadlines. Passing a law that says, "You can't break the last law we passed" is an obviously futile endeavor.
Nonsense.

The WH claims that the ACA as written provides the latitude to postpone the employer mandate date. The House could have passed a law providing that there is no such flexibility. But that would have the Pugs passing a law to achieve what they did not want - immediate imposition of the employer mandate.

Obama's action carried out the postponement the GOP wanted, so the GOP House is suing him for it.

Insanity.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Nonsense.

The WH claims that the ACA as written provides the latitude to postpone the employer mandate date. The House could have passed a law providing that there is no such flexibility. But that would have the Pugs passing a law to achieve what they did not want - immediate imposition of the employer mandate.

Obama's action carried out the postponement the GOP wanted, so the GOP House is suing him for it.

Insanity.
Well, I can read. I'm not seeing the latitude. It doesn't say, "Sept. 2013 or at the president's discretion."
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Well, I can read. I'm not seeing the latitude. It doesn't say, "Sept. 2013 or at the president's discretion."
Your "legal analysis" is a tad superficial - what one would expect from those who get their "news" from the right wing echo chamber.

The courts and the WH will consider all provisions of the ACA, existing law governing the latitude of the executive when administering legislation, and the widespread sabotage campaign of the GOP as to the ACA.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Your "legal analysis" is a tad superficial - what one would expect from those who get their "news" from the right wing echo chamber.

The courts and the WH will consider all provisions of the ACA, existing law governing the latitude of the executive when administering legislation, and the widespread sabotage campaign of the GOP as to the ACA.
For the nth time, I get my news from the Associated Press and via listening to NPR (and BBC America ON NPR).

Forget the courts for a minute and tell me where you see the latitude.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
For the nth time, I get my news from the Associated Press and via listening to NPR (and BBC America ON NPR).

Forget the courts for a minute and tell me where you see the latitude.
I would happily analyze all the issues I identified above if paid to do it. WH attorneys will devote many hours to doing so. The central point though is that neither you nor any other Pugs screeching "King!" have done so.
 

trapdoor

Governor
I would happily analyze all the issues I identified above if paid to do it. WH attorneys will devote many hours to doing so. The central point though is that neither you nor any other Pugs screeching "King!" have done so.
You don't have to be a "Republican" screeching "king" to have the simple belief that the law can have only one meaning, defined by its language, and that the president is not above the law, and is hence controlled by that language. All you have to have is the ability to read and common sense.
 
Top