PDA

View Full Version : Executive Action



rojomojo915
July 1 2014, 05:33:51 PM
So if you are in the US, you have definitely been hearing a lot about in the past two weeks with Boehner threatening to sue the Obama administration for using it and Obama saying he will use it to pass imigration reform as well as other items on his agenda.

My 2 cents is that it does seem to completely ignore the systems we have in place in this country, but at the same time, when the party who controls congress is not willing to negotiate and is stone walling the minority, it keeps congress in this deadlock where nothing gets done. Id rather have the President pass legislation to try to improve the country than have congress sit there and do nothing with it for another 3 years (an article I read said immigration reform wouldn't be discussed again till after the next president is inaugurated in 2017 if is not discussed this summer).

Yes, Obama and his administration also need to be willing to negotiate as well, but at from my point of view in most scenarios that have played out with Republicans taking a hard stance, it seems to be Boehner and his allies in congress that take the bigger hit with public opinion (budget crisis).

So, whats everyone else's thought on this?

Baarhyn
July 1 2014, 05:49:26 PM
Listen to this, it's quite clear cut to be honest.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGG2Tok_3js

Aea
July 1 2014, 06:02:11 PM
Executive Orders are a long-standing power of the Executive Branch with the President at its head. There are restrictions on the power that are being respected by Obama.

In terms of scale Obama has issued very few, in terms of scope that's arguable. Looking through the list they all seem rather innocuous and in line with past presidencies.

They are currently the only way for Obama to actually implement policy against an entirely unresponsive Congress who will find anything, absolutely anything wrong with any behavior remotely linked to the President. The rational for this is up to the reader, but let me just interject that when 29% of Louisiana Republicans blame Obama for mis-handling Hurricane Katrina (an event that occurred three years before his presidency) I don't think any arguments against Obama are based on an logical or ideological difference.

That said, Immigration Reform is the only real Executive Order yet that will have large, wide-scale consequences. Of course the Republican argument has been that most of Obama's Executive Orders have been similar in reach (and over-reach). I think this is a calculated risk taken by the President to call the GOP out on several things:

- Extreme hyperbole over EOs
- A threat to force the GOP (which effectively has full power to halt and prevent any legislation) to actually do their job and legislate on the Immigration Issue


Oh, and the issue that Obama would issue EOs on? It's about handling an sudden influx of migrant children that the Border Patrol and Texas (which is primarily affected) can't cope with. The EO will likely improve the ability to deport them on a timely schedule while still abiding to the rule of law to ensure they have proper hearings (a law enacted by George W Bush). Additionally the order is requesting additional funding to ensure the border is more secure. This is both something that GOP has traditionally stood for and (surprise surprise) within the purview of the Executive Branch.


The "upset" over this is an entirely fabricated outrage because the GOP will find anything and everything they can do to oppose the President, even when he's proposing action that GOP has long wanted. It should come as no surprise that many elements are already spreading half-truths and bold-faced lies about what the scope of this action will entail.

Straight Hustlin
July 1 2014, 06:17:59 PM
Its certainly an interesting little pissing match. One thing that I was thinking with respects to them suing over AHA is technically they do not have legal status as both the House & Senate made a point to exempt themselves from the AHA.

But in reality the who crux of this shit is that most republicans think that boenner is an impotent bitch who really hasn't accomplished anything. And given Cantor's loss in VA; they are trying to put on a tough face as to not lose any more ground.

Edit to add this: Another really interesting thing is this is just a pointless fuck around kinda thing. Obama can issue what ever fucking order he wants about border security; but on the flip side Congress can just simply refuse to provide the funding for carrying out the order.

Rakshasa The Cat
July 1 2014, 07:08:07 PM
Is this about a free-for-all torture permission slip by the United States, or some other kind of executive action?

rojomojo915
July 1 2014, 07:20:31 PM
Is this about a free-for-all torture permission slip by the United States, or some other kind of executive action?

Some other kind (http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/obama-immigration/) for one example.

Steph
July 2 2014, 07:27:31 AM
Is this about a free-for-all torture permission slip by the United States, or some other kind of executive action?

I thought troll posting wasn't allowed in this subforum.

Keorythe
July 2 2014, 08:18:38 PM
That said, Immigration Reform is the only real Executive Order yet that will have large, wide-scale consequences. Of course the Republican argument has been that most of Obama's Executive Orders have been similar in reach (and over-reach).

This does very little to address immigration and the impact of EO's current and in the past. The Obama administration has been using the Justice Dept. to be very selective in which laws it wants to enforce. This is compounded by the use of an EO which put incredible executive power behind the issue. But this sets a very scary precedent which can be used for just about any law he chooses. We've seen past Presidencies use EO's in the past but typically they've been well constrained and not abrogating (decide not to enforce) a law.

This isn't the first time that the Obama administration has been taken to court over Executive overreach and past Presidents have also been down this road. The difference here is that Obama is outstripping them at a rapid pace. Clinton had 23 unanimous decisions against him, Bush 15, but Obama is already up to 20 and that doesn't address the non-unanimous decisions nor amicus the administration has submitted. He still has another 1 1/2 years to go...



The "upset" over this is an entirely fabricated outrage because the GOP will find anything and everything they can do to oppose the President, even when he's proposing action that GOP has long wanted. It should come as no surprise that many elements are already spreading half-truths and bold-faced lies about what the scope of this action will entail.

This paragraph is very ironic, specifically the last sentence. Many of the proposed action that the GOP "wanted" is similar in nature but far from the mark of what was being petitioned. Many in the US want immigration reform, just not in the way that the Obama administration is proposing. The same goes for other reforms or policies but it makes a nice sound byte to appear that the GOP are only out to oppose the President strictly to oppose him. His use of authority haven't exactly gone with with his fellow Democrats which have had to deal with the aftermath and been hammered for it. What's worse about this discussion is that you're only addressing immigration as if that is the whole of the lawsuit.

The lawsuit is actually a good thing. It's not a full impeachment so it's not going to disrupt the government. It may solidify the rules for the use of EO's in the future and Executive authority surrounding abrogation of a law. I mean for gods sake, just the idea of the government saying, "we don't feel like enforcing this law right now" but we'll use it at our own discretion, ought to have both side up in arms. I mean just the cases concerning immigration alone isn't about "not pursuing the law" or "this is complex with many gray areas" but a flat out "we are ignoring the law because we can".

Can you imagine if the administration just decided to have the Justice Dept. decline to pursue cases of discrimination?

Baarhyn
July 2 2014, 09:07:04 PM
That said, Immigration Reform is the only real Executive Order yet that will have large, wide-scale consequences. Of course the Republican argument has been that most of Obama's Executive Orders have been similar in reach (and over-reach).

