Can we not have this thread killed by a ridiculous argument with spool about a hypothetical Obama who only exists in the heads of conservatives?
This sort of thing seems far more likely to get the thread closed down. I don't agree with most of the examples thrown around about overreach (the recess appointments were an overreach, but countered an equal one by Congress so they get a big fat MEH from me) but it is a legitimate concern.
I think everyone should read the New Yorker profile of Obama. It does a good job of getting into the President's head during the lead up to the State of the Union, and it gives some clues as to the direction of his last few years in office.
On executive power:
At the Ong Center, an undocumented immigrant from South Korea named Ju Hong was in the crowd lined up behind the President. Toward the end of Obama’s speech, Ju Hong, a Berkeley graduate, broke in, demanding that the President use his executive powers to stop deportations.
...
Then it happened again: another heckler broke into Obama’s speech. A man in the balcony repeatedly shouted out, “Executive order!,” demanding that the President bypass Congress with more unilateral actions. Obama listened with odd indulgence. Finally, he said, “I’m going to actually pause on this issue, because a lot of people have been saying this lately on every problem, which is just, ‘Sign an executive order and we can pretty much do anything and basically nullify Congress.’ ”
Many in the crowd applauded their approval. Yes! Nullify it! Although Obama has infuriated the right with relatively modest executive orders on gun control and some stronger ones on climate change, he has issued the fewest of any modern President, except George H. W. Bush.
“Wait, wait, wait,” Obama said. “Before everybody starts clapping, that’s not how it works. We’ve got this Constitution, we’ve got this whole thing about separation of powers. So there is no shortcut to politics, and there’s no shortcut to democracy.” The applause was hardly ecstatic. Everyone knew what he meant. The promises in the second inaugural could be a long time coming.
On the SotU:
Obama has three years left, but it’s not difficult to sense a politician with an acute sense of time, a politician devising ways to widen his legacy without the benefit of any support from Congress. The State of the Union speech next week will be a catalogue of things hoped for, a resumption of the second inaugural, with an added emphasis on the theme of inequality. But Obama knows that major legislation—with the possible exception of immigration—is unlikely. And so there is in him a certain degree of reduced ambition, a sense that even well before the commentariat starts calling him a lame duck he will spend much of his time setting an agenda that can be resolved only after he has retired to the life of a writer and post-President.
“One of the things that I’ve learned to appreciate more as President is you are essentially a relay swimmer in a river full of rapids, and that river is history,” he later told me. “You don’t start with a clean slate, and the things you start may not come to full fruition on your timetable. But you can move things forward. And sometimes the things that start small may turn out to be fairly significant. I suspect that Ronald Reagan, if you’d asked him, would not have considered the earned-income-tax-credit provision in tax reform to be at the top of his list of accomplishments. On the other hand, what the E.I.T.C. has done, starting with him, being added to by Clinton, being used by me during the Recovery Act, has probably kept more people out of poverty than a whole lot of other government programs that are currently in place.”
...
Putnam told me that, even if legislation combatting the widening class divide eludes Obama, “I am hoping he can be John the Baptist on this.” And Obama, for his part, seems eager to take on that evangelizing role.
I'm sure this will be hand waved away by spool but Obama has one of the least amount of executive orders since Grover Cleveland. Bush 1 has one less and Obama is probably going to pass Ford before his presidency is done.
The average per president after Glover Cleveland is 643. Obama is at 167 and typically presidents execute over 400.
Spool in a ton of threads your data is reliably wrong. You may think your ideology is correct but at least have correct data to back it up.
I'm sure this will be hand waved away by spool but Obama has one of the least amount of executive orders since Grover Cleveland. Bush 1 has one less and Obama is probably going to pass Ford before his presidency is done.
The average per president after Glover Cleveland is 643. Obama is at 167 and typically presidents execute over 400.
Spool in a ton of threads your data is reliably wrong. You may think your ideology is correct but at least have correct data to back it up.
Now, I'm not one to instantly jump onto spool's side in political threads but I think I have a pertinent question that needs addressed.
The idea of overreach here is only partly explained by the quantity of executive orders. The content of such orders is really where the argument is at.
I'm using some conjecture here but a hundred orders for what the landscaping at the White House should be does not equal one order of drone strikes. So I'm curious, is there a convenient list somewhere that shows the basic content of executive orders by president or do I need to research that some other time when I have much more time to do such a thing?
Spool is putting forth the idea that Obama is railroading laws and bypassing Congress. Also he is saying that Obama is an anomaly with how often he uses executive orders. Also the dreaded slippery slope warble garble.
To get a detailed look at them there are a few posted on Wikipedia for recent presidents if you click through or you can go to Archives.gov
Simple answer is executive orders have been used to declare war, prohibit discrimination, outlaw political assassination, establish fema, among other numerous and applicable things.
Of interesting note bush2 closed access to this information and Obama reopened it.
I think everyone should read the New Yorker profile of Obama. It does a good job of getting into the President's head during the lead up to the State of the Union, and it gives some clues as to the direction of his last few years in office.
On executive power:
At the Ong Center, an undocumented immigrant from South Korea named Ju Hong was in the crowd lined up behind the President. Toward the end of Obama’s speech, Ju Hong, a Berkeley graduate, broke in, demanding that the President use his executive powers to stop deportations.
...
