Republicans suing Obama

[Junior]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/25/boehners-attack-on-obamas-executive-orders-ignores-presidential-history/

Reports today indicate that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is planning a lawsuit over Barack Obama's use of executive orders. These orders have long been a focal point of right-wing anger, particularly since January of this year when Obama announced he'd be using more of them to bypass a gridlocked and dysfunctional congress.

Back in February I analyzed the numbers on executive order frequency and found that Obama has actually been less likely to resort to the pen and phone than any president since Grover Cleveland. Just a few days ago, John Hudak at Brookings updated the chart through June 17 of this year and found that those numbers haven't budged, at all.

[lo country]

A quick honest question. I do not plan to get into some internet tough guy posting battle, but I really want to know if the ardent Obama supporters feel a though he has over reached in some degree with his authority as it relates to the separation of powers with Congress enacting/enforcing law. Specifically, the changes in implementing the ACA, disregard of the INA, Welfare reform Act and Defense of Marriage Act. Not talking about "scandals", but actual laws he has changed without Congressional approval or blatant disregard in enforcing them. Has any president done executive decisions that so dramatically changed/effected law in your opinion. I realize he has "done less" , but have they been more impacting? Do you think this is acceptable?

 

If a R had done these things do you think it would cause more or less reaction? Would you still support these actions as acceptable un Bush?

 

Do you feel SCOTUS made the correct decision on the recess appointment decision? I am ASSuming no, as no one has commented.

[HeyBurke]

A quick honest question. I do not plan to get into some internet tough guy posting battle, but I really want to know if the ardent Obama supporters feel a though he has over reached in some degree with his authority as it relates to the separation of powers with Congress enacting/enforcing law. Specifically, the changes in implementing the ACA, disregard of the INA, Welfare reform Act and Defense of Marriage Act. Not talking about "scandals", but actual laws he has changed without Congressional approval or blatant disregard in enforcing them. Has any president done executive decisions that so dramatically changed/effected law in your opinion. I realize he has "done less" , but have they been more impacting? Do you think this is acceptable?

 

If a R had done these things do you think it would cause more or less reaction? Would you still support these actions as acceptable un Bush?

 

Do you feel SCOTUS made the correct decision on the recess appointment decision? I am ASSuming no, as no one has commented.

 

Yes, the President has reached quite often during his time in office. What President hasn't, though?

[True2tRA]

Many of the things he's changed, with or without the help of congress, were things he committed to changing when he ran for the office of President. Healthcare obviously, and immigration reform as well. Neither has been implemented fully as intended. Probably never will be. President Obama was elected by the people in a fair majority vote and has been fighting with very little cooperation, to keep his word on some of these things. The hypocrisy of the right is so clear and disgusting it is laughable. Either they paint Obama as a failure if he doesn't act on these very things he made promises to act on, or they say he is overstepping his legal boundaries when he takes the necessary steps to keep his word to the people that elected him.

 

I pray another Republican doesn't sit in that chair for a very long time.

[Junior]

A quick honest question. I do not plan to get into some internet tough guy posting battle, but I really want to know if the ardent Obama supporters feel a though he has over reached in some degree with his authority as it relates to the separation of powers with Congress enacting/enforcing law. Specifically, the changes in implementing the ACA, disregard of the INA, Welfare reform Act and Defense of Marriage Act. Not talking about "scandals", but actual laws he has changed without Congressional approval or blatant disregard in enforcing them. Has any president done executive decisions that so dramatically changed/effected law in your opinion. I realize he has "done less" , but have they been more impacting? Do you think this is acceptable?

 

If a R had done these things do you think it would cause more or less reaction? Would you still support these actions as acceptable un Bush?

 

Do you feel SCOTUS made the correct decision on the recess appointment decision? I am ASSuming no, as no one has commented.

 

Do I feel he has ever overreached? Sure he has.

 

Do I feel he is worse than anyone else? No.

 

If an "R" had done these things? Bush did it all the time. Clinton did too. I'm assuming it goes back further than that.

 

Every administration enforces laws differently/doesn't enforce certain laws. Is it right??? I'm not sure. But let's not pretend it is unique to Obama.

[lo country]

Many of the things he's changed, with or without the help of congress, were things he committed to changing when he ran for the office of President. Healthcare obviously, and immigration reform as well. Neither has been implemented fully as intended. Probably never will be. President Obama was elected by the people in a fair majority vote and has been fighting with very little cooperation, to keep his word on some of these things. The hypocrisy of the right is so clear and disgusting it is laughable. Either they paint Obama as a failure if he doesn't act on these very things he made promises to act on, or they say he is overstepping his legal boundaries when he takes the necessary steps to keep his word to the people that elected him.