This does very little to address immigration and the impact of EO's current and in the past. The Obama administration has been using the Justice Dept. to be very selective in which laws it wants to enforce. This is compounded by the use of an EO which put incredible executive power behind the issue. But this sets a very scary precedent which can be used for just about any law he chooses. We've seen past Presidencies use EO's in the past but typically they've been well constrained and not abrogating (decide not to enforce) a law.

This isn't the first time that the Obama administration has been taken to court over Executive overreach and past Presidents have also been down this road. The difference here is that Obama is outstripping them at a rapid pace. Clinton had 23 unanimous decisions against him, Bush 15, but Obama is already up to 20 and that doesn't address the non-unanimous decisions nor amicus the administration has submitted. He still has another 1 1/2 years to go...



The "upset" over this is an entirely fabricated outrage because the GOP will find anything and everything they can do to oppose the President, even when he's proposing action that GOP has long wanted. It should come as no surprise that many elements are already spreading half-truths and bold-faced lies about what the scope of this action will entail.

This paragraph is very ironic, specifically the last sentence. Many of the proposed action that the GOP "wanted" is similar in nature but far from the mark of what was being petitioned. Many in the US want immigration reform, just not in the way that the Obama administration is proposing. The same goes for other reforms or policies but it makes a nice sound byte to appear that the GOP are only out to oppose the President strictly to oppose him. His use of authority haven't exactly gone with with his fellow Democrats which have had to deal with the aftermath and been hammered for it. What's worse about this discussion is that you're only addressing immigration as if that is the whole of the lawsuit.

The lawsuit is actually a good thing. It's not a full impeachment so it's not going to disrupt the government. It may solidify the rules for the use of EO's in the future and Executive authority surrounding abrogation of a law. I mean for gods sake, just the idea of the government saying, "we don't feel like enforcing this law right now" but we'll use it at our own discretion, ought to have both side up in arms. I mean just the cases concerning immigration alone isn't about "not pursuing the law" or "this is complex with many gray areas" but a flat out "we are ignoring the law because we can".

Can you imagine if the administration just decided to have the Justice Dept. decline to pursue cases of discrimination?
Doesnt explain why republicans didn't even quip when bush was in office and why they are now opposing an immigration reform that passed with a bipartisan vote last year.

You have one fucked up political system.

Straight Hustlin
July 2 2014, 09:29:17 PM
Well to be fair the democrats also made a huge fuss over everything bush did.

Baarhyn
July 2 2014, 11:50:06 PM
Well to be fair the democrats also made a huge fuss over everything bush did.
They didn't block every single thing he tried to do though.

I don't really care for the label anyway, if you do that kind of political gaming you should be thrown out of your seat and have your right to vote revoked. You are not representing your constituents OR working for the betterment of the nation and as such you should be escorted to the door and thrown out no matter your affiliation.

Cue1*
July 3 2014, 12:21:24 AM
Well to be fair the democrats also made a huge fuss over everything bush did.They didn't block every single thing he tried to do though.

Only because they couldn't. Since the Clinton administration, both sides have been entirely unwilling to agree upon anything. Even something an individual congressman might actually vote for, he's saying no, because his party says to say no.

Aea
July 3 2014, 12:39:31 AM
Did me and you experience the same Bush Presidency?

Baarhyn
July 3 2014, 02:30:36 AM
Well to be fair the democrats also made a huge fuss over everything bush did.They didn't block every single thing he tried to do though.

Only because they couldn't. Since the Clinton administration, both sides have been entirely unwilling to agree upon anything. Even something an individual congressman might actually vote for, he's saying no, because his party says to say no.
What do you base that belief on?

Talking about dems blocking everything if they woulda had a congress majority just to be clear.

As an external observer I see way, way more bad will coming from republicans, to the point of being caricatural really.

edit:

I do not back the stupid democrats, I just notice ALOT more republicans lying through their teeth and coming out with backward fucking mentalities.

Cue1*
July 3 2014, 05:32:55 AM
Well to be fair the democrats also made a huge fuss over everything bush did.They didn't block every single thing he tried to do though.

Only because they couldn't. Since the Clinton administration, both sides have been entirely unwilling to agree upon anything. Even something an individual congressman might actually vote for, he's saying no, because his party says to say no.
What do you base that belief on?

Talking about dems blocking everything if they woulda had a congress majority just to be clear.

As an external observer I see way, way more bad will coming from republicans, to the point of being caricatural really.

edit:

I do not back the stupid democrats, I just notice ALOT more republicans lying through their teeth and coming out with backward fucking mentalities.

I'm not a Republican. I know a lot of people see me talking about guns, so they assume I'm a far right wing hick from the mountains with the idea of "mai rights", but among the entire political spectrum I'm pretty middle of the road. My point isn't that the Republicans are better, it's that the Democrats aren't either. They're both completely guilty of playing the political bullshit game without even giving a damn about what really happens to the country.

As to evidence, I have no idea how to bring up voting records, but I had a thing for watching C-SPAN when I was in highschool, and I saw a lot of bills pass because there were enough Republicans to push it through, with every Democrat voting no. Anecdotal? Sure. But a single bill proves my point doesn't it?

Baarhyn
July 3 2014, 08:01:34 AM
Well to be fair the democrats also made a huge fuss over everything bush did.They didn't block every single thing he tried to do though.

Only because they couldn't. Since the Clinton administration, both sides have been entirely unwilling to agree upon anything. Even something an individual congressman might actually vote for, he's saying no, because his party says to say no.
What do you base that belief on?

Talking about dems blocking everything if they woulda had a congress majority just to be clear.

As an external observer I see way, way more bad will coming from republicans, to the point of being caricatural really.

edit:

I do not back the stupid democrats, I just notice ALOT more republicans lying through their teeth and coming out with backward fucking mentalities.

I'm not a Republican. I know a lot of people see me talking about guns, so they assume I'm a far right wing hick from the mountains with the idea of "mai rights", but among the entire political spectrum I'm pretty middle of the road. My point isn't that the Republicans are better, it's that the Democrats aren't either. They're both completely guilty of playing the political bullshit game without even giving a damn about what really happens to the country.

As to evidence, I have no idea how to bring up voting records, but I had a thing for watching C-SPAN when I was in highschool, and I saw a lot of bills pass because there were enough Republicans to push it through, with every Democrat voting no. Anecdotal? Sure. But a single bill proves my point doesn't it?

that does make sense even if anecdotal.

I'll give the "both parties are doing the bad things" point, but atleast democrats aren't trying to drag you back to the middle fucking ages I suppose. The republicans give such a stench of 50-80 year old well off white men with little education and big pension funds I get gag reflex just thinking about their talking point and i'm not even a citizen of the country they peddle their crap in.