Then it happened again: another heckler broke into Obama’s speech. A man in the balcony repeatedly shouted out, “Executive order!,” demanding that the President bypass Congress with more unilateral actions. Obama listened with odd indulgence. Finally, he said, “I’m going to actually pause on this issue, because a lot of people have been saying this lately on every problem, which is just, ‘Sign an executive order and we can pretty much do anything and basically nullify Congress.’ ”
Many in the crowd applauded their approval. Yes! Nullify it! Although Obama has infuriated the right with relatively modest executive orders on gun control and some stronger ones on climate change, he has issued the fewest of any modern President, except George H. W. Bush.
“Wait, wait, wait,” Obama said. “Before everybody starts clapping, that’s not how it works. We’ve got this Constitution, we’ve got this whole thing about separation of powers. So there is no shortcut to politics, and there’s no shortcut to democracy.” The applause was hardly ecstatic. Everyone knew what he meant. The promises in the second inaugural could be a long time coming.
So close to that scene in Julius Caesar that I kind of doubt it actually happened this way.
I feel like the Republican response is virtually guaranteed to dwell on some kind of marriage crisis.
Deep sigh.
Speaker on
0
Options
jeffinvaKooglercoming this summerRegistered Userregular
Each GOP response to anything in recent years have just been collections of the Fox News talking points, with a hefty amount of "the president is wrong and the American people demand a new plan" with absolutely no plans offered.
Spool is putting forth the idea that Obama is railroading laws and bypassing Congress. Also he is saying that Obama is an anomaly with how often he uses executive orders. Also the dreaded slippery slope warble garble.
To get a detailed look at them there are a few posted on Wikipedia for recent presidents if you click through or you can go to Archives.gov
I am not saying that Obama is an anomaly, but I gave some examples of times when he has ignored the law or might have done so in ways either not yet decided or not officially questioned because Presidents have been doing them. DavisDurions is right that a simple headcount of executive orders, signing statements, and so forth is not sufficient.
I'm also not making any slippery slope arguments. Presidents always try to expand executive power with a couple of notable exceptions), and a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway; this idea ought to at least give you some pause before you hop on the Imperial Presidency train. People are going to use this President's behavior as justification for the next one's, just as they do today for Obama... just as you did yourself a few posts ago.
I'm glad to see that Obama has shown restraint at least in the volume, if not necessarily in the character, of his executive orders. I didn't know he'd done so few, for whatever that's worth.
Right, yes, okay, but given that every court but one has ruled that the way presidents have been doing recess appointments for more than a century is just fine, do you really think the one that disagrees has a better grasp of the law than all the others?
[. . .] a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway
The Executive is a co-equal branch, not a subservient one. Executive Orders are a legitimate means of public administration (aside from unconstitutional ones) rather than a power grab; of course legitimate administrative tool and good idea are not necessarily the same thing.
Yes I will be upset when some other guy is making terrible ideas into Executive Orders. Not because they are Executive Orders, though, but because they are terrible ideas and wrong.
Which is the rub. You aren't saying that Obama is being a terrible President because letting Colorado experiment with ending marijuana prohibition is bad public policy; you're saying it is an undermining of Due Process and the Constitutional separation of powers. When it just isn't. It's utilizing prosecutorial discretion to focus on more pressing matters because we live in a resource constrained reality (at least until we master harnessing the power of the sun) and shouldn't be devoting so much effort to punishing people that smoke cannabis.
Here's a thing, and it can go here just as well as anywhere else I suppose.
I don't like being angry with my government.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm a conservative, and a Republican, and I had my political awakening during Bush 1 and Clinton (and to a lesser extent, Reagan). I remember Carter v Reagan, though very dimly. I mention this because I'm not a bomb-throwing Tea Party conservative, and I'm not a social conservative either. But I harbor a certain deep wariness about government with a long tradition in this country.
I am leery of government. But I want it to work, and to do so without restricting liberty any more than absolutely necessary (preferably as a prime directive). So I don't like being upset at Obama. I don't go out of my way to drink the Redstate kool-aid, don't have any desire to be all righteously angry or hate this President...
I think he's a pretty decent dude with beliefs that often run contrary to my own in the pursuit of the better nation that I think we both want. I want him to succeed at making America better, and I want to oppose him when he does things that I think make it worse.
Sometimes I don't get details right. Sometimes I'm dead wrong, sometimes I just have a different core philosophy that precludes the solution for a problem, even if the solution might work. I don't have the time I once did to live and breathe this stuff, and in part that's a shame but it's also not bad because it means other things are going on instead. I don't mind getting corrected - I know I'm fallible and sometimes misinformed. That's part of why I hang out here.
Anyway, I am rambling. tl;dr I want the president to make things better, and getting angry at politicians is exhausting and I'd rather not do it at this advanced age. Do you have any idea how tiring it is to shake a cane at somebody for eight years?
An executive order is kosher if it remains in the legal area. The POTUS is suppose to enforce the laws as best as possible. So it's really on Congress to pass something if they don't like an executive order that remains within the law. On the other hand, there is also the reality that sometimes the law is intentionally vague or reality forces one to pick an imperfect plan of implementation.
The deportation order is kind of interesting because it really gets into the hard of the matter of how "what the law wants" doesn't exactly mesh with reality. Sure the government could deport every illegal alien they come across, but it takes a certain amount resources for every deportation and most people can agree that the government's resources are finite. IMO prioritizing the illegals that are a threat to the public's safety, over ones that are just here illegally was the right call cause at the end the day, I care more about the quality than the quantity of the enforcement. Granted Obama has deported a record number of illegal aliens, not sure how much of that is a result of policies and tech making it easier or if the ones that are a public threat make it easier to get the work done quicker.