 

I pray another Republican doesn't sit in that chair for a very long time

I might be wrong, but it appears that you are saying, "do what ever it takes to get what you want". Have some of these decisions crossed the line in regards to statutory authority? Is it acceptable because he is your guy? Would you be as agreeable if a true conservative was in office doing the same thing? That's my question. Even though you support him, do you think what he is doing is lawful? Constitutionally allowed or setting a precedent that could have negative implications for the country.

 

IMO, what if a conservative comes in and governs the same way i.e. refuses to enforce certain laws? Or actually enforce them to the letter i.e. INA?

[lo country]

 

A quick honest question. I do not plan to get into some internet tough guy posting battle, but I really want to know if the ardent Obama supporters feel a though he has over reached in some degree with his authority as it relates to the separation of powers with Congress enacting/enforcing law. Specifically, the changes in implementing the ACA, disregard of the INA, Welfare reform Act and Defense of Marriage Act. Not talking about "scandals", but actual laws he has changed without Congressional approval or blatant disregard in enforcing them. Has any president done executive decisions that so dramatically changed/effected law in your opinion. I realize he has "done less" , but have they been more impacting? Do you think this is acceptable?

 

If a R had done these things do you think it would cause more or less reaction? Would you still support these actions as acceptable un Bush?

 

Do you feel SCOTUS made the correct decision on the recess appointment decision? I am ASSuming no, as no one has commented.

 

Do I feel he has ever overreached? Sure he has.

 

Do I feel he is worse than anyone else? No.

 

If an "R" had done these things? Bush did it all the time. Clinton did too. I'm assuming it goes back further than that.

 

Every administration enforces laws differently/doesn't enforce certain laws. Is it right??? I'm not sure. But let's not pretend it is unique to Obama.

 

I agree all have done this, but IMO, it seems as though Obama has done more that actually effects our country on a more tangible way i.e. immigration, even changing the way that his ACA is implemented. Is there a difference when the changes actually effect the law. Not sure of specifics where others have actually changed law by not enforcing or truly changing without Congress.

[lo country]

On a side note, I appreciate the fact that this thread has yet to go into the sniping, one upsmanship that usually occurs. Truly just trying to gauge opinions and see "the other sides" thoughts.

 

Thanks

[suh_fan93]

Many of the things he's changed, with or without the help of congress, were things he committed to changing when he ran for the office of President. Healthcare obviously, and immigration reform as well. Neither has been implemented fully as intended. Probably never will be. President Obama was elected by the people in a fair majority vote and has been fighting with very little cooperation, to keep his word on some of these things. The hypocrisy of the right is so clear and disgusting it is laughable. Either they paint Obama as a failure if he doesn't act on these very things he made promises to act on, or they say he is overstepping his legal boundaries when he takes the necessary steps to keep his word to the people that elected him.

 

I pray another Republican doesn't sit in that chair for a very long time.

 

100% nailed it.

[True2tRA]

 

Many of the things he's changed, with or without the help of congress, were things he committed to changing when he ran for the office of President. Healthcare obviously, and immigration reform as well. Neither has been implemented fully as intended. Probably never will be. President Obama was elected by the people in a fair majority vote and has been fighting with very little cooperation, to keep his word on some of these things. The hypocrisy of the right is so clear and disgusting it is laughable. Either they paint Obama as a failure if he doesn't act on these very things he made promises to act on, or they say he is overstepping his legal boundaries when he takes the necessary steps to keep his word to the people that elected him.

I pray another Republican doesn't sit in that chair for a very long time

 

I might be wrong, but it appears that you are saying, "do what ever it takes to get what you want". Have some of these decisions crossed the line in regards to statutory authority? Is it acceptable because he is your guy? Would you be as agreeable if a true conservative was in office doing the same thing? That's my question. Even though you support him, do you think what he is doing is lawful? Constitutionally allowed or setting a precedent that could have negative implications for the country.

 

IMO, what if a conservative comes in and governs the same way i.e. refuses to enforce certain laws? Or actually enforce them to the letter i.e. INA?