People bitch about politics alot here in Quebec and we have our fair share of stupid elected representative but the two "main" options on a provincial level aren't that far appart and except from slim historical trivial things religion isn't a talking point. On the federal level our conservatives are about where your democrats are on social policies with the liberals being a bit more centrist.

I would be so bold as to say that the fucking bullshit you have wouldn't fly here and I am impressed by how much shit they can tell without EVER getting called on.

Ophichius
July 3 2014, 08:42:28 AM
I'm not a Republican. I know a lot of people see me talking about guns, so they assume I'm a far right wing hick from the mountains with the idea of "mai rights", but among the entire political spectrum I'm pretty middle of the road. My point isn't that the Republicans are better, it's that the Democrats aren't either. They're both completely guilty of playing the political bullshit game without even giving a damn about what really happens to the country.

As to evidence, I have no idea how to bring up voting records, but I had a thing for watching C-SPAN when I was in highschool, and I saw a lot of bills pass because there were enough Republicans to push it through, with every Democrat voting no. Anecdotal? Sure. But a single bill proves my point doesn't it?

I'm going to assume by "In highschool" you mean Bush's first term (2000-2004). I'm not going to dredge the entire database (There are over 900 votes in the year 2000 alone), but a random sampling of votes in 2000 (House Votes 602, 594, 586, 575, 549, 529, 46 and 2, along with Senate votes 293, 287, and 104. Picked by spinning my mousewheel and clicking at random.) shows only a single overwhelmingly obstructionist voting block, in Senate vote 104 (On the Amendment S.Amdt. 3148 to S. 2521 (Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2001)) by the Republicans, with 48 Republicans and 1 Democrat voting against, and 7 Republicans and 43 Democrats for. Within the random samples picked, there were no Democratic obstruction votes.

Data sourced from govtrack.us (https://www.govtrack.us/).

Furthermore, a single instance of Democrats universally voting against a bill would not be evidence of Democrats being as obstructionist as Republicans. To actually prove your point, you would need to prove a systematic, widespread, and long-term history of obstructive voting. Compare the relative frequency of senators and congressmen crossing the aisle in 2000 to the almost uniformly partisan voting of 2014. A uniformity catalyzed by the right's increasingly vitriolic us-or-them rhetoric.

-O

Keorythe
July 3 2014, 08:12:59 PM
Can you imagine if the administration just decided to have the Justice Dept. decline to pursue cases of discrimination?
Doesnt explain why republicans didn't even quip when bush was in office and why they are now opposing an immigration reform that passed with a bipartisan vote last year.

You have one fucked up political system.[/QUOTE]

The 2013 you're talking about was passed in the Senate but not the House. It's showing that 14 Republicans crossed the isle on that one. Passing something through the Senate isn't a big deal as it's Democrat controlled and they pretty much rubber stamp most things that pass through there. The House (Congress) is where the real horse trading happens and where a bill will have a hard fight. The bill failed in the House because there were no guarantees of border security before the other measures took place. We saw that kind of double speak in past immigration bills where the security part floundered or was never full realized but the social parts went full bore. Then there was the whole "path to citizenship" bit which was pretty much an amnesty ploy. Rather than offer resident status (green card) the Democrats pushed for full citizenship. I wonder why.....?

Let's not forget the 2007 Immigration bill which was supposed to pass with few bumps as it was supported by G.W. Bush and the Republicans....until the details were made public and there was so much of a backlash that many Congressmen changed their stance and voted against it. That was also one of the few examples of citizens influencing national policy as opposed to the apathetic situation we have today.


As an external observer I see way, way more bad will coming from republicans, to the point of being caricatural really.

As an outside observer, you're falling for the typical propaganda of trying to make it seem that way. The GOP has been opposing bills that are not in their interests and opposed to whatever stance they have. That's not obstructionist, that's doing what I want them to do and why I voted for them. And one of the sneakiest ploys they've been using is to take a piece of legislation that had bipartisan support in the past, try rework it, and try to present it as the same thing while having elements that the GOP will naturally oppose. They pulled the same thing in 2006 when they attached troop withdraw conditions to a veterans pay increase which Bush and the GOP wanted. It passed both Houses (which the democrats controlled) where it was then vetoed by Bush himself. The media and played up the obstructionist angle despite the vow to veto any such legislation.

The biggest problem that the current administration runs into is the size and scope of the bill it's trying to pass. Rather than a series of smaller bills which would be easier to negotiate, he almost showboats with large grandiose bill after bill. The jobs bill he wanted to pass in 2011 probably would have passed if he had cut out half of the proposals he was making and stuck to actual jobs and welfare. Instead it was packed with things like a controversial Nation Infrastructure Bank and an expensive nationwide wireless network. But it required raising taxes and throwing out a lot of welfare reform from the past.

As you go down the list you also notice most of the major bills that are blocked by "obstructionists" pretty much suck from a conservative point of view.

-S-CHIP reauthorization: Democrats attempted to added illegal immigrants to the list
-Stimulus bill (TARP II): Huge expenditure which had been tried on a smaller scale by Bush with minimal results. Criticized for same reasons as Bush stimulus
-Health Care and later Obamacare: lol, need more than one sentence to describe this cluster
-Dodd-Frank (wall street reform): massive change to regulatory practices on federal and State levels. Later challenged in court by a dozen organizations and 13 States. Ironically criticized by Elizabeth Warren (not Sen. at that time) for those changes.
The list keeps going on and yet there are few bills that would have had little GOP support even if McCain had been in office.

Maybe this is a form of reciprocity from the 2009-2011 when the Democrats owned both the Senate and House enough that they could railroad whatever they wanted (Dems also owned the House but were tied in the Senate in 2007-2009). Something they did frequently. They've attempted it again in the subsequent years and their party train has been blocked over and over. Now they claim obstructionism when they don't get what they want. So now the President is using his Executive Order power more frequently as a substitute but is starting to hit walls as he tests the limits of that privilege.

Steph
July 4 2014, 12:19:28 AM
...Then there was the whole "path to citizenship" bit which was pretty much an amnesty ploy. Rather than offer resident status (green card) the Democrats pushed for full citizenship. I wonder why.....?

Don't just trail off like that. Please enlighten us as to what anti-American liberal agenda is at work here.

Baarhyn
July 4 2014, 06:18:50 AM
Can you imagine if the administration just decided to have the Justice Dept. decline to pursue cases of discrimination?
Doesnt explain why republicans didn't even quip when bush was in office and why they are now opposing an immigration reform that passed with a bipartisan vote last year.

You have one fucked up political system.

