Impeachment Schmepeachment

[billw55]

Governing while black...

This would be the funniest post of the decade if it weren't for the fact that it is sadly all too true.

Honestly I think this is silly. The Rs also impeached the last D president for no good reason, and he was white. I see no need to trot out the race card.

 

Meaning: Whoever wants to impeach Obama will always find a charge.

This is more like it.

 

My view in a nutshell: This is all silly. There is a reason Sara Palin is involved in it.

+1

[Winstonm]

Honestly I think this is silly. The Rs also impeached the last D president for no good reason, and he was white. I see no need to trot out the race card.

 

 

 

Bill Clinton actually made statements under oath. He really did have some sort of escapade with an intern.

 

If you don't recognize the racial bias inherent in the right wing's stances and actions, I fear your head is in the sand to some degree. It may not exactly be "governing while black" but it is most assuredly "governing while not fitting the right's image of a leader, a white dominant male".

[billw55]

Bill Clinton actually made statements under oath. He really did have some sort of escapade with an intern.

 

If you don't recognize the racial bias inherent in the right wing's stances and actions, I fear your head is in the sand to some degree. It may not exactly be "governing while black" but it is most assuredly "governing while not fitting the right's image of a leader, a white dominant male".

I still think you are tilting at windmills. Being a D who does not dance to the Rs tune is more than enough reason by itself. I just don't see any reason to think that race is a factor here.

[ArtK78]

I still think you are tilting at windmills. Being a D who does not dance to the Rs tune is more than enough reason by itself. I just don't see any reason to think that race is a factor here.

Consider it an additonal factor if not a primary factor. The R's would probably be trying to impeach any democrat unless for some reason he was doing what they wanted to be done.

[blackshoe]

Bill Clinton actually made statements under oath. He really did have some sort of escapade with an intern.

 

If you don't recognize the racial bias inherent in the right wing's stances and actions, I fear your head is in the sand to some degree. It may not exactly be "governing while black" but it is most assuredly "governing while not fitting the right's image of a leader, a white dominant male".

I don't speak for "the right", but my image of a leader is someone who leads, and white, black, green, or purple, Obama does not fit that image.

[hrothgar]

I don't speak for "the right", but my image of a leader is someone who leads, and white, black, green, or purple, Obama does not fit that image.

 

Couple quick observations:

 

1. Obama's first term had an enormous number of legislative accomplishments. You might not approve of what was done, but its ridiculous to accuse him of not leading

 

2. Over the past four years, the administration's ability to pass legislation has been crippled by the highly Gerrymandered House of Representatives. Obama has tried to compensate for a completely dysfunctional House by using executive action. (The end result of which is all this talk of impeachment and lawsuits by the House)

 

In any case, I know that your unable to process political thought unless there is a Heinlein quote involved.

I have one for you:

 

Well, we shoot mad dogs, don't we?

 

I'm not directly called you a mad dog.

Nor am I advocating that you be shot.

 

I am saying that at a certain point, it makes sense to cut your losses.

 

From the perspective of a organized, civilized society, I don't see much reason why we should care what some nut job Libertarian has to say about "leadership", the "government", whatever. Far easier to just leave you sitting alone off in the wilderness, living off your government provided pension and government provided health care, screaming about how you're being oppressed.

[billw55]

Obama has tried to compensate for a completely dysfunctional House by using executive action.

I wonder how far this logic may be carried before you think it is too far.

[ArtK78]

 

I wonder how far this logic may be carried before you think it is too far.

According to Wikipedia, the number of executive orders issued by each president from FDR to the present is as follows:

 

Franklin D. Roosevelt 3,522 6071 - 9537

Harry S. Truman 907 9538 - 10431

Dwight D. Eisenhower 484 10432 - 10913

John F. Kennedy 214 10914 - 11127

Lyndon B. Johnson 325 11128 - 11451

Richard Nixon 346 11452 - 11797

Gerald R. Ford 169 11798 - 11966

Jimmy Carter 320 11967 - 12286

Ronald Reagan 381 12287 - 12667

George H. W. Bush 166 12668 - 12833

William J. Clinton 364 12834 - 13197

George W. Bush 291 13198 - 13488

Barack Obama 180 13489 - 13668

 

So, while Barack Obama has had to compensate for the inaction of this dysfunctional Congress by issuing Executive Orders, it still appears that he has issued fewer executive orders in his 6 years in office than all of the presidents from 1933 to the present except for Gerald Ford, who served 2 years in office, and George H. W. Bush, who served 4 years in office. In fact, he has issued about one-half as many executive orders as Richard Nixon did in his 6 years in office.