I do support him because he is my guy. Yes. Still, I think the changes he has put into effect are under a larger microscope. Clearly the issues he has taken on are HUGE issues in this country. He was voted into office at a particularly difficult time for this country. His opposition has been harshly critical of nearly every move he has made. I might be saying "do whatever it takes" but I don't think the president approached these situations like that. I think he was simply put in that position over time. Being a man of your word is not always easy. Hard to make everyone happy. Like I said though, he is representing the majority of this country. He was voted in with that majority at his back. I don't think it matters what Obama does at this point, the right will complain. There's not a doubt in my mind that if a Republican is voted into office in the next election, you will see a reversal or an attempt at reversal of these changes, and those reverses will be made in much the same fashion as you are seeing these things implemented. It's been done before, and will be done again. When a Republican was in office doing this, you heard no complaining from the right. That's because it was "their guy" making the changs. In the end, I think that's a big part of the hypocrisy.

[Junior]

I agree all have done this, but IMO, it seems as though Obama has done more that actually effects our country on a more tangible way i.e. immigration, even changing the way that his ACA is implemented. Is there a difference when the changes actually effect the law. Not sure of specifics where others have actually changed law by not enforcing or truly changing without Congress.

 

 

 

Seems that way, but isn't that way. People quickly forget the Bush years. The funny thing is, Bush would sign laws passed by Congress and then totally ignore them or aspects of them.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300511.html

 

 

A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.

 

In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined.

----

Perhaps the most prominent example was legislation last year banning cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners at U.S. detention centers. Bush signed the bill into law after a struggle with Congress, then followed it with an official statement indicating that he might waive the ban under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, if necessary to prevent a terrorist attack.

[carlfense]

A quick honest question. I do not plan to get into some internet tough guy posting battle, but I really want to know if the ardent Obama supporters feel a though he has over reached in some degree with his authority as it relates to the separation of powers with Congress enacting/enforcing law. Specifically, the changes in implementing the ACA, disregard of the INA, Welfare reform Act and Defense of Marriage Act. Not talking about "scandals", but actual laws he has changed without Congressional approval or blatant disregard in enforcing them. Has any president done executive decisions that so dramatically changed/effected law in your opinion. I realize he has "done less" , but have they been more impacting? Do you think this is acceptable?

I guess I'm a little confused. These Republicans want every single bit of Obamacare to remain as currently written? I think that I'd take these complaints a bit more seriously if the GOP was at all interested in participating in the legislative process. They didn't vote for this conservative health care plan, they didn't participate in writing the law, they want to repeal every single word of it, and they're upset with Obama for tweaking the rollout?

 

Yawn.

 

 

Do you feel SCOTUS made the correct decision on the recess appointment decision? I am ASSuming no, as no one has commented.

I do think that they got it right. The lack of interest in the thread is probably mostly attributable to the fact that it doesn't really change anything today.

[TGHusker]

I think the key has been that more and more power is moving towards the executive branch - regardless of which party controls it. Over the past 20 years the only time I recall there being a balance of power has been the Bill/Newt era in which they worked together to balance the budget and before the legal/impeachment issues arose.

Boehner's lawsuit is stupid and is only a publicity stunt. It shows how really weak congress is. He has been much more bark than bite. Has O overstepped -yes - but if you create a vacuum of power as congress has, it will be filled. I do agree wt Lo Country in that the current admin has been very selective in their enforcement / or lack thereof and have pushed the limit on recess appointments and exec orders. However, I blame a weak opposition in the house to not being an effective counter weight. The Senate under Reid will allow Obama to get away with anything he wants to do - it has no check against the president of the same party. Perhaps Boehner's only option is talk, as there is nothing he can do that the Senate can't block. Perhaps Boehner could work wt O on some issues and develop a less confrontational relationship. Maybe Obama will reciprocate - naw that won't ever happen.

[LukeinNE]

Three thoughts:

 

1. Yes, this is election year politics, and nothing more.

 

2. Obama has overreached numerous times by declining to enforce laws (or parts of them) that he finds inconvenient, and he's far from the first president to do so.

 

3. This brings me to Luke's Golden Rule of Political Bias and Executive Authority: if you're only ok with a president exercising X power because you agree with him ideologically, you probably shouldn't support the president having that power, because in under 10 years, the other side is almost certainly going to get back in the White House.

[TGHusker]

Three thoughts:

 

1. Yes, this is election year politics, and nothing more.

 

2. Obama has overreached numerous times by declining to enforce laws (or parts of them) that he finds inconvenient, and he's far from the first president to do so.

 

3. This brings me to Luke's Golden Rule of Political Bias and Executive Authority: if you're only ok with a president exercising X power because you agree with him ideologically, you probably shouldn't support the president having that power, because in under 10 years, the other side is almost certainly going to get back in the White House.

all very true