The 2013 you're talking about was passed in the Senate but not the House. It's showing that 14 Republicans crossed the isle on that one. Passing something through the Senate isn't a big deal as it's Democrat controlled and they pretty much rubber stamp most things that pass through there. The House (Congress) is where the real horse trading happens and where a bill will have a hard fight. The bill failed in the House because there were no guarantees of border security before the other measures took place. We saw that kind of double speak in past immigration bills where the security part floundered or was never full realized but the social parts went full bore. Then there was the whole "path to citizenship" bit which was pretty much an amnesty ploy. Rather than offer resident status (green card) the Democrats pushed for full citizenship. I wonder why.....?

Let's not forget the 2007 Immigration bill which was supposed to pass with few bumps as it was supported by G.W. Bush and the Republicans....until the details were made public and there was so much of a backlash that many Congressmen changed their stance and voted against it. That was also one of the few examples of citizens influencing national policy as opposed to the apathetic situation we have today.


As an external observer I see way, way more bad will coming from republicans, to the point of being caricatural really.

As an outside observer, you're falling for the typical propaganda of trying to make it seem that way. The GOP has been opposing bills that are not in their interests and opposed to whatever stance they have. That's not obstructionist, that's doing what I want them to do and why I voted for them. And one of the sneakiest ploys they've been using is to take a piece of legislation that had bipartisan support in the past, try rework it, and try to present it as the same thing while having elements that the GOP will naturally oppose. They pulled the same thing in 2006 when they attached troop withdraw conditions to a veterans pay increase which Bush and the GOP wanted. It passed both Houses (which the democrats controlled) where it was then vetoed by Bush himself. The media and played up the obstructionist angle despite the vow to veto any such legislation.

The biggest problem that the current administration runs into is the size and scope of the bill it's trying to pass. Rather than a series of smaller bills which would be easier to negotiate, he almost showboats with large grandiose bill after bill. The jobs bill he wanted to pass in 2011 probably would have passed if he had cut out half of the proposals he was making and stuck to actual jobs and welfare. Instead it was packed with things like a controversial Nation Infrastructure Bank and an expensive nationwide wireless network. But it required raising taxes and throwing out a lot of welfare reform from the past.

As you go down the list you also notice most of the major bills that are blocked by "obstructionists" pretty much suck from a conservative point of view.

-S-CHIP reauthorization: Democrats attempted to added illegal immigrants to the list
-Stimulus bill (TARP II): Huge expenditure which had been tried on a smaller scale by Bush with minimal results. Criticized for same reasons as Bush stimulus
-Health Care and later Obamacare: lol, need more than one sentence to describe this cluster
-Dodd-Frank (wall street reform): massive change to regulatory practices on federal and State levels. Later challenged in court by a dozen organizations and 13 States. Ironically criticized by Elizabeth Warren (not Sen. at that time) for those changes.
The list keeps going on and yet there are few bills that would have had little GOP support even if McCain had been in office.

Maybe this is a form of reciprocity from the 2009-2011 when the Democrats owned both the Senate and House enough that they could railroad whatever they wanted (Dems also owned the House but were tied in the Senate in 2007-2009). Something they did frequently. They've attempted it again in the subsequent years and their party train has been blocked over and over. Now they claim obstructionism when they don't get what they want. So now the President is using his Executive Order power more frequently as a substitute but is starting to hit walls as he tests the limits of that privilege.

I was not talking about bills there mate, I was talking about the whole speech.

You can't only take the "real" conservative values without the rest of the bullshit they spew. People saying Irak was a success until Obama pulled out, the anti-gay anti-woman anti-everything but old white farts stance, Bible thumping anti-stem cell research anti-income equality Retard-o guns for everyone us-versus-them mentality is fucking sickening.

Shit, look at fox news on a good day and tell me that what they are saying make any logical sense.

Keorythe
July 4 2014, 09:28:35 AM
Don't just trail off like that. Please enlighten us as to what anti-American liberal agenda is at work here.


I was not talking about bills there mate, I was talking about the whole speech.

You can't only take the "real" conservative values without the rest of the bullshit they spew. People saying Irak was a success until Obama pulled out, the anti-gay anti-woman anti-everything but old white farts stance, Bible thumping anti-stem cell research anti-income equality Retard-o guns for everyone us-versus-them mentality is fucking sickening.

Shit, look at fox news on a good day and tell me that what they are saying make any logical sense.

Do you two want to argue a point about Executive Action or are you going to shit up this area with one liners and telling us how we're horrible people like general chat?

Steph
July 4 2014, 09:32:54 AM
Don't just trail off like that. Please enlighten us as to what anti-American liberal agenda is at work here.


I was not talking about bills there mate, I was talking about the whole speech.

You can't only take the "real" conservative values without the rest of the bullshit they spew. People saying Irak was a success until Obama pulled out, the anti-gay anti-woman anti-everything but old white farts stance, Bible thumping anti-stem cell research anti-income equality Retard-o guns for everyone us-versus-them mentality is fucking sickening.

Shit, look at fox news on a good day and tell me that what they are saying make any logical sense.

Do you two want to argue a point about Executive Action or are you going to shit up this area with one liners and telling us how we're horrible people like general chat?

I apologize. Let me rephrase.

In relation to this part of your post,


...Then there was the whole "path to citizenship" bit which was pretty much an amnesty ploy. Rather than offer resident status (green card) the Democrats pushed for full citizenship. I wonder why.....?

...could you elaborate?

Ophichius
July 4 2014, 09:38:18 AM
At the risk of putting words in his mouth, I believe he's insinuating that the Democrats want full citizenship because citizens can vote, and thus they'd be securing a block of grateful pro-Dem voters. i.e. "It's all a devious self-serving ploy".

-O

Baarhyn
July 4 2014, 10:13:30 AM
Don't just trail off like that. Please enlighten us as to what anti-American liberal agenda is at work here.


I was not talking about bills there mate, I was talking about the whole speech.

You can't only take the "real" conservative values without the rest of the bullshit they spew. People saying Irak was a success until Obama pulled out, the anti-gay anti-woman anti-everything but old white farts stance, Bible thumping anti-stem cell research anti-income equality Retard-o guns for everyone us-versus-them mentality is fucking sickening.

Shit, look at fox news on a good day and tell me that what they are saying make any logical sense.

Do you two want to argue a point about Executive Action or are you going to shit up this area with one liners and telling us how we're horrible people like general chat?

I have no problems with the conservative ideals, they are worthy of a debate and completely valid opinions. You have given up your political party to the batshit crazy minority and the people that control the game are working as hard as possible for it to stay that way.

to summarize:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbErkUE3Az0

Now the current affair with obama "abusing" executive actions is another political game to create "drama" around an otherwise pretty poor democratic president. He has done what "mild" republicans would have probably done in his place, naming lobbyist to the FCCs head, most probably naming another lobbyist to reign patent laws, flexing obamacare to let religious organisations abstain, calling snowdon a terrorist when he is clearly a whistleblower, backing up sopa/pipa and the NSA collection programs, sending back troops in iraq and so on and so forth. If you actually give credence to the current drum beating about executive action you've lost touch with reality, the house republicans are currently staying "in session" 24/7 so that he can't name people to replace vacant spots in the executive branch, that's how pathetic it is.

