Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party

[Roadkill]

Perhaps true, but also totally irrelevant to my point or the validity of the claims made in the Congressional lawsuit.

 

[SV Fan]

Perhaps true, but also totally irrelevant to my point or the validity of the claims made in the Congressional lawsuit.

Maybe the Republicans should have waged a lawsuit against Bush in 2004 or 2005, at least then their lawsuit would have more validity that they dislike Executive Orders and it not only for partisan purposes. I am fairly certain you could go through his list of executive orders up to that point and find something you don't like

I also ask why wasn't the amendment about disclosing finances added to the lawsuit. I would think from a partisan standpoint it was a very fair amendment.

 

[Roadkill]

Again perhaps. Certainly this process of the Executive branch's power encroaching upon the duties and prerogatives of the Legislative branch has been moving steadily forward for sometime through both Republican and Democratic administrations. The term Imperial Presidency has been a buzzword in political and media circles for many years.

My point is that Obama's use of executive orders to essentially break the law is particularly aggregious and blatant and, if left unchecked, threatens to push our political system towards authoritarianism.

 

[SV Fan]

Again perhaps. Certainly this process of the Executive branch's power encroaching upon the duties and prerogatives of the Legislative branch has been moving steadily forward for sometime through both Republican and Democratic administrations. The term Imperial Presidency has been a buzzword in political and media circles for many years.

Actually if you look at the history of executive orders FDR was a tyrant, since then it's sort of gotten better. In general it looks like this first 80 years executive orders are few and far between, next 40 year they increase, Theodore takes it to a whole new level and for 40 years we get tons of them but after that we progressively get less and less depending on President.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

In terms of the suit against Obamacare I think the Republicans would have been better suited going after a presidential executive order that they showed previously they were against(as to one that sort of was inline with something they voted for 50+ times), at least then they would show they actually had a bone of contention against it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think it all depends on the situation. FDR was given an unprecedented mandate.

Bush too, with 9/11. Congress was weak, and even more scared to appear weak so they just rubber stamped his idiotic policies.

One reason why I think Hillary Clinton is such a joke.

 

[Roadkill]

Actually if you look at the history of executive orders FDR was a tyrant, since then it's sort of gotten better. In general it looks like this first 80 years executive orders are few and far between, next 40 year they increase, Theodore takes it to a whole new level and for 40 years we get tons of them but after that we progressively get less and less depending on President.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

That's interesting. Never would have guessed that executive orders were so popular during the progressive and new deal eras.

 

[Roadkill]

In terms of the suit against Obamacare I think the Republicans would have been better suited going after a presidential executive order that they showed previously they were against(as to one that sort of was inline with something they voted for 50+ times), at least then they would show they actually had a bone of contention against it.

See this is where I completely disagree.

The point of this whole argument and the Congressional lawsuit has nothing to do with the merits or lack thereof of the executive orders. The point is that the executive orders are being used to modify or nullify the written language of Federal law. That's a clear violation of the separation of powers enscribed in the Constitution. It is basically empowering the judgement of one man over the entire legislative branch. Take that process to its logical conclusion and you have dictatorship.

 

[hippie_hunter]

You are either too stupid to understand my first statement I made

or being insincere trying to avoid the rest of my post, I'll assume the later. You could have at least said Chaffetz might be stretching things but you went right for Bachmann trying to create a strawman.

It should be pointed out I didn't even call out the right wing entertainment complex(Palin, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc) for all it's impeachment stuff. Somebody in the Republicans needs to stand out to them and I see no takers. As I said any moral high ground Boehner thinks he has is lost with his lawsuit that bends over bachwards to appease the right wing media complex and back benchers like Bachmann who constantly bring up impeachment(goes back to my tail wagging the dog point).

The fact that you even added in Bachmann is absurd. She has never even been a serious Republican. I'm talking about Republicans that can actually get things done, not Republicans who thrive off the ignorant Fox News cycle and act like total ass clowns.

And of course Boehner doesn't have any moral high ground with this lawsuit. Even with some legitimate grievances within it, all it really is is just a stunt to placate a very vocal minority within Boehner's caucus and get them to shut up. But to try and say that any serious Republican is actually going to go for impeachment is just ludicrous. The Democrats want impeachment to happen far more than the GOP leadership. All this impeachment talk is nothing but boloney by the Democrats to motivate their base and use it for fundraising. The Democrats want the GOP to try and impeach Obama so badly.

 

[Roadkill]

The fact that you even added in Bachmann is absurd. She has never even been a serious Republican. I'm talking about Republicans that can actually get things done, not Republicans who thrive off the ignorant Fox News cycle and act like total ass clowns.

