Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama: Working Without Congress ‘Tempting’

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 04:40 PM
Original message
Obama: Working Without Congress ‘Tempting’
Edited on Mon Jul-25-11 04:44 PM by Hissyspit
Source: Agency France-Press

Obama: Working without Congress ‘tempting’
Published on July 25th, 2011
Written by: Agence France-Presse
Prev

WASHINGTON — US President Barack Obama said Monday it was “tempting” to think of going it alone without Congress after weeks of trying to forge an elusive debt deal with his Republican foes.

“Believe me, right now dealing with Congress… the idea of doings things on my own is very tempting. Not just on immigration reforms,” he said, during a meeting with Hispanic-origin rights activists.

“But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions, that’s not how our constitution is written,” said Obama, a former teacher of constitutional law.

- snip -

“This is a city where compromise has become a dirty word,” the president added.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/25/obama-working-wit... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. "But that’s not how our system works. " Clearly not. It works however the right wing wants it to
I'm very depressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Checks and Balances, Three Branches of Government. That is how it is set up.
2010 voters filled the House with ideologues and extremists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. There are no checks and balances when to run for office one requires fin. help from corps
and the mega-rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #7
23. + 1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
16. And the supreme court has said Congress has no power to refuse to honor the obligations that its
Edited on Tue Jul-26-11 04:18 AM by No Elephants
own prior legislative has created. Perry v. United States (1935), a Depression era case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UrbScotty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. I wish more people would remember that Obama doesn't rule by fiat.
We do have this thing called Congress - and right now many people in Congress do not want him to succeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Everybody needs to take into account the consequences of the 2010 election
Edited on Mon Jul-25-11 04:48 PM by emulatorloo
A lot of people could see where this was heading once the right wing extremists grabbed hold of the House.

Also. In the states that are under total Republican rule because of that election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merwin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. On the contrary...
Let's see... always breaking down... pouring tons of money into band-aid repairs... can't ever get the damn thing to work when you desperately need it to... spend 6 months fixing one absurd problem just to have another present itself.

I think Fiat is a quite accurate example to describe government these days ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 04:45 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. Obama seems to rule by Volkswagen bug.
He just has to keep the damn thing working well enough to get to different destinations.

Fortunately, it's flexible enough that duct tape and bailing wire seems to keep the trip going, even when the kids keep screaming "WHY AREN'T WE THERE YET!" from the backseat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 04:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. As to the debt, please see Reply 16. You think DUers don't know there's a Congress, or a SCOTUS?
Or a Constitution? It's some secret only people who support Obama on everything can grasp? Please, Louise.

The Constitution also created an Executive/Administrative Branch, including the Treasury, and a CIC. Funny, the CIC can start bombing a nation that never attacked us on his own, when the Constitution says only Congress can start war, but can't end DADT on his own, when the Constitution gives the CIC and Congress overlapping and concurrent powers over the military.

Funny, the Constitution gives Congress ALL the legislative power in the United States, yet Obama can propose a commission whose recommendations must become law, but he can't invoke the 14th Amendment, as interpreted by the SCOTUS in Perry v. U.S. and use his power over the Treasury.

Obama seems to be very selective about when he is a unitary executive and when he is a slave to Congress. And, by the way, Democrats in Congress usually do what a Democratic President wants them to do anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Left NYC Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. Tempting but not worth the effort.
The president isn't up for an impeachment fight. It's much easier to give the Republicans a great deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
6. "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator"
Who said that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w0nderer Donating Member (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. junior did

---quoted---
CNN Transcript - Newsday: Transition of Power: President-Elect Bush Meets With Congressional Leaders on Capitol Hill - December 18, 2000
From: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.ht...
---quote-proper---
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
---quote-proper-end---
copied on: Mon Jul 25 2011 19:58:11 GMT+0200 (Romance Daylight Time)
---end-quoted---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. The difference is
* probably would have welcomed the chance. I'm glad Obama is a true believer in American democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. LOL! Please see Reply 17, among many other things.
If Obama were a true believer in American democracy OR the Constitution of the United States, he would not be proposing an unelected commission whose recommendations must become law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. Source?
Is he the only one to have proposed this or are there some members of congress who are in on it? How exactly is it unconstitutional?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #8
25. Yup. And it sounds a little similar to 'working without Congress is tempting'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marasinghe Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
10. can't compromise with insanity, dude.
and, "compromise" doesn't mean giving up on everything that's human, just to appease a bunch of predators & scavengers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
11. How much can he do with executive orders?
Probably not anything on the debt.