TL;DR:

This thread is a direct result of people trying to create as much drama as possible because they think it'll get them elected next time. Are the dems abusing executive actions? According to stats, no. Would it change anything anyway? most probably no.

edit: For the illegal immigrant shit, asking to deport 11 fucking million of your lowest echelon of income will NEVER end up well, no matter if they are citizens or immigrant. It sure as fuck plays into the democrats hand since they dont talk about "the terrorists" and "immigrants stealing our jeerrbzzz!". If rush limbaugh and bill oreilly where decently intelligent human being they would be winning hearts and minds in the latino and black communities instead of saying treyvon martin had it coming for wearing a hoodie in the hood at night... "ho noes, talking about immigration is bad for our poll numbers!", if you stopped your senseless racism you might see a fucking difference.

Keorythe
July 4 2014, 10:40:08 AM
At the risk of putting words in his mouth, I believe he's insinuating that the Democrats want full citizenship because citizens can vote, and thus they'd be securing a block of grateful pro-Dem voters. i.e. "It's all a devious self-serving ploy".

-O

More or less this. But mostly I didn't want to go into detail about it because that's it's own topic and should be argued as such rather than changing the current topic of this thread. Part of the question at hand is about the most recent overreach dealing with immigration. But that's only part of the issue as mentioned in my previous post.


This thread is a direct result of people trying to create as much drama as possible because they think it'll get them elected next time. Are the dems abusing executive actions? According to stats, no. Would it change anything anyway? most probably no.

It's not "the Dems" that are abusing executive action, it's the sitting President (only he can make an executive action). Obama isn't up for election this coming term so your argument is somewhat baseless. Are you arguing that he's exerting this much executive power to give the Democrat party support? If so, then where do you stand on whether or not he's overreached when using this power and other executive privilege?


asking to deport 11 fucking million of your lowest echelon of income will NEVER end up well

Do you know what a green card does? Do you know the difference between residency and citizenship (vote vs no vote)? Have you ever heard of the guest worker program? What about long term visas? There are a multitude of ways to address the problem and citizenship shouldn't be one of them. If you want to debate the merits of those listed, make a new thread.

I'll be eating lots of red meat, shooting guns, and watching fireworks out of town so I won't be back to respond until the weekend or afterwards.

Liare
July 4 2014, 12:29:50 PM
right, so the problem is not so much their presence, but the fact that the underclass might gain the right to vote or indeed any influence at all Keorythe ?

the United States is a nation build entirely on immigration, namely immigration of cheap unskilled labour, watching Europeans whine about immigration as the mother of all evils is pathetic, but Americans take the hypocrisy to a completely new and amazing level especially when the majority of the complaints come from people no more than at most four or five generations removed from sitting on a leaky raft drifting across the Atlantic.

the entire debacle seems like a attempt to outdo the Belgians in the most dysfunctional democratic state possible, and despite the fact it's a very tall order you're getting there.

Baarhyn
July 4 2014, 05:38:36 PM
At the risk of putting words in his mouth, I believe he's insinuating that the Democrats want full citizenship because citizens can vote, and thus they'd be securing a block of grateful pro-Dem voters. i.e. "It's all a devious self-serving ploy".

-O

More or less this. But mostly I didn't want to go into detail about it because that's it's own topic and should be argued as such rather than changing the current topic of this thread. Part of the question at hand is about the most recent overreach dealing with immigration. But that's only part of the issue as mentioned in my previous post.


This thread is a direct result of people trying to create as much drama as possible because they think it'll get them elected next time. Are the dems abusing executive actions? According to stats, no. Would it change anything anyway? most probably no.

It's not "the Dems" that are abusing executive action, it's the sitting President (only he can make an executive action). Obama isn't up for election this coming term so your argument is somewhat baseless. Are you arguing that he's exerting this much executive power to give the Democrat party support? If so, then where do you stand on whether or not he's overreached when using this power and other executive privilege?


asking to deport 11 fucking million of your lowest echelon of income will NEVER end up well

Do you know what a green card does? Do you know the difference between residency and citizenship (vote vs no vote)? Have you ever heard of the guest worker program? What about long term visas? There are a multitude of ways to address the problem and citizenship shouldn't be one of them. If you want to debate the merits of those listed, make a new thread.

I'll be eating lots of red meat, shooting guns, and watching fireworks out of town so I won't be back to respond until the weekend or afterwards.

Why do you consider what Obama has been doing with the executive actions an overreach?

That's the whole question here, you seem to consider the few actions he took as a the worst thing since polio but i'm still waiting on someone giving me a reason to be mad at the president who passed the least amount of executive actions in the last 30 years....

Aea
July 4 2014, 09:58:24 PM
I'm getting a huge sense of "it's not the action, it's the actor" vibe from Keorythe.

Also I thin it's perfectly fair to go off on tangents when they're brought up, it's all been relevant so far. I want to address a few points...


The biggest problem that the current administration runs into is the size and scope of the bill it's trying to pass. Rather than a series of smaller bills which would be easier to negotiate, he almost showboats with large grandiose bill after bill.

Is this an Obama-Presidency phenomenon? Typically large (in terms of scope) bills have always been large and complicated. Many issues are best handled with a multi-prong approach, but when one party vehemently opposes it then trading is required. The idea is that bills become a dialogue of compromise (you can have x, but we want y). What we're seeing now is a rare and new form of total stone-walling at a very fragile point in our history. This is evidenced by having the least productive congress in history that can't even address routine matters of state. The appointments issue is perhaps the most glaring reflection of that.


Let's take a small detour on the topic of immigration, the following is what I present as a hypothesis to explain the immigration problem in America.

There's a sense of irony here, because the GOP Base is typically seen as anti-immigration. However immigration has had almost zero action on it in spite of the continuing flow of illegal immigrants.

Why is this? Because illegal immigrants continue to get jobs. Business owners love fresh immigrants because they will work for very little compensation. Their illegal status is a huge boon in terms of avoiding taxes, higher compensation, employee rights, etc. It's beneficial for low-pay / labor employers to have an nearly inexhaustible supply (currently in excess of 11 Million illegal immigrants) of employees that will accept pay at (and sometimes below) minimum wage that won't run complaining to regulatory entities when their employer violates the law (and they may be ignorant of the law, especially in regards to safety regulations).