On the other hand, I prefer a nuanced view when it comes to defending or enforcing any law because sometimes Congress fucks up and passes something that isn't constitutional. I'd argue that part of the executive branch's job is to stay within the US Constitution. So if a law is clearly not going to survive a court challenge, I believe the executive branch is well within it's rights and is acting properly by not defending or enforcing it because to do so would be to go against the Constitution. Obviously, the POTUS has to be careful here and remember that just because he dislikes a certain law, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. DOMA is probably a good benchmark to work with because it was pretty clear that Congress made an overreach, when they passed the law and Clinton probably should have vetoed it with a note about where it wasn't kosher with the Constitution.
[. . .] a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway
The Executive is a co-equal branch, not a subservient one. Executive Orders are a legitimate means of public administration (aside from unconstitutional ones) rather than a power grab; of course legitimate administrative tool and good idea are not necessarily the same thing.
Yes I will be upset when some other guy is making terrible ideas into Executive Orders. Not because they are Executive Orders, though, but because they are terrible ideas and wrong.
Which is the rub. You aren't saying that Obama is being a terrible President because letting Colorado experiment with ending marijuana prohibition is bad public policy; you're saying it is an undermining of Due Process and the Constitutional separation of powers. When it just isn't. It's utilizing prosecutorial discretion to focus on more pressing matters because we live in a resource constrained reality (at least until we master harnessing the power of the sun) and shouldn't be devoting so much effort to punishing people that smoke cannabis.
What thing were we not prosecuting in 2009 while we were still busting people for pot in Colorado?
No, I don't really accept the "prosecutorial discretion" argument, especially since the President hasn't made it. He isn't saying "guys we just don't have enough cops and lawyers to bring Colorado in line!"
He is saying "ehhh, fuck it, Colorado is a swing state and potheads vote D".
Which, the thing is, I agree with him! Pot should be legal, and we should be letting states experiment with decriminalization or legalization. We should be reforming immigration laws too! The ACA rollout was fucked up and we should be delaying implementation!
I just don't believe the Executive should straight-up ignore the laws when he doesn't like them.
Something doesn't count as an overreach if presidents have been doing it since Teddy.
Of course it counts, if it crosses Constitutional boundaries.
Basically you're saying that if enough Presidents can get away with it, it's OK. That's silly, and a bit dangerous.
And if it doesn't cross Constitutional boundaries?
My line is the Constitution. When a thing clearly is Constitutional, and I disagree with it, you'll see me advocating either a) a desire to exercise restraint (can do != should do) or b) an Amendment.
An executive order is kosher if it remains in the legal area. The POTUS is suppose to enforce the laws as best as possible. So it's really on Congress to pass something if they don't like an executive order that remains within the law. On the other hand, there is also the reality that sometimes the law is intentionally vague or reality forces one to pick an imperfect plan of implementation.
The deportation order is kind of interesting because it really gets into the hard of the matter of how "what the law wants" doesn't exactly mesh with reality. Sure the government could deport every illegal alien they come across, but it takes a certain amount resources for every deportation and most people can agree that the government's resources are finite. IMO prioritizing the illegals that are a threat to the public's safety, over ones that are just here illegally was the right call cause at the end the day, I care more about the quality than the quantity of the enforcement. Granted Obama has deported a record number of illegal aliens, not sure how much of that is a result of policies and tech making it easier or if the ones that are a public threat make it easier to get the work done quicker.
On the other hand, I prefer a nuanced view when it comes to defending or enforcing any law because sometimes Congress fucks up and passes something that isn't constitutional. I'd argue that part of the executive branch's job is to stay within the US Constitution. So if a law is clearly not going to survive a court challenge, I believe the executive branch is well within it's rights and is acting properly by not defending or enforcing it because to do so would be to go against the Constitution. Obviously, the POTUS has to be careful here and remember that just because he dislikes a certain law, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. DOMA is probably a good benchmark to work with because it was pretty clear that Congress made an overreach, when they passed the law and Clinton probably should have vetoed it with a note about where it wasn't kosher with the Constitution.
That is where I part ways. The job of the Attorney General is to defend the position of the Government in the courts. The Court is the one who gets to tell them that it violates the Constitution and to stop being such Silly Billies. If the Attorney General refuses to do so then there is no standing left and the law remains on the books rather than stricken from the record. And I don't have that much faith in simply saying that something won't be enforced so it doesn't matter rather than actually excising it from the law so that it cannot be enforced as a matter of process.
To circle this back around somewhat, do you know why California gay couples can get married but Oklahoma can still outlaw gay marriage until the next session? Because the Governor of California refused to defend the law of California and so the Supreme Court couldn't declare marriage bans a violation of Equal Protection, and thus allow gay Oklahomans to get married, due to standing. Yes, it was more of a fig leaf for them to wait a few more years, but his refusal to defend the law in court gave them the fig leaf in the first place.
[. . .] a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway
The Executive is a co-equal branch, not a subservient one. Executive Orders are a legitimate means of public administration (aside from unconstitutional ones) rather than a power grab; of course legitimate administrative tool and good idea are not necessarily the same thing.
Yes I will be upset when some other guy is making terrible ideas into Executive Orders. Not because they are Executive Orders, though, but because they are terrible ideas and wrong.
Which is the rub. You aren't saying that Obama is being a terrible President because letting Colorado experiment with ending marijuana prohibition is bad public policy; you're saying it is an undermining of Due Process and the Constitutional separation of powers. When it just isn't. It's utilizing prosecutorial discretion to focus on more pressing matters because we live in a resource constrained reality (at least until we master harnessing the power of the sun) and shouldn't be devoting so much effort to punishing people that smoke cannabis.