Would some poly sci major school us on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. There's the coinage option.
Much of the U.S. government's debt already issued is held by the Federal Reserve Board. (I think it's one point something trillion dollars.) One proposal that's been floated is that Obama directs the minting of new platinum coins -- for example, each worth $100 billion. The government then uses these to pay the Fed, thus retiring the debt now owed to the Fed.

The debt ceiling doesn't prevent the issuance of new debt. It prevents the issuance of debt that would bring the total outstanding indebtedness to more than the number set by the ceiling. If a lot of the current debt is retired, then the Treasury can go back to the business-as-usual course of issuing new debt as needed, until the total again bumps up against the ceiling, which would take a while.

As I understand it, the printing of additional paper currency would require Congressional approval, but existing law gives Obama the power to order coinage of platinum coins.

If he does this, I hope he tells them to put Ronald Reagan's image on the coins. We shouldn't miss the chance to remind the voters of which President set the modern standard for fiscal irresponsibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melm00se Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 03:58 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. maybe I missed something
but why platinum?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. It's worth more than gold.
Simple, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #15
27. I'm no expert on this, but I think it's in the statute.
The gimmick would be to use a statute that gave the President the authority to direct the minting of platinum coins. I assume this law, passed years ago, was aimed at some purpose unrelated to Republican attempts to destroy the economy for political gain.

I think what I read was that platinum was specified in the law. Maybe it was intended to facilitate the minting of special platinum commemorative coins that the Treasury might sell to collectors at a profit but that would never be intended for circulation, or something like that.

I haven't bestirred myself to learn the details because the scheme doesn't seem to be under consideration in Washington.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 05:06 AM
Response to Reply #13
22. Hard to reply intelligently without knowing the source of your understanding,
Edited on Tue Jul-26-11 05:07 AM by No Elephants
but Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "coin money," and I don't think "coin" was intended to mean only paper currency or only coins. However, as I have posted upthread, the President has Constitutional powers and duties in this matter as well, including being the boss of the Treasury.

And, for the sake of discussion, let's assume I am wrong about his powers. Would he be impeached for paying Social Security participants? Sued for paying Social Security recipients? Or would either of those courses be political suicide?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 04:43 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. Not a poli sci major, but I have read a lot of Supreme Court cases/
So, peek at Replies 16 and 17, for starters.

You might also take a peek at the wiki on the 14th amendment. From that, it seems a Republican lawyer was the first to posit that it gives the President power to act when Congress does not honor obligations that have arisen from laws previously passed by Congress. Perry v. U.S. doesn't say, one way or the other, but, if Congress is refusing, it has to be up to the President.

These powers would come from the description of the President as the chief executive of the United States and also from powers implied by the oath of office he takes, to faithfully execute the laws of the U.S. and to defend and protect the Constitution. (If the Founders did not intend the President to have whatever powers it takes to do those things, they would not have required the President to swear to do them.)

By laws of Congress, I mean all appropriations bills and all bills creating things like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not only laws passing a budget.

So, we have laws of Congress obligating the U.S. and a SCOTUS case saying the Constitution requires those obligations to be honored and Congress has NO power to say otherwise, and a President who has a duty to defend and protect the Constitution, as interpreted by the SCOTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
12. I hope the Democrats are still taking notes on how to be completely obstructionist
Republicans have gone from party of NO to FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-26-11 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
24. Oh, shit! There it is!
Okay, all you doubters, here's the end-game in the multi-dimensional chess match.

Why would it be "tempting" to go it alone, if that's not how our system works?

Because it is how our system works. There is a way to get it done--extra-Constitutionally.

The President is sitting on National Security Presidential Directive 51, written by his gangster predecessors:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-51.htm

In that Directive, President Bush described an emergency which the current situation easily fits, in which the President can then declare an "enduring Constitutional government" in which all branches of government are "coordinated" by the President. Once declared, there is no sunset date, no expiration of any sort, no way to stop it.

Utilizing half a dozen anti-terror laws at the same time, all the tools for a permanent dictatorship are right there, including the ability to enforce the dictatorship through a declaration of martial law and "continuity" provisions.

The President has begun waving the flag. He may not believe in the Constitutionality of the measures themselves, but that does not mean he cannot use them behind closed doors to threaten everyone in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, by reminding them that the Republicans of the 00s already signed the store away to the White House, and this President is now thinking about coming to collect it.

Clearly, none of you will believe me until my own research is duplicated by someone less qualified in the right-wing press. Okay. I can wait. But you heard it here first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 01st 2014, 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC