Shift On Executive Powers Let Obama Bypass Congress

nytimes.com:

WASHINGTON — One Saturday last fall, President Obama interrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue not on the agenda. He declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[Promano]

06:11 AM on 06/02/2012

Once again... If I had a nickle for everytime a Bush Bashing comment- I would be part of the 1% ers

[whitewater]

09:10 AM on 04/24/2012

Remind me again. How are dictatorships started?

[Watching rock grow]

11:42 AM on 04/24/2012

With gun owners or those unadverse to using violence to further their own goals.

[Mojito]

04:19 PM on 04/24/2012

George W. Bush: If Only I Were A Dictator
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/10/29_Dictator.html

[devildog09]

08:30 AM on 04/24/2012

The title of the article is "Shift in executive powers lets Obama bypass Congress." It could equally have read "Obama decides to ignore constitution in order to implement his agenda."

Oh well. Whatever new powers he takes on will also be applicable to his Republican successor.

[SueMVetforObama2]

08:53 AM on 04/24/2012

Nonsense.

BTW, yesterday the President prevented Sequestration cuts to Veteran's Health via an OMB Memo.

Booyah, Mr. President! The VFW thanks you!

[elbzee]

11:55 AM on 04/24/2012

Unimaginabl that in this country, to get such a thing passed, he has to issue a memo. Where were all those "support our troops" tea-gopers? Why was it necessary to pass in this way??? Did they say, "Support our Troops as they failed to vote it in themselves? Pitiful excuse for legislators!

[Brandon Wolff]

11:03 AM on 04/24/2012

Pot, meet kettle.

G.W. Bush # of Executive Orders: 291 (36.4 per year avg)
Obama # of Executive Orders: 115 (32.9 per year avg)

Information taken from the (obviously liberal) National Archives.

[devildog09]

04:26 PM on 04/24/2012

I know this is hard to understand, so I'll say it slowly. Some...executive...orders...are...constitutional. The volume issued is irrelevant. The content is very relevant.

[Anybodyseenthepopos]

08:12 AM on 04/24/2012

When the Senate becomes the place where bills go to die because of unprecedented filibustering what the hell do people expect?

This is a majority rule Republic. That means that 51 is a majority. The Republicans have made it necessary to have a 61 to 39 approval in order to pass legislation.

If they don't like the Presidents response to endless obstructionism they have only themselves to blame.

PS. After the Previous administrations abuses of power, the hypocrisy is staggering.

[deltalady]

07:45 AM on 04/24/2012

I think we should allow Obama to campaign 24/7, 365 because it seems that the only way he'll try to accomplish anything is by threatening that he might lose his job. Sorry. I know that's snarky, but if this president had worked as hard in the 1st 6 months as he has the last trying to keep his job we might be in better shape by now and those that put us in this position would be doing the perp walk into Federal court.

[morbius]

12:10 PM on 04/24/2012

I think it has taken Obama this long to realize and finally admit that he was delusional when he first entered the White House: he actually thought you could compromise with repubs.

[Mojito]

04:23 PM on 04/24/2012

Exactly! Now hopefully he knows better and stops offering the olive branch to them.

[LibRule]

08:34 PM on 04/24/2012

I give him props for trying. I give him even more props for now dealing with what is.

[MGLLC]

12:16 PM on 04/24/2012

I'm a fan, but I don't think so. Elections simply switch puppets, the process continues regardless of who is elected. Neither candidate knows or cares what the people want or need. Thanks to Citizens United, corporations now control our farce of an election process. They will buy up all the air time, and sell their candidates and issues. Our voices have been silenced forever.

Accomplishing things by executive order re-enforces the growing power of the executive branch. The executive branch was given the power to dissolve congress in event of a national emergency under Ronald Reagan. This is a slippery slope, and the fools in power have already taken us over the cliff.

[LibRule]

08:35 PM on 04/24/2012

Please don't forget the nightmare social order the GOPers are pushing. The parties are NOT the same.

[Marine340]

07:40 AM on 04/24/2012

This Dictator has to go!!

[XtfrM2]

08:21 AM on 04/24/2012

"This Dictator has to go!!"

There is no dictator. That's your imagination. Who needs to go are the Republicans, all of whom have put party before country and pledged their allegiance, not to flag, but to Gro.ver Norq.uist.

[devildog09]

08:32 AM on 04/24/2012

So why is it that liberals burn the flag and badmouth their own country- until they get THEIR guy in the white house. Then suddenly they are overcome by patriotic fervor and anyone who disagrees with them is a traitor.

[Marine340]

08:45 AM on 04/24/2012

The following is a list of national leaders (heads of state and/or heads of government) commonly regarded as modern dictators. This usage usually carries a pejorative sense and refers to a ruler who:

is an absolute ruler of a sovereign state where the position is not formally hereditary;
governs outside the otherwise accepted rule of law;
commonly (but not necessarily) gained power through fraud or a coup d'état, or resorts to them to stay in power;
may develop a cult of personality;
may be autocratic, oppressive, despotic or tyrannical

[SueMVetforObama2]

08:54 AM on 04/24/2012

Marine340,

Yesterday the VFW lauded the President.

I join him.

Marine0231

[Hillrick]

07:05 AM on 04/24/2012

GObama...GObama!