And of course Boehner doesn't have any moral high ground with this lawsuit. Even with some legitimate grievances within it, all it really is is just a stunt to placate a very vocal minority within Boehner's caucus and get them to shut up. But to try and say that any serious Republican is actually going to go for impeachment is just ludicrous. The Democrats want impeachment to happen far more than the GOP leadership. All this impeachment talk is nothing but boloney by the Democrats to motivate their base and use it for fundraising. The Democrats want the GOP to try and impeach Obama so badly.

Out of curiosity, why do you refer to Boehner's lawsuit as a "stunt"? You don't think that Boehner and other Republicans that support the lawsuit take the allegations seriously? You really think that they are not legitimately concerned about the fact that Obama is effectively legislating from the White House and selectively enforcing existing law? That their only motivation is placating a bunch of doofuses who wish to tilt with windmills in a doomed attempt at impeachment? If so, I hope that you are wrong since I believe this lawsuit needs to be pursued with vigor. The harmful precedents that Obama is establishing needs to be countered while it is still possible to do so.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

What about congress being obstructionists?

In the beginning of Obama's term the economy and employment numbers started to creep up as did Obama's approval.

Then suddenly the Republicans started blocking everything he tried to do even when it impedes economic growth.

Isn't that worse than execitive orders which are the only way to get anything done?

 

[Roadkill]

Ethically speaking you can debate it (though one person's obstructionism is another person's fending off of disaster) but legally there is no comparison. Passing legislation or NOT passing legislation if they deem it harmful is what Congress does. It is their legal role in the governance of the nation. You might not like their legislative choices but the legal remedy for that is at the ballot box not through co-opting legislative power through executive orders or non enforcement of existing Federal law.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Out of curiosity, why do you refer to Boehner's lawsuit as a "stunt"? You don't think that Boehner and other Republicans that support the lawsuit take the allegations seriously? You really think that they are not legitimately concerned about the fact that Obama is effectively legislating from the White House and selectively enforcing existing law? That their only motivation is placating a bunch of doofuses who wish to tilt with windmills in a doomed attempt at impeachment? If so, I hope that you are wrong since I believe this lawsuit needs to be pursued with vigor. The harmful precedents that Obama is establishing needs to be countered while it is still possible to do so.

I think that they bring up some rather legitimate points in the lawsuit, but frankly, it's only being done in an attempt to placate the vocal minority within the GOP base who are demanding impeachment. The GOP leadership knows that trying to impeach President Obama will only end in disaster so this is the next best thing.

 

[Schlosser85]

Out of curiosity, why do you refer to Boehner's lawsuit as a "stunt"? You don't think that Boehner and other Republicans that support the lawsuit take the allegations seriously? You really think that they are not legitimately concerned about the fact that Obama is effectively legislating from the White House and selectively enforcing existing law? That their only motivation is placating a bunch of doofuses who wish to tilt with windmills in a doomed attempt at impeachment? If so, I hope that you are wrong since I believe this lawsuit needs to be pursued with vigor. The harmful precedents that Obama is establishing needs to be countered while it is still possible to do so.

That's exactly what I think. From day one, they have been obstructing Obama at every turn no matter what he's pursuing.

If Obama's for it, they hate it, even if they previously supported it themselves.

 

[Kelly]

That's exactly what I think. From day one, they have been obstructing Obama at every turn no matter what he's pursuing.

If Obama's for it, they hate it, even if they previously supported it themselves.

Well, considering there are 352 bills on Harry Reid's desk, I don't think the Republicans are the only ones...

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Ethically speaking you can debate it (though one person's obstructionism is another person's fending off of disaster) but legally there is no comparison. Passing legislation or NOT passing legislation if they deem it harmful is what Congress does. It is their legal role in the governance of the nation. You might not like their legislative choices but the legal remedy for that is at the ballot box not through co-opting legislative power through executive orders or non enforcement of existing Federal law.

Yeah some politicians are obsessed with legality over morality.

In their eyes anything is justifiable if it can be defended legally. Even shutting down the government for petty politics.

These games some republicans play are far more dangerous to our nation than any executive order Obama has made.

 

[Kelly]

Yeah some politicians are obsessed with legality over morality.

In their eyes anything is justifiable if it can be defended legally. Even shutting down the government for petty politics.

These games some republicans play are far more dangerous to our nation than any executive order Obama has made.

I could agree with MOST of your post...

But, I disagree that one is worse than the other...I believe one has been helping the other. Though one party believes they are STOPPING the President, in reality, they are strengthening the power of the Executive Office while at the same time crying about it.