 

Seems like he has not gone far enough.

[akwoo]

There are some people who think government's job is to organize us into an efficient gang to beat up on all the other gangs and take their stuff. With the beating up part optional if there is some other way of taking their stuff.

 

If that's your vision of America or American government - as the most badass gang of robbers - then of course you're not going to be happy with Obama.

 

Some of these people (not all) think "us" means white (male) Americans. For these people, it is obvious that no black person could lead a white gang when part of the purpose of the white gang is to beat up black people.

[billw55]

Thanks for the data Art, that is interesting.

 

I wasn't implying that Obama has gone too far. I was considering a more general question.

 

For that question, the number of executive orders by itself is not necessarily a good indication. A president may just have (or have not) an inclination to use this tool for minor matters, or in ways that are entirely within their legal authority. On the other hand, if such orders circumvent constitutional checks and balances, then something is wrong. I don't claim to know if this is the case for any particular president, including the current one. I just think that brushing aside congress by executive order - if indeed that happens - is something to pay attention to.

[ArtK78]

The primary purpose of executive orders is to implement existing laws, not to circumvent Congress. There are many laws on the books that require implementation but Congress has avoided providing necessary funding or other action needed to implement them. Most of the executive orders issued by Obama do just that. I am sure there are some that skirt the issues in order to accomplish goals which would be better served by Congressional action. But up to a certain point that is the prerogative of the President.

[barmar]

I think the theory behind looking at summary statistics like that is that there's a baseline of routine executive orders that all Presidents will need to issue, and on top of that there will be a number of diescretionary orders that are done to circumvent Congress, and that significant differences in the number of XO's are presumably due mostly to the latter.

[ArtK78]

I think the theory behind looking at summary statistics like that is that there's a baseline of routine executive orders that all Presidents will need to issue, and on top of that there will be a number of diescretionary orders that are done to circumvent Congress, and that significant differences in the number of XO's are presumably due mostly to the latter.

Also, there is a lot of misinformation being spewed forth from various sources stating that the number of executive orders issued by President Obama is MUCH higher than the facts would indicate. One source claims that Obama has issued 923 executive orders.

[1eyedjack]

I don't speak for "the right", but my image of a leader is someone who leads, and white, black, green, or purple, Obama does not fit that image.

 

I don't think that a president is supposed to lead. He is supposed to preside.

 

Our beloved leader, Kim Jong Un - now he is supposed to lead.

 

 

 

[Winstonm]

A president may just have (or have not) an inclination to use this tool for minor matters, or in ways that are entirely within their legal authority. On the other hand, if such orders circumvent constitutional checks and balances, then something is wrong. I don't claim to know if this is the case for any particular president, including the current one. I just think that brushing aside congress by executive order - if indeed that happens - is something to pay attention to.

 

It would be difficult, if not impossible for an executive order to circumvent checks and balances as Congress can always pass a law to counteract the executive order while the Supreme Court can find a particular executive order unconstitutional and thus illegal.

 

But a president has the right to execute orders to the executive branch, meaning almost all federal employees, and with George Bush it seems that providing an in-house executive branch attorney's opinion is enough justification for a president to operate outside the boundaries of checks and balances.

[PassedOut]

It will be interesting to see what Alito does if the question of how much power the President has to shape the law makes it to the Supreme Court. I expect that many of us remember the grilling he got in 2006 in his confirmation hearings over signing statements. I don't remember all of the details now, but this Wikipedia article has a brief summary of the issue:

 

The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe. Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued; Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton produced 247 signing statements among the three of them. By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued 108 signing statements containing 505 constitutional challenges. As of January 30, 2008, he had signed 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law.

 

The upswing in the use of signing statements during the Reagan administration coincides with the writing by Samuel A. Alito — then a staff attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel — of a 1986 memorandum making the case for "interpretive signing statements" as a tool to "increase the power of the Executive to shape the law." Alito proposed adding signing statements to a "reasonable number of bills" as a pilot project, but warned that "Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation."

And, of course, Congress did...

[blackshoe]

I don't think that a president is supposed to lead. He is supposed to preside.

 

Our beloved leader, Kim Jong Un - now he is supposed to lead.

"Leader of the Free World," Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and he's not supposed to lead? Pfui.

 

On signing statements, that Wikipedia article also says "The Constitution does not authorize the President to cherry-pick which parts of validly enacted Congressional Laws he is going to obey and execute, and which he is not," and " judicial review [is] a power of the [supreme] Court, rather than of the Executive."