(Not snark)

[GWNumber1]

06:37 AM on 04/24/2012

Expect liberals to squawk when President Romney does the same thing....

[Wmof2011]

07:20 AM on 04/24/2012

1% er Romney can never be allowed near the White House.

[XtfrM2]

08:09 AM on 04/24/2012

"Expect liberals to squawk when President Romney does the same thing...."

"President Romney." Hilarious.

[GWNumber1]

06:36 AM on 04/24/2012

Obama was against it before he was for it.....

[devildog09]

08:33 AM on 04/24/2012

He was probably about the most outspoken senator (on those rare days when he actually worked as a senator) during the Bush administration. Oh, how the rules change when you get the power yourself.

[Cacey]

10:06 AM on 04/24/2012

Of course they do. You have a different job and a new perspective. One can only presume you have not been promoted out of the mail room not to appreciate that.

[Brandon Wolff]

11:09 AM on 04/24/2012

Wait, so you acknowledge that Bush did this sort of thing (more often) as well?
Would you mind supplying us with links to your old posts where you were calling Bush a dictator as well?
I'd bet you don't have any.
You want to see how a TRUE authoritarian regime deals with the economic crisis of the 2000s? Look at China.

[SueMVetforObama2]

08:55 AM on 04/24/2012

GW was the first to issue Executive Orders

[Brandon Wolff]

11:24 AM on 04/24/2012

In fairness; this is not true. H. H. Hoover was.
Remember that Truman integrated the Armed Forces via Executive Order in Jan. 1948.

HOW they were used changed dramatically under G.W. Bush, however.
Bush issued EO13233 to make sure the documents of his administration would never become public record. This was overriding the Presidential Records Act of 1978.
EO13435 limited Federal funds for embryonic stem cell research.
And let's not forget all of the executive orders pertaining to ignoring the Geneva convention agreements on torture and imprisonment, as well as EO's attacking habeas corpus.
Let us also remember that Obama has not reversed the EOs regarding detention and treatment of prisoners or suspects, and has, in some cases, strengthened those illegal edicts.
Point being that the noxious weed was planted and reared by G.W. Bush, but it remains alive and well under Obama. It should be our duty as citizens to make sure the practice ends ASAP. Regardless of your opinion of the current/future POTUS.

[Brandon Wolff]

11:30 AM on 04/24/2012

Correction: EOs have been used since at least 1826, and probably 1789.
My bad.

[R.W. Sanders]

06:03 AM on 04/24/2012

I feel sure that the founding fathers did not imagine such a radical obstructionist political block when writing the constitution. A prime example of this ridiculous obstruction occurred when the republicans refused to honor the nation's debts and allegedly caused the downgrade of our national credit rating. And this is only one of too many examples to list here.

So, it is about time Obama took this type action. I only wish he would have done this sooner. Somehow, our congress has become so beholden to the big money interests, that only when viewed through trickle down colored glasses do many of their proposals even begin to make sense. They are owned lock, stock and barrel and due to our anything but supreme court, it doesn't look to get any better. So, if our government is to be effective at all, an adult needs to step up and take action.

And the N.Y Times only hurts themselves over the long haul, with their silly 10 per month minimum. Eventually, an entity with a better business plan will take over as the voice of progressive America.

[Cacey]

10:08 AM on 04/24/2012

Oh, but the Founding Fathers did imagine such a thing, perhaps not to the current degree, and that is why they not only provided for Executive Orders in the Constitution but why those who later became President issued them.

[Mojito]

04:32 PM on 04/24/2012

Exactly and well said. f&f

[mggwa]

07:11 PM on 04/26/2012

Being certain is no substitute for being correct. Each branch is *designed* to obstruct the other two.

[VPerry24]

05:30 AM on 04/24/2012

Should use it to give us the much wanted health care for all!

[Mojito]

04:34 PM on 04/24/2012

You can say that again!

[jqcitizen]

04:18 AM on 04/24/2012

Harry 'Give them Hell' Truman was the first president to have a Secretary of Defense. It made good sense with the 5-star General Eisenhower that later became president.

After all these decades of meaningless war, what president will have the courage to eliminate the position and look for a Secretary of War? - Almost an assurance there will be no volunteers from the war profiteering Republicans. The former War Department was a 'non profit' outfit. Remember that?

[XME]

04:17 AM on 04/24/2012

Personally, I don't love this, but I also that elected Republicans give him two options: do nothing, or do something just w/o their input or approval...and I'd rather see the later, particularly with an economy on the edge.

[Baneblade]

06:13 AM on 04/24/2012

Same. Its a shame he has to bypass normal procedure due to an out of control Congress.

[TheBMChief]

04:11 AM on 04/24/2012

I keep trying to filter out the republican
nonsense..

but my filter keeps on getting clogged!

[Anybodyseenthepopos]

08:19 AM on 04/24/2012

I find this helpful when that happens.

http://howtounclogatoilet.net/toilet-plunger/

[devildog09]

08:34 AM on 04/24/2012

Try flushing the filter with kool-aid. That's what everyone else here does.

[Anybodyseenthepopos]

09:14 AM on 04/24/2012

I disagree.

But.. that was funny!

[Russ Noe]

04:05 AM on 04/24/2012

I think this new strategy should be called "Growing a Pair." It's time! Go President Obama.