Obama to announce executive order on immigration (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 17, 2024, 06:30:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Obama to announce executive order on immigration (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Obama to announce executive order on immigration  (Read 17226 times)
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,003
Latvia


« on: November 21, 2014, 11:21:06 AM »

Interesting how Democrats and Republicans take opposite stances on whether to evict children from a place where they are unwanted by the inhabitants changes depending on whether that place is a woman's uterus or the Southwestern United States.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,003
Latvia


« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2014, 11:28:14 AM »

King fails to see that "inaction" by the legislative branch can sometimes (most often?) be a feature rather than a flaw. Is it impossible to envision a scenario where one man given unlimited lawmaking power for four years (but he would not be a dictator, because muh elections) could enact legislation that he dislikes. I am certain that he would be thrilled about George W. Bush making any law he so pleased for 8 years in spite of congressional opposition (although to be fair Bush did kind of set the precedent for this with his executive signing statements, but that should only be more reason to oppose the idea that the executive can effectively exercise a capricious ex post facto line-item veto.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,003
Latvia


« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2014, 12:39:08 PM »

King fails to see that "inaction" by the legislative branch can sometimes (most often?) be a feature rather than a flaw. Is it impossible to envision a scenario where one man given unlimited lawmaking power for four years (but he would not be a dictator, because muh elections) could enact legislation that he dislikes. I am certain that he would be thrilled about George W. Bush making any law he so pleased for 8 years in spite of congressional opposition (although to be fair Bush did kind of set the precedent for this with his executive signing statements, but that should only be more reason to oppose the idea that the executive can effectively exercise a capricious ex post facto line-item veto.

I'm not against legislatures. I am against the United States Congress. You say "muh elections" but what about the United States Congress as it exists today is any different from the House of Lords our Founding Fathers did not want other than "muh elections"? What reason do you have to support the existence of the United States Congress in its current form other than "muh constitution"? It is a terrible body.

There are dozens of nationally non-elected, nationally non-endorsed Mr. Chairmans, Speaker, Whips, etc. running around DC exuding authority over this nation with no check against them by the people. It is the body of government completely out of control and it has been for quite some time. Extending far beyond this Presidency. If the Founders were alive today, they'd call a Constitutional Convention to massively reform, effectively eliminate both the House and Senate as they exist today.

I would have been thrilled for George W Bush to have real power in his 2nd term. His own Congress screwed him on this very issue and then distanced themselves from 2005 onward, then Democrats came in a fought him on foreign policy. We might have been in a better spot as a nation if he had taken more executive action. In business and in personal life matters, the ideology of the plan does not so much make the plan effective as it does the commitment and thoughtfulness of the plan.  Four years of real conservative or real liberal policy would be far more effective than four years of Rube Goldberg Machine public policy.

Everything wrong with government today was created in a bargain to appease some halfwit Congressman. Every earmark, every legal exception, every crap amendment.

Ask yourself this hypothetical, as a citizen, which America would be a stronger nation with a more accountable government: an America where Barack Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln governed visibly for four year terms without a Congress or an America where John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich, Tip O'Neill, Henry Clay governed as long as their drawn districts kept them in power without a President?

The truth is the statesman that is the President has been America's real defense against corruption,  tyranny, and oligarchy in the Congress for most of our nation's history and not the other way around.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 10 queries.