What thing were we not prosecuting in 2009 while we were still busting people for pot in Colorado?
No, I don't really accept the "prosecutorial discretion" argument, especially since the President hasn't made it. He isn't saying "guys we just don't have enough cops and lawyers to bring Colorado in line!"
He is saying "ehhh, fuck it, Colorado is a swing state and potheads vote D".
The President’s inaugural 2010 National Drug Control Strategy laid out a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to reducing drug use and its consequences in theUnitedStates. In doing so, the Administration charted a “third way” in drug policy, a path that rejects the opposing extremes of legalization or a law enforcement-only “war on drugs.” Rather, the Strategy pursues a 21st century approach to drug policy that balances public health programs, effective law enforcement, and international partnerships.
He's saying that the 'war on drugs' is a failed policy and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. To the extent that the Drug Enforcement Agency can admit to being a mistake, and in a dry several dozen page policy memo.
Which, the thing is, I agree with him! Pot should be legal, and we should be letting states experiment with decriminalization or legalization. We should be reforming immigration laws too! The ACA rollout was fucked up and we should be delaying implementation!
I just don't believe the Executive should straight-up ignore the laws when he doesn't like them.
During the manhunt for the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing the police were going door to door and providing blanket presence on certain streets. How many tickets for expired vehicle stickers and jaywalking citations do you think they should have given out in the process?
Spool is putting forth the idea that Obama is railroading laws and bypassing Congress. Also he is saying that Obama is an anomaly with how often he uses executive orders. Also the dreaded slippery slope warble garble.
To get a detailed look at them there are a few posted on Wikipedia for recent presidents if you click through or you can go to Archives.gov
I'm also not making any slippery slope arguments. Presidents always try to expand executive power with a couple of notable exceptions), and a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway; this idea ought to at least give you some pause before you hop on the Imperial Presidency train. People are going to use this President's behavior as justification for the next one's, just as they do today for Obama... just as you did yourself a few posts ago.
You made the slippery slope argument literally in the same paragraph and the paragraph after.
As to whether executive orders are right? Absolutely they are right and necessary and Obama has not 'expanded' the president's power. It was right where it's always been. There have been presidents who made bad executive orders but most of them by a wide margin make good ones and necessary ones.
Spool maybe instead of demonizing Obama and making gut claims from drudge actually look into it. Obama has ignored immigration laws?
That looking into it bit also applies to the quality v quantity 'argument' re executive orders.
psn: PhasenWeeple
+2
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I have a problem with executive orders being used to do some of that stuff, regardless of how much I like what's done and how long it has been a tradition.
I don't think that this president has overreached but there is a simple framing issue that I wish he was still running with campaign optics. It would more appropriately be when Congress won't act and he can, rather than When He Must.
I would say that te accumulation if executive power is not a slippery slope argument. It's called the imperial presidency and it is something that should bother all Americans.
The issue lies within Congress rather than the White House I would say, and this has historically been the case.
Presidents have been rebuffed before as well from Congress and the scotus. It is within their power to do so. This imperial president idea is terrifying in a vacuum but in reality doesn't hold much water as long as Congress and the scotus exist.
It's hard as Fuck to type all this crap out on a phone.
[. . .] a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway
The Executive is a co-equal branch, not a subservient one. Executive Orders are a legitimate means of public administration (aside from unconstitutional ones) rather than a power grab; of course legitimate administrative tool and good idea are not necessarily the same thing.
Yes I will be upset when some other guy is making terrible ideas into Executive Orders. Not because they are Executive Orders, though, but because they are terrible ideas and wrong.
Which is the rub. You aren't saying that Obama is being a terrible President because letting Colorado experiment with ending marijuana prohibition is bad public policy; you're saying it is an undermining of Due Process and the Constitutional separation of powers. When it just isn't. It's utilizing prosecutorial discretion to focus on more pressing matters because we live in a resource constrained reality (at least until we master harnessing the power of the sun) and shouldn't be devoting so much effort to punishing people that smoke cannabis.
What thing were we not prosecuting in 2009 while we were still busting people for pot in Colorado?
No, I don't really accept the "prosecutorial discretion" argument, especially since the President hasn't made it. He isn't saying "guys we just don't have enough cops and lawyers to bring Colorado in line!"
He is saying "ehhh, fuck it, Colorado is a swing state and potheads vote D".
Which, the thing is, I agree with him! Pot should be legal, and we should be letting states experiment with decriminalization or legalization. We should be reforming immigration laws too! The ACA rollout was fucked up and we should be delaying implementation!
I just don't believe the Executive should straight-up ignore the laws when he doesn't like them.
There's tons of stats and other numbers that show that marijuana enforcement is a waste of time, but I'll just ask: Do you really think that in America today, we're at the point where there are no ways we could utilize the courts or law enforcement personnel than clamping down on legal (at the state level) marijuana users?
Pick a crime. Any crime. Sexual assaults could use more manpower, particularly if it was used to help change systematic issues with how it is prosecuted. White collar crimes are probably under prosecuted for their relative harm. We could have establish an Innocence Project equivalent with actual law enforcement personnel. We could train cops not to shoot people who are unarmed. Etc. Etc.
[. . .] a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway
The Executive is a co-equal branch, not a subservient one. Executive Orders are a legitimate means of public administration (aside from unconstitutional ones) rather than a power grab; of course legitimate administrative tool and good idea are not necessarily the same thing.
Yes I will be upset when some other guy is making terrible ideas into Executive Orders. Not because they are Executive Orders, though, but because they are terrible ideas and wrong.