The last few Presidents, most especially Obama, not so much in the number of executive orders, but the scope of those executive orders have greatly changed the checks and balances of our 3 branch system of government, and are looking (as far as I can tell) to change the shared powers in our Federal System. NOW, with all of that said.....I believe that the Republicans totally shutting down any type of compromise has pretty much paved the road for the President to do just that. I'm not ready to say that is what Obama has been going for anyway, the Republicans have just been working into his plan....but I can see why some might be saying that now.

 

[Roadkill]

I think that they bring up some rather legitimate points in the lawsuit, but frankly, it's only being done in an attempt to placate the vocal minority within the GOP base who are demanding impeachment. The GOP leadership knows that trying to impeach President Obama will only end in disaster so this is the next best thing.

Why is it only? I do not understand the logic that because your assertion is undoubtedly true that the Republicans cannot simultaneously believe in the validity of their lawsuit. I think that many Republicans quite sincerely believe that Obama is overstepping the Constitutional bounds of his office.

 

[Kelly]

The lawsuit will be null and void as soon as the Judge says......

"To the Republican Party, once you actually use THE POWER that you have, the POWER OF THE PURSE" to do what you feel is the correct thing to do, you cannot cry that the President is overusing his power."

Of course, then we take a look at Harry Reid's desk and realize....oh.

And the judge will not be taking a trip to look at Harry Reid's desk, so.....oh well.

 

[Roadkill]

Yeah some politicians are obsessed with legality over morality.

In their eyes anything is justifiable if it can be defended legally. Even shutting down the government for petty politics.

These games some republicans play are far more dangerous to our nation than any executive order Obama has made.

Let me get this straight. Republican attempts to stymie an Obama agenda that they strongly disagree with (something they were ELECTED to do by their constituents) is "far more dangerous to our nation" than an unconstitutional power grab that threatens the checks and balances at the heart of our system of government?

I am unable to adequately express how profoundly I disagree with this.

 

[Roadkill]

The lawsuit will be null and void as soon as the Judge says......

"To the Republican Party, once you actually use THE POWER that you have, the POWER OF THE PURSE" to do what you feel is the correct thing to do, you cannot cry that the President is overusing his power."

Of course, then we take a look at Harry Reid's desk and realize....oh.

And the judge will not be taking a trip to look at Harry Reid's desk, so.....oh well.

Alas if a President decides to only enforce the portions of laws that he agrees with and creates new "law" via executive order even Congress' power of the purse is largely nullified. At that point their only options are impeachment in the unlikely event that there is a large enough consensus in the Senate for a successful prosecution or the much reviled government shutdown to starve the administration of funds; a tactic that always harms the party that takes the blame for the shutdown.

 

[Kelly]

But, alas, that is probably the way the judge is going to see it...

 

[SV Fan]

Well, considering there are 352 bills on Harry Reid's desk, I don't think the Republicans are the only ones...

Question is how many of those 350 bills are legit bills and how many are nothing more then show votes like repeal Obamacare, or defining personhood, etc or seem like legit bills but have tons of poison pills in them that Democrats will hate(ie let's fund the VA or create jobs by cutting food stamps)

 

[Kelly]

Question is how many of those 350 bills are legit bills and how many are nothing more then show votes like repeal Obamacare, or defining personhood, etc

I believe that 43 of them are repeals to ACA...many of them are bills that the Senate sent to the House, the House might have deleted or added something and sent them back...and they are now hanging out on Reid's desk. About a dozen of them are House passed VA bills...as well as energy bills and 15 jobs bills...and I'm sure the 10 funding bills that were sent to the Senate before the Government shut down are in that stack somewhere as well.

 

[SV Fan]

I believe that 43 of them are repeals to ACA...many of them are bills that the Senate sent to the House, the House might have deleted or added something and sent them back...and they are now hanging out on Reid's desk. About a dozen of them are House passed VA bills...

You missed my edit but as I said you can have work bills or VA bills that basically is we will fund them by screwing over something you are for. Do you honestly expect that to be looked up being legit?

You should be happy this one didn't get looked at

H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act​

The bill would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State's water quality standards. This would reduce the federal government’s power over individual state’s water quality standards to help increase job growth.​

You live in Texas, do you honestly want Rick "I hate Regulations" Perry looking after your water

 

[Roadkill]

Question is how many of those 350 bills are legit bills and how many are nothing more then show votes like repeal Obamacare, or defining personhood, etc or seem like legit bills but have tons of poison pills in them that Democrats will hate(ie let's fund the VA or create jobs by cutting food stamps)

Any bill passed via lawful procedures in Congress is a "legit" bill by definition. That you do not approve of it's contents has no bearing on it's legitimacy.