Once you give these people citizenship (or any sort of permanent rights) they gain power. So that can't happen (although is very strongly desired by some democrats). On the other hand so many businesses are dependent on this cheap exploitable labor that nothing is really done about them. Deportation is very rarely leveraged (in 2011 more then half of those deported had committed a felony or misdemeanor), the border is claimed as "in-securable" (by the country with the most powerful military ever known), the border patrol is severely underfunded ($3.4Bn in 2013, HALF that of the TSA). These people are given a quasi-legal status and that isn't an accident.

Some factions of the Democrats are attempting to undo this perilous balance by granting them legal status. But if anything it's just going to accelerate what will occur naturally. The US has a particular law called the 14th Amendment (1-1):


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Which means all of the children born in the United States become citizens. Children born to illegal immigrants account for over five million US citizens. This will continue growing. These children will eventually attempt to sponsor immigration for their family and parents. These children and their parents have observed a (disgusting) amount of vitriol from more conservative elements (mostly aimed at appeasing the base, no real action is taken). This obviously turns them against the GOP, especially when elements of racism are perceived. In 2011 67% of Hispanics (immigration status not considered) considered themselves Democrats. 20% Republicans.

This puts Republicans in a very precarious position. Citizenship would be political suicide. But there's also a huge problem when it comes to regional issues. Having a quasi-legal population is unsustainable, incorporating them into the system would be highly beneficial in removing many problems and ensuring high rates of legal compliance and likely benefit the economy. But when you're a border-state Republican you've got to explain why you're moving towards any degree of legal acceptance (and/or citizenship) to a very loud, very vitriolic establishment and base that often doesn't have to deal with the problems caused by immigration.


TL,DR:
- Illegal Immigration is tolerated because it brings cheap labor
- Border Patrol is basically lip-service, ineffective, and VERY under-funded
- Deportation is basically non-existent and is used primarily against those convicted of crimes
- 14th Amendment allows naturally-born children to become citizens
- Hispanic Americans vote predominantly Democrat who they perceive as being on their side
- Quagmire

Liare
July 6 2014, 09:54:03 AM
you're also forgetting a rather telling parallel in American history here, an cycle exploitation that has repeated itself several times now starting with the importation of black slaves from Africa.

it's rather telling that the only way the "American dream" can connect the dots is if there's a large, unskilled and marginalized workforce that can be abused to hell and back, tell us again why running a society in this way is "good enough" ? if anything the fall of communism have merely served to highlight the highly abusive nature of the socio/economic system the US is so happy to force upon the rest of the world.

as a outsider looking in the whole thing looks like a giant pot of hypocrisy lead by the republicans at the moment, but with the Democrats tailing very close behind, it stinks of corruption and what happens when you let money rule politics to the extend that the only legitimate vote is a blank one.

Aea
July 6 2014, 06:45:15 PM
you're also forgetting a rather telling parallel in American history here, an cycle exploitation that has repeated itself several times now starting with the importation of black slaves from Africa.

it's rather telling that the only way the "American dream" can connect the dots is if there's a large, unskilled and marginalized workforce that can be abused to hell and back, tell us again why running a society in this way is "good enough" ? if anything the fall of communism have merely served to highlight the highly abusive nature of the socio/economic system the US is so happy to force upon the rest of the world.

as a outsider looking in the whole thing looks like a giant pot of hypocrisy lead by the republicans at the moment, but with the Democrats tailing very close behind, it stinks of corruption and what happens when you let money rule politics to the extend that the only legitimate vote is a blank one.

You make this sound like a wholly American phenomenon, which isn't really the case.

Liare
July 7 2014, 04:00:47 PM
you're also forgetting a rather telling parallel in American history here, an cycle exploitation that has repeated itself several times now starting with the importation of black slaves from Africa.

it's rather telling that the only way the "American dream" can connect the dots is if there's a large, unskilled and marginalized workforce that can be abused to hell and back, tell us again why running a society in this way is "good enough" ? if anything the fall of communism have merely served to highlight the highly abusive nature of the socio/economic system the US is so happy to force upon the rest of the world.

as a outsider looking in the whole thing looks like a giant pot of hypocrisy lead by the republicans at the moment, but with the Democrats tailing very close behind, it stinks of corruption and what happens when you let money rule politics to the extend that the only legitimate vote is a blank one.

You make this sound like a wholly American phenomenon, which isn't really the case.aye, it's not uniquely American, but it's a lot more extreme in it's application in the US. apologies for the implying it was only in the US.

Keorythe
July 9 2014, 07:44:46 PM
I'm back! It almost reminds me of Jade Constantine's walls of text from back in the day.


I'm getting a huge sense of "it's not the action, it's the actor" vibe from Keorythe.

Yes of course. Executive Orders can only be detailed by the sitting President. Not the VP nor anyone in the other two Houses. That is unless you're trying to say something else...


Also I thin it's perfectly fair to go off on tangents when they're brought up, it's all been relevant so far. I want to address a few points...

Actually it's not relevant up to the amount of detail you want to address. It deserves its own thread and this thread which you've started is straying away from the original question and morphing into another beast altogether. You pointed out the problem and gave a lot of detail about it, but not how it applies to Executive Orders.



The biggest problem that the current administration runs into is the size and scope of the bill it's trying to pass. Rather than a series of smaller bills which would be easier to negotiate, he almost showboats with large grandiose bill after bill.

Is this an Obama-Presidency phenomenon? Typically large (in terms of scope) bills have always been large and complicated. Many issues are best handled with a multi-prong approach, but when one party vehemently opposes it then trading is required. The idea is that bills become a dialogue of compromise (you can have x, but we want y). What we're seeing now is a rare and new form of total stone-walling at a very fragile point in our history. This is evidenced by having the least productive congress in history that can't even address routine matters of state. The appointments issue is perhaps the most glaring reflection of that.

Big bills rarely pass unless it's something that both sides want. Horsetrading (compromise) happens but when the scope is too big then the amount of compromises and promises reaches unattainable levels. Is this an Obama phenomenon? Not really. The difference is that he's attempting to do this with subjects unpopular with conservatist. We aren't talking about No Child Left Behind (Bush) or the Children's Health Insurance Program "CHIP" (Clinton). Most of Obama's major legislation has been along social justice lines compared to Clinton who focused on the economy. When he did push economic bills they were usually large and rather bloated in terms of spending. After TARP II did little to relieve the economy, the idea of big spending wasn't well received by Republicans. Healthcare being a contentious issue even through Regan's time, it's no surprise that the ACA (Obamacare) was received with disdain. Note that this is the largest piece of legislation that we've seen in almost a century. Not even Social Security was this ambitioius and it's already starting to face (and lose) its first judicial challenges.

The "obstructionist" bit is somewhat of a media inspired myth. First and foremost is that the number of bills passed is on par for the norm of the past four decades. The average being around 350 in total per period. With another year and change to go, it's likely that another 50 or more will be passed.