Which is the rub. You aren't saying that Obama is being a terrible President because letting Colorado experiment with ending marijuana prohibition is bad public policy; you're saying it is an undermining of Due Process and the Constitutional separation of powers. When it just isn't. It's utilizing prosecutorial discretion to focus on more pressing matters because we live in a resource constrained reality (at least until we master harnessing the power of the sun) and shouldn't be devoting so much effort to punishing people that smoke cannabis.
What thing were we not prosecuting in 2009 while we were still busting people for pot in Colorado?
No, I don't really accept the "prosecutorial discretion" argument, especially since the President hasn't made it. He isn't saying "guys we just don't have enough cops and lawyers to bring Colorado in line!"
He is saying "ehhh, fuck it, Colorado is a swing state and potheads vote D".
Which, the thing is, I agree with him! Pot should be legal, and we should be letting states experiment with decriminalization or legalization. We should be reforming immigration laws too! The ACA rollout was fucked up and we should be delaying implementation!
I just don't believe the Executive should straight-up ignore the laws when he doesn't like them.
There's tons of stats and other numbers that show that marijuana enforcement is a waste of time, but I'll just ask: Do you really think that in America today, we're at the point where there are no ways we could utilize the courts or law enforcement personnel than clamping down on legal (at the state level) marijuana users?
Pick a crime. Any crime. Sexual assaults could use more manpower, particularly if it was used to help change systematic issues with how it is prosecuted. White collar crimes are probably under prosecuted for their relative harm. We could have establish an Innocence Project equivalent with actual law enforcement personnel. We could train cops not to shoot people who are unarmed. Etc. Etc.
I agree with every bit of this, but the President is not making this argument. Maybe he should be! I'd prefer it if he was talking about how much of a waste of resources the drug war is, but he's not doing that.
Spool is putting forth the idea that Obama is railroading laws and bypassing Congress. Also he is saying that Obama is an anomaly with how often he uses executive orders. Also the dreaded slippery slope warble garble.
To get a detailed look at them there are a few posted on Wikipedia for recent presidents if you click through or you can go to Archives.gov
I'm also not making any slippery slope arguments. Presidents always try to expand executive power with a couple of notable exceptions), and a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway; this idea ought to at least give you some pause before you hop on the Imperial Presidency train. People are going to use this President's behavior as justification for the next one's, just as they do today for Obama... just as you did yourself a few posts ago.
As to whether executive orders are right? Absolutely they are right and necessary and Obama has not 'expanded' the president's power. It was right where it's always been. There have been presidents who made bad executive orders but most of them by a wide margin make good ones and necessary ones.
Spool maybe instead of demonizing Obama and making gut claims from drudge actually look into it. Obama has ignored immigration laws?
Obama hasn't expanded the powers of the President? Drone strikes against foreigners in nations with which we are not at war, not to mention against American citizens. The vastly expanded surveillance apparatus. These are clearly expansions!
And yes, Obama has ignored immigration law, deciding to set up an entire program for "dreamers" with no legislative underpinning, and refusing to deport them. Which is again something I agree should be done! But it strains the boundary of credulity to suggest that his action falls within Prosecutorial Discretion.
I'd appreciate it if you backed off suggestions that I'm demonizing the President, or that I'm just parroting drudge report or whatever. Because it's getting annoying. Maybe you just don't know me yet?
You could, I dunno, read the linked article in the OP.
Or, because this was literally the most excerpted and widely reported thing in there, just read those.
Less dangerous, he said, “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer. It’s not something I encourage, and I’ve told my daughters I think it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy.” What clearly does trouble him is the radically disproportionate arrests and incarcerations for marijuana among minorities. “Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,” he said. “And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.” But, he said, “we should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing.” Accordingly, he said of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington that “it’s important for it to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Presidents have been rebuffed before as well from Congress and the scotus. It is within their power to do so. This imperial president idea is terrifying in a vacuum but in reality doesn't hold much water as long as Congress and the scotus exist.
This is true, but it's been a long time since we've had a President actually talk about ignoring Congress and doing his own thing. Which is the problem I have here! We have a situation where the President is talking about ignoring Congress because ohmigosh these things aren't happening and Congress is super terrible and they hate me (also they hate you) so I Have To Act!.
It reframes a Constitutional issue of checks and balances as a party political issue. The GOP shares a lot of blame for this, of course. By attacking the man, they set themselves up for having attempts to reign in the office reframed as yet another attack on the man. It politically constrains the options available.
I wish Obama wouldn't talk so much about doing end-runs around Congress. The Imperial Presidency is something to legitimately be concerned about and guard against, and not just in a vacuum. In fact, thinking it's only a problem in theory is exactly how you get in trouble in practice.
You could, I dunno, read the linked article in the OP.
Or, because this was literally the most excerpted and widely reported thing in there, just read those.
Less dangerous, he said, “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer. It’s not something I encourage, and I’ve told my daughters I think it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy.” What clearly does trouble him is the radically disproportionate arrests and incarcerations for marijuana among minorities. “Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,” he said. “And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.” But, he said, “we should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing.” Accordingly, he said of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington that “it’s important for it to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”
Entire section is quoted in the spoiler below. At no point does he make an argument for legalization based on a dearth of resources or the need for prosecutorial discretion because of more pressing issues (or for any other reason). His argument focuses on the racial disparity and the lack of access to quality legal defense among poor and minority populations. He talks about hypocrisy and fairness.