 

It seems to me that "cherry-picking" is exactly what Obama did with Obamacare.

[kenberg]

It would be difficult, if not impossible for an executive order to circumvent checks and balances as Congress can always pass a law to counteract the executive order while the Supreme Court can find a particular executive order unconstitutional and thus illegal.

 

 

I don't copy down everything that Obama (or anyone) says but there are times that he appears to hold this view. I hope someone sits him down and tells him no. A rephrasing, a pretty fair one in my opinion, of this attitude would be "I am going to govern be executive order and if you don't like it, try to stop me." Of course people will try, and will succeed, in stopping him and they will have the broad support of the country as they do so. It will be very ugly.

 

Adjusting the schedule for implementing the ACA seems to me to be, a fair use of executive order. I don't really know the law nor do I know the details of what was done, but the general concept doesn't offend me. An unbridled use, or an attempt at an unbridled use, or an assertion of a right to unbridled use, of governing by executive order would offend me, and offend just about everyone else, a very great deal. I wouldn't check to see if the president asserting this right is named Bush or Obama.

 

I recommend, but I don't expect, the following approach

"My fellow Americans, let's talk facts. Israel and the Palestinians will be jointly singing Aul Lang Syne before the Tea Party and I agree on anything. I can briefly manage some items by executive order but quite rightly my powers are limited by the Constitution. So here is what has to happen: If you want the country to be run along Tea Party lines then keep the House as it is, elect more Republicans to the Senate, then in 2016 elect Rick Parry, . If you want the country run more as I see things, elect Democrats to the House and the Senate. But spit or get off the spot. This Tea Party in the House and me in the Presidency sucks. We are doing nothing and we will continue to do nothing. So one way or the other, please choose. God Bless Amerca etc. "

[Winstonm]

"Leader of the Free World," Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and he's not supposed to lead? Pfui.

 

On signing statements, that Wikipedia article also says "The Constitution does not authorize the President to cherry-pick which parts of validly enacted Congressional Laws he is going to obey and execute, and which he is not," and " judicial review [is] a power of the [supreme] Court, rather than of the Executive."

 

It seems to me that "cherry-picking" is exactly what Obama did with Obamacare.

 

I don't think the President moved any ACA timelines up but did delay the start of some - I think that is well within the scope of Executive authority.

[hrothgar]

It seems to me that "cherry-picking" is exactly what Obama did with Obamacare.

 

The following article references most of the relevant court cases

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/#disqus_thread

[billw55]

I recommend, but I don't expect, the following approach

"My fellow Americans, let's talk facts. Israel and the Palestinians will be jointly singing Aul Lang Syne before the Tea Party and I agree on anything. I can briefly manage some items by executive order but quite rightly my powers are limited by the Constitution. So here is what has to happen: If you want the country to be run along Tea Party lines then keep the House as it is, elect more Republicans to the Senate, then in 2016 elect Rick Parry, . If you want the country run more as I see things, elect Democrats to the House and the Senate. But spit or get off the spot. This Tea Party in the House and me in the Presidency sucks. We are doing nothing and we will continue to do nothing. So one way or the other, please choose. God Bless Amerca etc. "

Interesting. It occurs to me that doing nothing is exactly what many voters want from government. Or that many voters dread unhindered action by either party, should they hold both houses and the white house.

[kenberg]

Interesting. It occurs to me that doing nothing is exactly what many voters want from government. Or that many voters dread unhindered action by either party, should they hold both houses and the white house.

 

As with many things, moderation and cooperation would be nice. Unfortunately, our current choices seem to be total paralysis or total lack of restraint. It's too damn bad.

[Winstonm]

"Leader of the Free World," Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and he's not supposed to lead? Pfui.

 

On signing statements, that Wikipedia article also says "The Constitution does not authorize the President to cherry-pick which parts of validly enacted Congressional Laws he is going to obey and execute, and which he is not," and " judicial review [is] a power of the [supreme] Court, rather than of the Executive."

 

It seems to me that "cherry-picking" is exactly what Obama did with Obamacare.

 

This is a quote from Richard's article:

In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion.

[PassedOut]

It occurs to me that doing nothing is exactly what many voters want from government. Or that many voters dread unhindered action by either party, should they hold both houses and the white house.

From an investment standpoint, the best situation historically for increasing US stock market values has been a Democrat in the White House and Republican control of Congress.

[billw55]

From an investment standpoint, the best situation historically for increasing US stock market values has been a Democrat in the White House and Republican control of Congress.

 

Interesting, but IMO clearly not enough data to draw conclusions.