I'm posting an article below which gives more detail and comparison numbers. Here's an excerpt if it's TL;DR

According to GovTrack.us, a privately run website that tracks congressional activity, so far in the 113th Congress the House has passed 297 bills (280) or resolutions (17) that originated in the House. By contrast, the Senate during the same time has passed only 59. In spite of his words that the House has "done nothing," the president has put his signature on 90 House bills and resolutions and 35 Senate bills and resolutions for a total of 125.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/whos-not-doing-anything_796039.html

From the numbers shown, there isn't any stonewalling except on certain Democrat specific projects. Many of which really should be opposed by conservative interests. There has been a slowdown of bills passed. Ironically, this started with the 2007 elections when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate and proceeded to steamroll legislation at an enormous pace. They almost literally doubled the average number of bill passed during their period (over 700 compared to the 350 average). The obstructionist label didn't pop up until after the GOP took control of the House and stopped the voracious passage of bills. Note that this was during the period when Pelosi made the gaffe about not bothering to read the bills before voting on them. She would later go on to repeat that gaffe with Obamacare. But again, many of those bill that have been opposed are neither popular with the conservative politicians nor their voting base. In other words, they're doing the job they were voted to do just fine.

Appointments are another major issue that is overhyped. The Senate approves nominations, not the House of Representatives nor do the two work together on this. The Senate is controlled by the Democrats who as before having been putting their people in power and for a time, the GOP had no way to respond which resulted in the use of filibusters as the only means to block unpopular nominees. Despite this, most nominations passed after cloture making the Republican efforts relatively gimped. There have been some success which suddenly were hyped up as if they've succeeded in blocking every single nomination every made.

This isn't unique either as when the Democrats controlled the Senate by a huge lead, they blocked almost all of Bush's appointments without even needing a filibuster. But really, is it any surprise that a guy like Goodwin Lui would be opposed and filibustered by the GOP when he goes on public rants against the GOP? But if you say something enough times on camera then people will believe it. Hence you keep hearing politicians use the two words "common sense" and "sensible" preceding the description of the policy they're trying to promote. If you ever play political Bingo!, then make sure those two words are on some of the cards.

Aea
August 2 2014, 03:09:41 AM
Literally the second coming of Stalin.


President Obama has become known for his aggressive use of executive power. Faced with a balky Congress that is unwilling to move his agenda or compromise on most matters, he says he has no choice. But House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio isn’t impressed, and plans to sue. Here are our picks for Mr. Obama’s most controversial uses of executive power:

1. The Affordable Care Act – Employer Mandate Delay
The House lawsuit will center on one element of the ACA: the requirement that large employers (those with 50 or more workers) provide health coverage or pay a penalty. That provision was originally due to go into effect in January 2014, but the Obama administration has delayed that deadline twice, and it is now January 2016. The Treasury Department issued rules in February 2014 spelling out the second delay.

The rationale for the delay was to allow companies more time to adjust to providing coverage. But Republicans accused the White House of trying to avoid another Obamacare controversy before the November midterms. And they argued that individuals should have been given a reprieve.

The delay to the employer mandate is just one of many changes to the ACA ordered by the Obama administration without congressional approval. In some cases, a law is left vague, leaving rulemaking up to the relevant government agencies. But in other cases, a law is explicit, and unilateral changes by the administration can spark controversy.

2. The Affordable Care Act – Federal Subsidies
Another controversial element of the ACA is the provision that says only people who enrolled in coverage via their state exchange are eligible for federal subsidies. After the law passed, the Internal Revenue Service enacted a rule allowing the subsidies for people who enrolled via the federal exchange, Healthcare.gov. Opponents of the law sued and won in one federal circuit court of appeals and lost in another.

Defenders of the ACA say the wording of the law was a typo.

If the case goes to the Supreme Court, it “would test the authority of a federal agency to interpret US law when the statute as written by Congress is considered ambiguous by the executive branch,” writes the Monitor’s Warren Richey.

If the Supreme Court sides with the law’s opponents, the ruling would deprive millions of people in 36 states from receiving federal subsidies to buy health insurance, gutting a central element of the ACA.

3. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA
This policy, announced by the Department of Homeland Security in 2012, came via a memorandum that directs authorities to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" in dealing with some young undocumented immigrants.

If they meet the criteria for eligibility, they are shielded temporarily from deportation and allowed to work. Critics say that waiving deportation laws for more than a million people is not "prosecutorial discretion" – it's policymaking by executive fiat, usurping the role of Congress. Defenders say DACA is an acceptable example of presidential discretion in policymaking.

Ten immigration agents challenged DACA in federal court, saying the policy undermined their duty to enforce the law. In 2013, the judge threw out the case on jurisdictional grounds, but suggested that DACA was inherently unlawful.

Politics also infused DACA. Obama was making a play for the Latino vote ahead of the 2012 election. Republican leaders, wary of alienating Latinos, chose not to challenge the policy.

4. Gay Marriage
In 2011, the Justice Department took the unusual step of announcing that it would no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that banned federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Two years later, the Supreme Court struck down part of the law, but that does not lessen the unusual nature of the action by Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

As states address their own statutes and constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, many state attorneys general have followed the Obama administration’s precedent by announcing they will not defend their state’s ban in court. Defenders of traditional marriage argue that such an approach flouts the will of the people, as expressed through referenda and laws passed by elected representatives.

5. Recess appointments
In 2012, Obama made three “recess appointments” to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was technically still in session. Normally, such nominees would need to be confirmed by the Senate. When the Senate is truly in recess, the president is allowed to make temporary appointments to fill positions that would require Senate confirmation.

The Obama administration argued that Republican senators were using a “gimmick called “pro forma sessions” – quick sessions lasting just a few moments in which no Senate business is conducted – to prevent the president from making recess appointments.

In June 2014, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the president had overstepped his bounds, and that only the Senate can determine when it is in session. In a second, landmark decision in the case, the justices ruled 5-4 that the president had broad power to make recess appointments. But it was not as broad as Obama had wanted.

Melichor
August 2 2014, 03:24:25 AM
In regards to the gay marriage thing the whole "will of the people" shit shouldn't stand because there were majorities who thought African Americans or women shouldn't have rights either

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

SAI Peregrinus
August 2 2014, 08:01:30 AM
Government shouldn't recognize religious marriages at all. If there's going to be a tax break or other benefit for being married, it should be separate union any two consenting adults can enter into.

Aea
August 2 2014, 06:19:00 PM
Interesting opinion piece:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-an-upending-of-reason-in-the-house/2014/08/01/d5787cd4-1970-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html?hpid=z2


After conservatives on Thursday brought down House Speaker John Boehner’s bill to address the border crisis, the new House Republican leadership team issued a joint statement declaring that President Obama should fix the problem himself.