All these things are good points, but none of them are justification for not enforcing the law. If he thinks middle-class white kids get disproportionally lower sentences, he could argue to punish them more harshly! Of course that would take more resources, but he never follows that line of argument, and focuses on the equity issue instead. Even if you fill in the blanks, he's still only arguing that minorities should get the same mild punishments that white kids do, not that the federal government should simply stop all prosecutions.
But that is exactly what he has decided to do, and IMO it's outside the scope of his authority. Congress told him to catch pot smokers and put them in front of a judge, and to argue that they'r guilty of violating a law. He doesn't get to decide he'd rather not.
It should be noted at this point: I'm pro-legalization. I think there are a couple of great arguments to make for it, and I just wish the President felt he could make them without costing the Democrats a couple of non-Colorado swing states. Pot smoking should be a liberty issue, and the GOP ought to be out in front of Democrats on this. It's a perfect vehicle to argue for stronger states and more personal liberty, even if it would tie the caucus in knots when people substitute "gay marriage" for "pot" in all their speeches and then just read them back.
But then I'm a supporter of gay marriage too, so I would love to see that play out.
“As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.”
Is it less dangerous? I asked.
Obama leaned back and let a moment go by. That’s one of his moves. When he is interviewed, particularly for print, he has the habit of slowing himself down, and the result is a spool of cautious lucidity. He speaks in paragraphs and with moments of revision. Sometimes he will stop in the middle of a sentence and say, “Scratch that,” or, “I think the grammar was all screwed up in that sentence, so let me start again.”
Less dangerous, he said, “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer. It’s not something I encourage, and I’ve told my daughters I think it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy.” What clearly does trouble him is the radically disproportionate arrests and incarcerations for marijuana among minorities. “Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,” he said. “And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.” But, he said, “we should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing.” Accordingly, he said of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington that “it’s important for it to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”
As is his habit, he nimbly argued the other side. “Having said all that, those who argue that legalizing marijuana is a panacea and it solves all these social problems I think are probably overstating the case. There is a lot of hair on that policy. And the experiment that’s going to be taking place in Colorado and Washington is going to be, I think, a challenge.” He noted the slippery-slope arguments that might arise. “I also think that, when it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound. And you do start getting into some difficult line-drawing issues. If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of cocaine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka, are we open to that? If somebody says, We’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we O.K. with that?”
Which is the problem I have here! We have a situation where the President is talking about ignoring Congress because ohmigosh these things aren't happening and Congress is super terrible and they hate me (also they hate you) so I Have To Act!.
Your arguments would hold more weight if this weren't actually true.
Which, the thing is, I agree with him! Pot should be legal, and we should be letting states experiment with decriminalization or legalization. We should be reforming immigration laws too! The ACA rollout was fucked up and we should be delaying implementation!
I just don't believe the Executive should straight-up ignore the laws when he doesn't like them.
During the manhunt for the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing the police were going door to door and providing blanket presence on certain streets. How many tickets for expired vehicle stickers and jaywalking citations do you think they should have given out in the process?
None! There might be another bombing though, so do you think we should instruct police to therefore ignore all expired stickers from now on?
Posts
that probably depends a lot on how you respond to it.
Sadly the controls would likely all be in places they don't need to be, rather than where they do.
This sort of thing seems far more likely to get the thread closed down. I don't agree with most of the examples thrown around about overreach (the recess appointments were an overreach, but countered an equal one by Congress so they get a big fat MEH from me) but it is a legitimate concern.
On executive power:
On the SotU:
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm sure this will be hand waved away by spool but Obama has one of the least amount of executive orders since Grover Cleveland. Bush 1 has one less and Obama is probably going to pass Ford before his presidency is done.
The average per president after Glover Cleveland is 643. Obama is at 167 and typically presidents execute over 400.
Spool in a ton of threads your data is reliably wrong. You may think your ideology is correct but at least have correct data to back it up.
Now, I'm not one to instantly jump onto spool's side in political threads but I think I have a pertinent question that needs addressed.
The idea of overreach here is only partly explained by the quantity of executive orders. The content of such orders is really where the argument is at.
I'm using some conjecture here but a hundred orders for what the landscaping at the White House should be does not equal one order of drone strikes. So I'm curious, is there a convenient list somewhere that shows the basic content of executive orders by president or do I need to research that some other time when I have much more time to do such a thing?
To get a detailed look at them there are a few posted on Wikipedia for recent presidents if you click through or you can go to Archives.gov
Of interesting note bush2 closed access to this information and Obama reopened it.
So close to that scene in Julius Caesar that I kind of doubt it actually happened this way.
Deep sigh.
Which Republican Response of the 3 that are being broadcast?
I am not saying that Obama is an anomaly, but I gave some examples of times when he has ignored the law or might have done so in ways either not yet decided or not officially questioned because Presidents have been doing them. DavisDurions is right that a simple headcount of executive orders, signing statements, and so forth is not sufficient.
I'm also not making any slippery slope arguments. Presidents always try to expand executive power with a couple of notable exceptions), and a progressive desire to have this President stick it to this Congress will set precedent for other Presidents to do so as well. A level of comfort with Obama saying he'll circumvent Congress is not going to translate to a similar level of comfort when it's not your guy running things, but the other guy is going to go ahead and do it anyway; this idea ought to at least give you some pause before you hop on the Imperial Presidency train. People are going to use this President's behavior as justification for the next one's, just as they do today for Obama... just as you did yourself a few posts ago.
I'm glad to see that Obama has shown restraint at least in the volume, if not necessarily in the character, of his executive orders. I didn't know he'd done so few, for whatever that's worth.
Of course it counts, if it crosses Constitutional boundaries.
Basically you're saying that if enough Presidents can get away with it, it's OK. That's silly, and a bit dangerous.
Yes I will be upset when some other guy is making terrible ideas into Executive Orders. Not because they are Executive Orders, though, but because they are terrible ideas and wrong.
Which is the rub. You aren't saying that Obama is being a terrible President because letting Colorado experiment with ending marijuana prohibition is bad public policy; you're saying it is an undermining of Due Process and the Constitutional separation of powers. When it just isn't. It's utilizing prosecutorial discretion to focus on more pressing matters because we live in a resource constrained reality (at least until we master harnessing the power of the sun) and shouldn't be devoting so much effort to punishing people that smoke cannabis.
And if it doesn't cross Constitutional boundaries?
I don't like being angry with my government.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm a conservative, and a Republican, and I had my political awakening during Bush 1 and Clinton (and to a lesser extent, Reagan). I remember Carter v Reagan, though very dimly. I mention this because I'm not a bomb-throwing Tea Party conservative, and I'm not a social conservative either. But I harbor a certain deep wariness about government with a long tradition in this country.
I am leery of government. But I want it to work, and to do so without restricting liberty any more than absolutely necessary (preferably as a prime directive). So I don't like being upset at Obama. I don't go out of my way to drink the Redstate kool-aid, don't have any desire to be all righteously angry or hate this President...
I think he's a pretty decent dude with beliefs that often run contrary to my own in the pursuit of the better nation that I think we both want. I want him to succeed at making America better, and I want to oppose him when he does things that I think make it worse.
Sometimes I don't get details right. Sometimes I'm dead wrong, sometimes I just have a different core philosophy that precludes the solution for a problem, even if the solution might work. I don't have the time I once did to live and breathe this stuff, and in part that's a shame but it's also not bad because it means other things are going on instead. I don't mind getting corrected - I know I'm fallible and sometimes misinformed. That's part of why I hang out here.
Anyway, I am rambling. tl;dr I want the president to make things better, and getting angry at politicians is exhausting and I'd rather not do it at this advanced age. Do you have any idea how tiring it is to shake a cane at somebody for eight years?
Ain't nobody got time for that.
The deportation order is kind of interesting because it really gets into the hard of the matter of how "what the law wants" doesn't exactly mesh with reality. Sure the government could deport every illegal alien they come across, but it takes a certain amount resources for every deportation and most people can agree that the government's resources are finite. IMO prioritizing the illegals that are a threat to the public's safety, over ones that are just here illegally was the right call cause at the end the day, I care more about the quality than the quantity of the enforcement. Granted Obama has deported a record number of illegal aliens, not sure how much of that is a result of policies and tech making it easier or if the ones that are a public threat make it easier to get the work done quicker.
On the other hand, I prefer a nuanced view when it comes to defending or enforcing any law because sometimes Congress fucks up and passes something that isn't constitutional. I'd argue that part of the executive branch's job is to stay within the US Constitution. So if a law is clearly not going to survive a court challenge, I believe the executive branch is well within it's rights and is acting properly by not defending or enforcing it because to do so would be to go against the Constitution. Obviously, the POTUS has to be careful here and remember that just because he dislikes a certain law, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. DOMA is probably a good benchmark to work with because it was pretty clear that Congress made an overreach, when they passed the law and Clinton probably should have vetoed it with a note about where it wasn't kosher with the Constitution.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
What thing were we not prosecuting in 2009 while we were still busting people for pot in Colorado?
No, I don't really accept the "prosecutorial discretion" argument, especially since the President hasn't made it. He isn't saying "guys we just don't have enough cops and lawyers to bring Colorado in line!"
He is saying "ehhh, fuck it, Colorado is a swing state and potheads vote D".
Which, the thing is, I agree with him! Pot should be legal, and we should be letting states experiment with decriminalization or legalization. We should be reforming immigration laws too! The ACA rollout was fucked up and we should be delaying implementation!
I just don't believe the Executive should straight-up ignore the laws when he doesn't like them.
My line is the Constitution. When a thing clearly is Constitutional, and I disagree with it, you'll see me advocating either a) a desire to exercise restraint (can do != should do) or b) an Amendment.
Or an Election
That is where I part ways. The job of the Attorney General is to defend the position of the Government in the courts. The Court is the one who gets to tell them that it violates the Constitution and to stop being such Silly Billies. If the Attorney General refuses to do so then there is no standing left and the law remains on the books rather than stricken from the record. And I don't have that much faith in simply saying that something won't be enforced so it doesn't matter rather than actually excising it from the law so that it cannot be enforced as a matter of process.
To circle this back around somewhat, do you know why California gay couples can get married but Oklahoma can still outlaw gay marriage until the next session? Because the Governor of California refused to defend the law of California and so the Supreme Court couldn't declare marriage bans a violation of Equal Protection, and thus allow gay Oklahomans to get married, due to standing. Yes, it was more of a fig leaf for them to wait a few more years, but his refusal to defend the law in court gave them the fig leaf in the first place.
Nope. [pdf]
He's saying that the 'war on drugs' is a failed policy and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. To the extent that the Drug Enforcement Agency can admit to being a mistake, and in a dry several dozen page policy memo.
During the manhunt for the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing the police were going door to door and providing blanket presence on certain streets. How many tickets for expired vehicle stickers and jaywalking citations do you think they should have given out in the process?
You made the slippery slope argument literally in the same paragraph and the paragraph after.
As to whether executive orders are right? Absolutely they are right and necessary and Obama has not 'expanded' the president's power. It was right where it's always been. There have been presidents who made bad executive orders but most of them by a wide margin make good ones and necessary ones.