“There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action,” the leadership quartet proclaimed, “to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries.”

Who’s in the what now?

Just the day before, House Republicans had voted to sue Obama for using his executive authority. They called him lawless, a usurper, a monarch, a tyrant — all for postponing deadlines in the implementation of Obamacare. Now they were begging him to take executive action to compensate for their own inability to act — even though, in this case, accelerating the deportation of thousands of unaccompanied children coming from Central America would likely require Obama to ignore a 2008 law.

This was not a momentary lapse but a wholesale upending of reason.

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), the Appropriations Committee chairman who had been leading the GOP side in the border legislation debate, told reporters much the same thing after the legislation was pulled from the floor. “I think this will put a lot more pressure on the president to act,” he told The Post’s Ed O’Keefe and other reporters. “He has the authority and power to solve the problem forthwith.”

Apparently, if Obama is using his executive authority to advance a policy House Republicans support, it’s a meritorious exercise of presidential authority; if he uses that same authority to aid a policy they oppose, it’s time to write up articles of impeachment.

In another action this week, Republicans acknowledged, at least tacitly, that Obama has the executive authority to postpone deportations. The House majority drafted legislation that would forbid the executive branch from anything that would “expand the number of aliens eligible for deferred action.”

But in proposing such legislation (which was pulled from the floor Thursday but then approved Friday night) Republicans implicitly acknowledged that Obama has such power now. Therefore, until both chambers of Congress can pass such a law by veto-proof margins, Obama retains the power. This is probably why House Republicans, just two weeks earlier, scoffed at the suggestion that they pass this sort of legislation when the idea came up before the Rules Committee.

If the GOP position sounds contradictory, that’s because it’s less about the Constitution than cleavages within the party. There are real questions about Obama’s abuses of power — say, the spying on Americans by the National Security Agency or the use of drones to kill U.S. citizens overseas — but the opposition party has left those largely untouched. The planned lawsuit was a bone thrown to conservatives to quiet their impeachment talk. The legislation restricting Obama’s executive authority on immigration was a similar effort to buy off conservatives who had been encouraged to rebel by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.).

But the efforts to placate conservatives aren’t working. The new House GOP leadership team took over Thursday, but a mere two hours after Rep. Eric Cantor gave his valedictory as majority leader on the House floor, his successor did a face-plant.

All morning, GOP leaders had been predicting that they had sufficient Republican votes to pass Boehner’s border bill. But then conservatives, under pressure from Cruz and far-right interest groups, began to go squishy, and the new leader, Kevin McCarthy, announced that he was pulling the border bill from the floor and that members could depart early for their five-week summer break.

What followed was as close as Congress gets to one of those fistfights in the Taiwanese parliament. Mainstream Republicans besieged Boehner and McCarthy on the House floor, noisily demanding that they do something about the border crisis before going on holiday. Half an hour later, McCarthy announced that “additional votes are possible today.”

Boos and jeers rained down on the new leader. The speaker pro tempore, Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), banged the gavel violently for order. Some lawmakers had to be called back from National Airport.

The hapless new majority leader, and his equally hapless new majority whip, Steve Scalise, called Republicans to an emergency meeting, where after fierce argument it was decided . . . that they would meet again on Friday.

Boehner, earlier in the day, tried to be philosophical. “I take my job one day at a time,” he said.

The problem with day-by-day leadership, though, is inconsistency: What you do on Thursday has a way of contradicting what you said on Wednesday.

QuackBot
August 2 2014, 08:00:15 PM
You make this sound like a wholly American phenomenon, which isn't really the case.
This is like the only non-spambot to be permabanned.

Aea
August 2 2014, 08:05:05 PM
You make this sound like a wholly American phenomenon, which isn't really the case.
This is like the only non-spambot to be permabanned.

Somebody make it so for this sub-forum.

Keorythe
August 3 2014, 01:01:43 AM
Government shouldn't recognize religious marriages at all. If there's going to be a tax break or other benefit for being married, it should be separate union any two consenting adults can enter into.

It technically doesn't recognize religious marriages. The two individuals still need a marriage license and the rest of the government paperwork necessary for the government to recognize the union. Marriage in a church is really just fluff and for ceromony's sake. The one doing the marriage has to be licensed with the State to perform the ceremony and only really submits the finalize certificate to the County Clerk. Otherwise you just go to the Justice of the Peace. The idea is to take pressure off of the Justice of the Peace who would otherwise be inundated with handling marriages alone.

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/officiants_requirements/

Keorythe
August 3 2014, 01:23:17 AM
“There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action,” the leadership quartet proclaimed, “to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries.”

Who’s in the what now?

Just the day before, House Republicans had voted to sue Obama for using his executive authority. They called him lawless, a usurper, a monarch, a tyrant — all for postponing deadlines in the implementation of Obamacare. Now they were begging him to take executive action to compensate for their own inability to act — even though, in this case, accelerating the deportation of thousands of unaccompanied children coming from Central America would likely require Obama to ignore a 2008 law.

This was not a momentary lapse but a wholesale upending of reason.

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), the Appropriations Committee chairman who had been leading the GOP side in the border legislation debate, told reporters much the same thing after the legislation was pulled from the floor. “I think this will put a lot more pressure on the president to act,” he told The Post’s Ed O’Keefe and other reporters. “He has the authority and power to solve the problem forthwith.”

Apparently, if Obama is using his executive authority to advance a policy House Republicans support, it’s a meritorious exercise of presidential authority; if he uses that same authority to aid a policy they oppose, it’s time to write up articles of impeachment.

The author is attempting to ignore the previous circumstances to take a shot at the GOP here. Executive Action was used to start the mess of shipping children across the entire US. Cancelling that previous action by using Executive Action isn't the GOP calling it a meritorious exercise of presidential authority. That's fixing a mess you started by rescinding the order you originally gave.


The legislation restricting Obama’s executive authority on immigration was a similar effort to buy off conservatives who had been encouraged to rebel by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.).

It's not just Cruz that they have to worry about. The whole immigration debacle has been making big headlines across the nation. Attempting to prevent the President from continuing to use his EA powers to expand this policy despite huge disapproval among Americans was a sensible thing for them to do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/31/immigration-is-now-president-obamas-worst-issue/
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/213779-poll-31-percent-approve-of-obama-on-immigration

Synapse
August 5 2014, 12:23:42 PM
I'm pretty sure neither republicans nor democrats are playing a winning hand with the childen's immigration move here.

In fact the other side's continued bungling is all that keeps each one from losing more public ground than they already do.

What congress needs to remember though is however poorly the president is seen, the only thing people like less is congress. Cold comfort.