Spool maybe instead of demonizing Obama and making gut claims from drudge actually look into it. Obama has ignored immigration laws?
I don't think that this president has overreached but there is a simple framing issue that I wish he was still running with campaign optics. It would more appropriately be when Congress won't act and he can, rather than When He Must.
I would say that te accumulation if executive power is not a slippery slope argument. It's called the imperial presidency and it is something that should bother all Americans.
The issue lies within Congress rather than the White House I would say, and this has historically been the case.
It's hard as Fuck to type all this crap out on a phone.
There's tons of stats and other numbers that show that marijuana enforcement is a waste of time, but I'll just ask: Do you really think that in America today, we're at the point where there are no ways we could utilize the courts or law enforcement personnel than clamping down on legal (at the state level) marijuana users?
Pick a crime. Any crime. Sexual assaults could use more manpower, particularly if it was used to help change systematic issues with how it is prosecuted. White collar crimes are probably under prosecuted for their relative harm. We could have establish an Innocence Project equivalent with actual law enforcement personnel. We could train cops not to shoot people who are unarmed. Etc. Etc.
I agree with every bit of this, but the President is not making this argument. Maybe he should be! I'd prefer it if he was talking about how much of a waste of resources the drug war is, but he's not doing that.
Obama hasn't expanded the powers of the President? Drone strikes against foreigners in nations with which we are not at war, not to mention against American citizens. The vastly expanded surveillance apparatus. These are clearly expansions!
And yes, Obama has ignored immigration law, deciding to set up an entire program for "dreamers" with no legislative underpinning, and refusing to deport them. Which is again something I agree should be done! But it strains the boundary of credulity to suggest that his action falls within Prosecutorial Discretion.
I'd appreciate it if you backed off suggestions that I'm demonizing the President, or that I'm just parroting drudge report or whatever. Because it's getting annoying. Maybe you just don't know me yet?
Or, because this was literally the most excerpted and widely reported thing in there, just read those.
This is true, but it's been a long time since we've had a President actually talk about ignoring Congress and doing his own thing. Which is the problem I have here! We have a situation where the President is talking about ignoring Congress because ohmigosh these things aren't happening and Congress is super terrible and they hate me (also they hate you) so I Have To Act!.
It reframes a Constitutional issue of checks and balances as a party political issue. The GOP shares a lot of blame for this, of course. By attacking the man, they set themselves up for having attempts to reign in the office reframed as yet another attack on the man. It politically constrains the options available.
I wish Obama wouldn't talk so much about doing end-runs around Congress. The Imperial Presidency is something to legitimately be concerned about and guard against, and not just in a vacuum. In fact, thinking it's only a problem in theory is exactly how you get in trouble in practice.
Entire section is quoted in the spoiler below. At no point does he make an argument for legalization based on a dearth of resources or the need for prosecutorial discretion because of more pressing issues (or for any other reason). His argument focuses on the racial disparity and the lack of access to quality legal defense among poor and minority populations. He talks about hypocrisy and fairness.
All these things are good points, but none of them are justification for not enforcing the law. If he thinks middle-class white kids get disproportionally lower sentences, he could argue to punish them more harshly! Of course that would take more resources, but he never follows that line of argument, and focuses on the equity issue instead. Even if you fill in the blanks, he's still only arguing that minorities should get the same mild punishments that white kids do, not that the federal government should simply stop all prosecutions.
But that is exactly what he has decided to do, and IMO it's outside the scope of his authority. Congress told him to catch pot smokers and put them in front of a judge, and to argue that they'r guilty of violating a law. He doesn't get to decide he'd rather not.
It should be noted at this point: I'm pro-legalization. I think there are a couple of great arguments to make for it, and I just wish the President felt he could make them without costing the Democrats a couple of non-Colorado swing states. Pot smoking should be a liberty issue, and the GOP ought to be out in front of Democrats on this. It's a perfect vehicle to argue for stronger states and more personal liberty, even if it would tie the caucus in knots when people substitute "gay marriage" for "pot" in all their speeches and then just read them back.
But then I'm a supporter of gay marriage too, so I would love to see that play out.
Is it less dangerous? I asked.
Obama leaned back and let a moment go by. That’s one of his moves. When he is interviewed, particularly for print, he has the habit of slowing himself down, and the result is a spool of cautious lucidity. He speaks in paragraphs and with moments of revision. Sometimes he will stop in the middle of a sentence and say, “Scratch that,” or, “I think the grammar was all screwed up in that sentence, so let me start again.”
Less dangerous, he said, “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer. It’s not something I encourage, and I’ve told my daughters I think it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy.” What clearly does trouble him is the radically disproportionate arrests and incarcerations for marijuana among minorities. “Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,” he said. “And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.” But, he said, “we should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing.” Accordingly, he said of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington that “it’s important for it to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”
As is his habit, he nimbly argued the other side. “Having said all that, those who argue that legalizing marijuana is a panacea and it solves all these social problems I think are probably overstating the case. There is a lot of hair on that policy. And the experiment that’s going to be taking place in Colorado and Washington is going to be, I think, a challenge.” He noted the slippery-slope arguments that might arise. “I also think that, when it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound. And you do start getting into some difficult line-drawing issues. If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of cocaine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka, are we open to that? If somebody says, We’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we O.K. with that?”
Your arguments would hold more weight if this weren't actually true.
None! There might be another bombing though, so do you think we should instruct police to therefore ignore all expired stickers from now on?
Obviously not.